www.ditl.org

Thorin wrote:The fact is, the Federation could have broken this treaty and got cloaks (and phase cloaks), but didn't, because they valued peace more.

A nation keeps a treaty for the same reason as it signs one; in the case of being on the short end of the stick - as the UFP was - it signs and keeps a treaty because it was COWED into doing so.

You can't make the presumption that someone would find out about your secrets,

You CAN make that presumption, because it's already happened in actuality.

...armour, which is of the same 'advancement' as the torpedos suggests the torpedos could be modified likewise.

No evidence of this. The two techs are roughly contemporary, that's all. The suggestion you infer is not derivative from the facts at all.

The armour is, again, just a very powerful device that isn't required

So are shipboard phasers. You think the Rommies or Klingons are going to tell the Federation that we're escalating an arms race because we're keeping phasers on our ships?

Option b definitely fits.

Yes, it can be made to fit. So can the idea that a high-ranking admiral was abused as a child by a man with the word "delta" in his name, so refused to use any technology from the DQ. However, option "A" above also fits, is more concise, makes the most sense, and requires the least extrapolation and guesswork to convince oneself.

mlsnoopy wrote:Tomed Incident didn't that treaty also forbad the development of supspace weapons, what genesis also is.

The Khitomer Accords banned isolytic subspace weapons, but IIRC there was never a mention of Genesis being such weapon, or banned in general.

Mikey wrote:A nation keeps a treaty for the same reason as it signs one; in the case of being on the short end of the stick - as the UFP was - it signs and keeps a treaty because it was COWED into doing so.

Clearly in a time when the UFP were in less of a place to make demands. By 2378 it looks a lot more like the Feds were on the upper foot. Again, they valued peace over power.

You CAN make that presumption, because it's already happened in actuality.

No, you can't. Otherwise you'd never be able to have any secrets. If someone found out about one of your secrets, would you then not keep any assuming they'd always find out about every other one?

No evidence of this. The two techs are roughly contemporary, that's all. The suggestion you infer is not derivative from the facts at all.

It's more reliable than suggesting that future Janeway brought back unreplicatable components (that couldn't even be backwards engineered so they could make more only 30 years before) which we have no indication of.

So are shipboard phasers. You think the Rommies or Klingons are going to tell the Federation that we're escalating an arms race because we're keeping phasers on our ships?

Klingons and Romulans have these, and they are required for virtually day to day use - pirates et al. Putting on weapons that aren't required sends out the signal 'Bow to my power' 'I'm gearing up for war'.

Yes, it can be made to fit. So can the idea that a high-ranking admiral was abused as a child by a man with the word "delta" in his name, so refused to use any technology from the DQ. However, option "A" above also fits, is more concise, makes the most sense, and requires the least extrapolation and guesswork to convince oneself.

Option B fits the Razor. An admiral being abused by a child does not. It's much more simple to say that they have chosen not to use it, rather than saying they can't use it - when before they had absolutely no problems using it.

mlsnoopy wrote:The Khitomer Accords banned isolytic subspace weapons, but IIRC there was never a mention of Genesis being such weapon, or banned in general.

Yet they chose not to use it, after seeing its military potential twice.

Thorin, all your arguments are simply trying to jury-rig excuses for why the Feds aren't using the Endgame tech, based on the assumption that they can be easily reverse-engineered. Mine and Mikey's argument is based on the assumption that if they've got it they'd use it - an assumption backed up by millennia of evidence. If no-one ever deployed more advanced technology for fear of upsetting their neighbours we'd never have progressed to throwing rocks at each other.

Captain Seafort wrote:Thorin, all your arguments are simply trying to jury-rig excuses for why the Feds aren't using the Endgame tech, based on the assumption that they can be easily reverse-engineered.

They're not using it, yet have shown the capability to be easily able to use it. Looks like a pretty simple choice to me.

Mine and Mikey's argument is based on the assumption that if they've got it they'd use it - an assumption backed up by millennia of evidence. If no-one ever deployed more advanced technology for fear of upsetting their neighbours we'd never have progressed to throwing rocks at each other.

No, you're getting 'deployed' and 'created' mixed up. If no one every created more advanced technology, yes, nothing would ever happen. Deploying is a different matter, especially when it's a technology from 30 years in the future and an order of magnitude or two better than what anyone has now. The only possible things that can be compared to the step up of tranphasics/armour is the genesis device and phase cloak - all 3 would give the Federation a major advantage and power boost. Yet none were used. Things like quantum torpedos are natural progression. A technology from the future would be considered a bit controversial especially to the other AQ powers, especially when the UFP claims to be a peaceful organisation of explorers.

The most simple fits - they have chosen not to use it.

No, you can't. Otherwise you'd never be able to have any secrets. If someone found out about one of your secrets, would you then not keep any assuming they'd always find out about every other one?

You can try to do whatever you like, but here's the real world - if something DID happen, you have to assume that it CAN happen. Sorry. I don't like it either, but that's the way it is.

It's more reliable than suggesting that future Janeway brought back unreplicatable components (that couldn't even be backwards engineered so they could make more only 30 years before) which we have no indication of.

No its not. We don't know where that tech gap fell in those thirty years - unreplicatable tech is very possible. If you mean to say that YOU disagree because you want to support your own position, that's different than saying that my premise is unreliable. Besides, the simple evidence is that the tech she brought remained unused - the simplest assumption is that it COULDN'T be.

Klingons and Romulans have these, and they are required for virtually day to day use - pirates et al. Putting on weapons that aren't required sends out the signal 'Bow to my power' 'I'm gearing up for war'.

Nope. that excuse - not reason - doesn't hold water. If you put any kind of weaponry on your ships that could damage another major power's ships, it's the same as putting armor - if not worse.

