Author Topic: Sci Fi dilema (Read 2105 times)

JB73 · « **on:** December 02, 2007, 03:48:02 AM »

I am not a huge sci fi fan, but like Star Trek TNG...

watching an episode of the borg attack on earth I came across a thought that bothers me.

In all the sci fi I have seen where inter-planetary travel happens, and alien races exist Earth is the center of the human race (obviously). generally it is a hugely developed planet, and many ships in orbit.

I almost all sci fi things I have watched there are weapon technologies "banned" by the human civilization because they are immoral, or whatever reason.

wouldn't you as a civilization use any and all weapons as a last defense on your main world? wouldn't you have moon based, and other huge defensive emplacements in place in case of a threat?

it makes no sense for the "bad guys" to use more powerful weapons the "good guys" know about but refuse to use (other than to create artificial drama for a story).

this has bugged me for a long time I just never put a real finger on it. maybe thats why I don't usually like most sci fi, artificial drama written into the story that doesn't make logical sense,

JB88 · « **Reply #1 on:** December 02, 2007, 04:26:09 AM »

WilldCrd · « **Reply #2 on:** December 02, 2007, 04:32:27 AM »

Well I'll try to tackle some of this at the risk of showing my total geekynes.

In TNG the weapons that were banned were subspace weapons. They were banned because of their unpredictable nature and the possibility of destroying the the good guys who fired it. Not a good thing especially if you fired it from your planet. The only reason I know this is one of the TNG movies where the badguys used a subspace weapon. Not sure which one. It was not one of the better movies, where they were in the briar patch of space and fighting the solan race. Anyways it almost ripped open the space time continuum destroying the whole area (as is the whole solar system)

The drawbacks of moonbase weapons is easy, attack a planet from the far side from the moon and you make the weapons based there useless.

Now the ships being in orbit always bugged me. Supposedly there is a HUGE space dock facilitie in orbit. (as seen in several TNG, TOs movies and TNG episodes.) Now in the movie ST First Contact there was a big battle with the borg cube and they lost a lot of ships. Also with a orbiting space dock/defense platform you have the same issue as with moon based weapons. If the baddys attack from the opposite side, they are rendered useless.

Finally at least in TNG they are a peaceful Federation and having orbital weapon systems and planetary weapons doesnt look very peaceful. Plus they depend on their starships for the majority of earths defenses (not a smart idea but, im not the one in charge)

Lastely if they had all theses defensive sheilds and weapons to defend the planet, they would blow the badguys outta the sky in the first 15 mins of the movie, and that would really suck for the movie goers

SD67 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 02, 2007, 04:47:44 AM »

Damn, I was going to say it was in the script... but your version is much better.

Blooz · « **Reply #4 on:** December 02, 2007, 05:14:21 AM »

In "War of the Worlds" it was the simple virus/bacteria that saved us.

Just cough on them.

Tango · « **Reply #5 on:** December 02, 2007, 09:43:53 AM »

TNG was one of the worst made Sci-Fi series ever made.

john9001 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 02, 2007, 09:54:18 AM »

It has nothing to do with sci-fi, it is because the lawyers make the producers put in the morality lesson.

The good guys always fight fair even when outnumbered and losing and the bad guys always lose in the end.

You can see this reflected in real life, as in "if we fight like the enemy we will be no better than them".

Chairboy · « **Reply #7 on:** December 02, 2007, 10:03:41 AM »

In that specific episode, they killed the Borg in their sleep. Sounds pretty bad bellybutton to me.

Halo · « **Reply #8 on:** December 02, 2007, 10:21:07 AM »

(quote) I almost all sci fi things I have watched there are weapon technologies "banned" by the human civilization because they are immoral, or whatever reason.

wouldn't you as a civilization use any and all weapons as a last defense on your main world? wouldn't you have moon based, and other huge defensive emplacements in place in case of a threat? (unquote)

Yes and Yes with a couple caveats. As others have said, the fundamental reason for any restraint usually is to not use anything so powerful that its effects would destroy you as well as the enemy.

Side issues are whether to (1) use any weapon no matter how horrible if you are going to die anyway, (2) use only kinder and gentler weapons if you have the luxury of knowing you are going to win and want or need to minimize damage or suffering (e.g., to keep enough labor slaves alive).

eagl · « **Reply #9 on:** December 02, 2007, 10:30:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
You can see this reflected in real life, as in "if we fight like the enemy we will be no better than them".

Except when it's Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush, and then they get roasted for it.

Saxman · « **Reply #10 on:** December 02, 2007, 10:33:55 AM »

The US has the technology to just start busting out nukes, chemical and biological weapons.

Now think about what would happen if we actually DID.

Doesn't that just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

As john9001 said, it's the moral high ground. If you become what you're trying to stop who actually wins in the end?

Viking · « **Reply #11 on:** December 02, 2007, 10:43:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tango
TNG was one of the worst made Sci-Fi series ever made.

Actually it is one of the best ... if not the best sci-fi series made. The series focused on the human condition and classic Star Trek morality plays set in the future. DS9 was also very good in this regard.

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
It has nothing to do with sci-fi, it is because the lawyers make the producers put in the morality lesson.

This is just plain wrong. Gene Roddenberry deliberately made the show about the human condition set in a sci-fi universe. Instead of focusing the show on fantastic effects or fanciful technology (like earlier sci-fi shows and movies) he made the stories about the people and their experiences. When Nichelle Nichols (Uhura) confronted Roddenberry and told him that he was just doing morality plays in a futuristic setting, Roddenberry laughed out loud and said "Shhhh ... The producers haven't figured it out yet".

DiabloTX · « **Reply #12 on:** December 02, 2007, 10:59:35 AM »

That's more or less why I stopped watching Star Trek, Viking. If I want to be preached at I'll just go to church. I don't mind a little lesson thrown in I just don't much appreciate getting hit over the head with morality lessons.

Viking · « **Reply #13 on:** December 02, 2007, 11:44:58 AM »

The point of making a morality play is not to preach, but to highlight moral dilemmas by placing the characters in situations where they are forced to make hard decisions. Some shows have been to heavy handed in this for my tastes (like the new BSG and ST Enterprise), but I think the original Star Trek, TNG and DS9 got the balance just right. Voyager wasn't too bad either.

Your mileage may vary of course.

JB88 · « **Reply #14 on:** December 02, 2007, 12:00:29 PM »

wild,

it's a wonder we feel safe in our world...what with all of our naval bases spread out, an ememy could just walk right in and wipe us off the map. guess we may as well close them all down.

don't ya think that a society that can achieve light speed could get a starship around the block in a millisec?