According to the description of a quantum torpedo in the DS9TM, is such a torpedo a "subspace wapon"? I'm referring to the line about the second Khitomer-accords in "Insurrection". They said subspace weapons are illegal now. Could this be a reason we didn't see a quantum torpedo after FC, for example in Nemesis and Insurrection? (OTPH, the Defiant obviously kept on carrying them throughout the show's run, but maybe that paragraph of the treaty was not 'in use' during the joint klingon/federal operations of the Dominion War.)
Furthermore, wasn't the treaty of Khitomer some sort of peace treaty between the Klingon Empire and the UFP? If that's the case, why sould the Son'a care for it? Even if the Romulans and other empires signed the original treaty in TUC and these races agreed to sign the second one from DS9, too; why should the Son'a do so? There's no reason to assume a minor non-alligned race like the Son'a has anything to do with a Klingon/UFP-treaty.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, an obvious difference between the first treaty from Khitomer and the second one seems to leap out at me. Hint: They are different.
Anyway, what constitutes a "subspace wapon"? For one thing, if I recall correctly, the Son'a were using iso-something or other subspace weaponry, and who knows what kind of difference that makes.
For another, we know that your average phaser has a subspace component, what with all that talk about "transitioning from the continuum" and the like. But obviously phasers and phaser-like weapons don't have secondary effects that are considered dangerous. The Son'a weapon, on the other hand, actually tore open a hole in the universe. This seems to place it in a different realm, and certainly warrants some caution in its use, I would think.
To sum up, it seems to me that the difference is that the Son'a weapon was twisting up space directly, while something like a phaser or quantum torpedo is only drawing power from or shunting matter to a different realm.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
In the realm of international diplomacy, some major "accords" can be a group of treaties, rather than one single document. Also, some treaties can be "acceded to" by other nations after it's signed -- which basically means that the other nations announce they'll follow the rules of that treaty, after the fact.
I think the key difference between the weapons that the Son'a used and the quantum torpedoes is that the Q-torps are rather limited in their scope (how they interact with subspace), while the very purpose of the Son'a weapons was to create an unstable rift which would (hopefully) destroy the enemy ship. And that's why those weapons were banned.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Poking holes in the fabric of space-time == Bad Thing, and could quite possibly mean The End of the Universe As We Know It.
Extracting energy from the fabric of space-time == Good Thing, and a comfortable number of rungs further down on the ladder of Dangerous Do-Not-Try-These-At-Home-EVAR!! Physics Experiments.
[ January 19, 2003, 16:23: Message edited by: E. Cartman ]
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Which is what I was about to post Cartman... as soon as I saw this thread I was ready to post that actually---
Anyway... this is my take. The treaty bands weapons that cause the boundary layer between space and subspace to disappear. Thus making that area of space/subspace very nasty.
The Son'a weapon does that. Quantum torpedoes don't do this, and they aren't even subspace weapons for that matter. They use Zero-Point Energy, a space side only IIRC. However the Tri-cobalt leads to a whole new can of worms which I don't want to retype into just go There -> http://www.subspacerelay.com/~jsharp/continuity/tricobalt.html
PS: I do note that I went back and forth on the idea of what the "Taste of Armegaddon" tricobalt was, just ignore that.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Finally, we did see Quantum Torpedoes in Nemesis. Big globes of white light, right?
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
yeah, but we also saw them in First Contact.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Khitomer could of course simply be the future Geneve, a location of many important treaty signings due to a long-standing tradition of diplomacy. Thus, the Khitomer Accords that ban subspace weapons need not be related to either the pre-fake-Martok or the post-fake-Martok Khitomer treaties between the UFP and the Klingon Empire, but could be a third, wholy separate document.
I like the idea of the ban being part of the post-fake-Martok treaty, though, simply extended internationally. If this second treaty was only ratified after Voyager's departure, it's obvious then why she was allowed to carry tricobalt torpedoes even though "The Voyager Conspiracy" calls these "subspace weapons".
I doubt the political climate of late DS9 or VOY, or of the late TNG movie era, would really be conductive to new weapon ban treaties. Banning the q-torps doesn't seem like something Starfleet would want to agree to. These weapons are one of the few things that keep Starfleet ahead of the competition in the unstable postwar world.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: the post-fake-Martok Khitomer
But, as I recall saying at the time, there wasn't anything there to suggest that the document Gowron verified was anything new. The whole structure of that scene suggests it was simply a re-ratification of a previous agreement.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: Khitomer could of course simply be the future Geneve, a location of many important treaty signings due to a long-standing tradition of diplomacy.
It's possible the Accords could be roughly equivilent to UN resolutions; a continuously expanding body of agreements between the major powers.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"The whole structure of that scene suggests it was simply a re-ratification of a previous agreement."
There could have been additions made to it at the time.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Well, the fate of the Archanis sector, for one. Who got it in the end anyway?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I did. It's where I keep my models. Cheaper than a storage locker too....