quote:More because it's unknown (to the general populace within the Romulan Empire) how many ships the Romulans operate and their whereabouts (possibly unknown to anyone but the Preator himself- how better to keep the populations in check with a limited number of starships?).
The average Rommie never takes a dump without a plan.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
They STOPPED making the pistol in 1945, and had enough to last over forty years...
I am reasonably certain that Colt continues to make the pistol, although the military no longer uses it as the standard sidearm (I think the Beretta has that honor).
Even if Colt isn't making them anymore, Colt clones still sell - Springfield Armory makes an excellent GI model.
quote:As Picard put it,Starfleet is not a military organization.
Oh really!Than what is it, a group of NASA scientists with guns?
Starfleet is the military since they're the only ones I see doing something when the Borg try to assimilate Earth or the Dominion try to invade the alpha quadrant or whatever. I think Picard just assumes that starfleet is not a military organization since they hide behind this "seek out strange new worlds and new civilizations" crap. While they do scientific research and stuff, they are obviously the military since I've never heard nor seen another organization responsible for protecting civilians.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Mighty Blogger Snay: I am reasonably certain that Colt continues to make the pistol, although the military no longer uses it as the standard sidearm (I think the Beretta has that honor).
Yup, the Beretta M9. Colt does still make versions of the old 1911, but the US army stopped buying them after WWII. One source I read reports that they still had almost two MILLION pistols left over after the war, which lasted them through the 80s. The 9mm Beretta was slated to replace the Colt in 1985, but it took several years longer.
posted
I think when Picard said that, Roddenberry was alive... and wanted to move away from humanity's darker side. Yet in any event, Starfleet is the premier military, scientific, and diplomatic organization for the Federation. Picard is just stating that since there hasn't been a major conflict in the Alpha Quad or even an emergency that threatened Earth since the Whale Probe in the 23rd Century.
-------------------- "It speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow, it's not all going to be over with a big splash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans." -Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The problem is that most think that the Star Trek technology is progressing exactly how the Navies of the world have. No that's not it works. First of all in the past hundred years, we have progressed from the big gun to the big missile. But even now there are really no such thing as fleet engagements, it's more like the US Navy and her allies bomb the hell out of her enemies on the shore.
No, the real world equivilant of a Excelsior class ship serving in the 24th century would be the USS Enterprise, USS Shitty Kitty and the USS Kennedy serving in today's fleet. Hell, if you had enough money, he could pull out all the carriers and refit them to use the latest technology to land the jets of today. The basic technology of WWII on landing planes on a carrier is really not that much of a difference then today. Look at the differences between the latest carrier the USS George Bush (SR) and the USS Forrestal, to an untrained eye they look nearly identical. The equivilant of a 100 year old starship design is the equivilant of a 30 to 50 year old carrier design.
The US Navy even pulled out four 60 year old battleships and refitted them for 400 million dollars each. That's far more cost effective than the billion dollar ship these days. Not only that they are superior in terms of ship to ship engagements than any new build cruisers. They are unsurpassed by any naval vessel put out today in terms of shore bombardment.
I do agree, though since it looks like Starfleet did put out new build Miranda, Oberth and Excelsior class ships in the mid 24th century. Which makes no sense IMO, since if they are bilding new ships why couldn't they build new designs ships like the Ambassador class, which is probably superior? Of course the real world answer is budget. Star Trek answer of course would be that it's easier to build a proven vessel like the Excelsior class with the latest technology than to design one from scratch. Obviously, Starfleet already has dealt with the problem of upgrading the Excelsior class to mtach the latest designs with the USS Lakota.
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Agreed - Starfleet in the early 24th century could well have been in the same position as USN and USAF today: they have no "enemies", just "targets". The Mirandas worked fine in the 2280s, so why would they not work just as fine in the 2340s?
The only reason warship designs (as opposed to the ships themselves, which may get fatigued) could get "outdated" is if the mission profile somehow becomes more challenging. If there are no new or improved military opponents, there's no need for weapon improvements. And if the galaxy doesn't change physically, and no new "aspects" of it are revealed to UFP science, there's no need for sensor and research gear upgrades. An expansion of the operational theater might call for improved engines, but then again, we don't know that the UFP expanded over that period of time.
posted
You forget that in the 24th century, the Federation may not be the "United States of America" of the Alpha Quadrant. I mean we know of many races that are warlike in nature (like klingons) that probably dedicate most of their energy on war machines that could outclass many Starfleet ships. I always got the impression that although Star Trek was told from the perspective of the Federation that did not make it the only superpower in the region, but rather one of many.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Matrix: if they are bilding new ships why couldn't they build new designs ships like the Ambassador class
Maybe there are enough Ambassadors but they are all out exploring on the edges of known space? Sorta what the Galaxies are supposed to do - but the Enterprise got called back to the Federation core worlds too often during it's seven year 'life'.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
quote: As Picard put it,Starfleet is not a military organization."
Which is a load of crap.
"Just because someone states a fact doesn't make it true..."
Just because someone states a fact...
Um..that sentence made no sense at all.
A fact is implicitly true, pallie. Otherwise it's just an opinion or a theory.
I think Picard's statement is that Starfleet is NOT a military organization by nature but IS the Federation's means of defense. People dont join Starfleet because they're gungo-ho to defend the Federation against it's enemies- they join to explore and learn and all kinds of good shit that no one today does.
The Romulans and Klingons probably have dedicated military fleets as well as seperate scientific branches (explaining why Romulans sometimes operate dinky science ships instead of building multirole vessels).
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I believe he (or she; let's be egalitarian) likely meant "just because something is claimed to be a fact," etc.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:A fact is implicitly true, pallie. Otherwise it's just an opinion or a theory.
I thought the same thing too, until rcently.
My kid's 6th grade teacher just corrected me on that.
quote:For reading class, students have to tell whether a sentence is stated as a fact or opinion. He is right in what he is telling you. The sentences that are facts can be false. They are something that can be proven true or not. An opinion is how someone feels about something. I have stressed that the fact does not have to be true, in this case, because they are looking to see if the students can tell the difference between the two. I hope this helps.
posted
From Dictionary .com: Usage Note: Fact has a long history of usage in the sense �allegation of fact,� as in �This tract was distributed to thousands of American teachers, but the facts and the reasoning are wrong� (Albert Shanker). This practice has led to the introduction of the phrases true facts and real facts, as in The true facts of the case may never be known. These usages may occasion qualms among critics who insist that facts can only be true, but the usages are often useful for emphasis.
I'm guessing that there's a difference between a "statement of fact" which can be correct or incorrect, but is nonetheless presented as factual, and something which is actually a "fact", or a true, accurate, unbiased statement.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