Option B fits the Razor. An admiral being abused by a child does not. It's much more simple to say that they have chosen not to use it, rather than saying they can't use it - when before they had absolutely no problems using it.

No. Option "B" can be molded and forced to fit the case, but Occam's Razor clearly favors "A" - see above.

Yet they chose not to use it, after seeing its military potential twice.

OK, now you've just quoted me, attributed it to someone else, and taken it out of context when it didn't apply to the discussion with you. I wrote the following:
"The Khitomer Accords banned isolytic subspace weapons, but IIRC there was never a mention of Genesis being such weapon, or banned in general."

If you're done lying about who wrote what, I wrote that in response to the following:

mlsnoopy wrote:Tomed Incident didn't that treaty also forbad the development of supspace weapons, what genesis also is.

Now people can have differing viewp[oints, and all that is fine. If nobody disagreed with each other, these discussions would be very boring. But deliberately misattributing quotes, implying that such quotes were applied in situations that they were not, and purposely attempting to show them out of context; all that is just dirty pool, Thorin, and nobody benefits from it. There's no cash prize if it worked, and it makes you look bad.

Mikey wrote: You can try to do whatever you like, but here's the real world - if something DID happen, you have to assume that it CAN happen. Sorry. I don't like it either, but that's the way it is.

Apology accepted.

No its not. We don't know where that tech gap fell in those thirty years - unreplicatable tech is very possible. If you mean to say that YOU disagree because you want to support your own position, that's different than saying that my premise is unreliable. Besides, the simple evidence is that the tech she brought remained unused - the simplest assumption is that it COULDN'T be.

The simplest is that they chose not to.

Nope. that excuse - not reason - doesn't hold water. If you put any kind of weaponry on your ships that could damage another major power's ships, it's the same as putting armor - if not worse.

Nope.

No. Option "B" can be molded and forced to fit the case, but Occam's Razor clearly favors "A" - see above.

No, it doesn't.

OK, now you've just quoted me, attributed it to someone else, and taken it out of context when it didn't apply to the discussion with you. I wrote the following:
"The Khitomer Accords banned isolytic subspace weapons, but IIRC there was never a mention of Genesis being such weapon, or banned in general."

You wrote what I quoted.

Now people can have differing viewp[oints, and all that is fine. If nobody disagreed with each other, these discussions would be very boring. But deliberately misattributing quotes, implying that such quotes were applied in situations that they were not, and purposely attempting to show them out of context; all that is just dirty pool, Thorin, and nobody benefits from it. There's no cash prize if it worked, and it makes you look bad.

You wrote what I quoted.

Has no one even thought that starfleet isn't meant to have it for another 30 years? Is it possible that Starfleet is working on the tech and it just takes them 30 years to unlock it? Think of it as a time loop. Janeway brings it back which in turn allows starfleet to develop it which in turn allows Janeway to have it to save Voy and get them home and now starfleet (past) has the tech from starfleet (future) that they wouldn't have had otherwise. It may just take that long for them to make the advanced tech usable again. Just a thought.

But if Voyager could use it then anyone should be able to equally as quickly.

But we don't know how they used it. It may have come to a limited supply so what they do have is locked away for study. That tech is more then just 30 years ahead of Starfleet. It may take 30 years for them to understand how to produce it.

Teaos wrote:But if Voyager could use it then anyone should be able to equally as quickly.

Well, after seven years Voyager could hardly be called a 'standard' ship. It underwent so many modifications, repairs, changes, etc.

Deepcrush wrote:But we don't know how they used it. It may have come to a limited supply so what they do have is locked away for study. That tech is more then just 30 years ahead of Starfleet. It may take 30 years for them to understand how to produce it.

That seems like a pretty good explaination. Voyager had someone there who already knew how the tech worked, and possibly a bit about it's developement. When Voyager got back, Starfleet R&D would have a ship full of tech that no one had any clue about. It makes sense to assume they'd have one hell of a difficulty figuring out tech they'd never seen before.
A good example of this is the Doctor's mobile emitter. They had that for years, and never figured it out.

Rochey wrote:A good example of this is the Doctor's mobile emitter. They had that for years, and never figured it out.

Well, they figured it out sufficiently to operate it, but not enough to produce extras. Much as they did with the Endgame tech, as you say.

Thorin wrote:Apology accepted.

Not only is it obvious I apologized for nothing, the statement this refers to can't even be interpreted as an apology by any stretch. If you choose not to discuss it any longer, simply say so.

You wrote what I quoted.

Exactly my point! I wrote what you quoted, but you attributed it to someone else. In addition, you quoted to address an issue, when it was actually used to address a different conversation. That's deliberately taking it out of context.

You're intelligent enough to determine the context of a remark, so deliberately altering the context is a fairly obvious gambit. I don't mind you quoting anything I write; but to intentionally mis-attribute a quote, or to intentionally take it out of context - especially when it was addressed specifically to a different issue - is just puerile.

Well if genesis wasnt built on an ilegal technology why did Davids mother go to prison (or is my mind playing triks on me). The thing that made it unstable was ilegal.

I think thorin is just going loco! He's not really very 'grounded' anymore.

No one went to prison for Genesis, and I'm not sure if using protomatter was illegal, or simply dangerous because of its instability.

Personnally I wouldn't be surprised if the destruction of the planet wasn't due to its makeup but the way it was formed. Genesis was intended to be used on existing planets as a massively accelerated method of teraforming, not to form new planets out of nebula gas. Given that there would have been a tremendous amount of GPE to handwave away to form the planet, its possible that it was that energy somehow returned days or weeks later to destroy the planet.