Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
$$$ "Minefield" $$$
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Timo: [QB] I'm not sure about *all* of those. 1) "Atomic" instead of "nuclear" weapons. Asimov's atomic weapons in Foundation weren't fission bombs - they were handheld or ship-mounted energy weapons which he later described as microwave guns. Heck, an A-bomb is supposed to be the easiest way to power an energy weapon in much of sci-fi. Perhaps the phase cannon is an atomic weapon! 2) Exact dialogue in "BoT" would be needed to confirm that the ship was a prototype for the cloak. She was "the Praetor's finest", but probably not a flagship of any sort (think USN Sea Shadow, a tech testbed that certainly could be called "the finest" yet certainly wouldn't be a centrally important combatant for the USN). For all we know, she was sent out to die in a move of political chess - somebody somewhere deemed the time right for revealing to the Feds that the Romulans possessed this frightening cloaking device, a fact that had been kept hidden for the past 100 (or 3000?) years. 3) A subspace radio was in fact CONFIRMED to exist in "Balance of Terror", as this was the means by which the old treaty was negotiated. No mention was made whether this system was deployed aboard starships. ENT has now shown that it was. 4)"APotA" explicitly says transporters didn't exist? Dialogue references needed... Timo Saloniemi [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3