re: Star Wars vs. Star Trek in a battle for all the marbles...who wins?

The Federation is run by non-binary genderqueer lesbian transgenders.

Han Solo wins that everyday.

quote:

---

Where was this shown?

In ST:TNG it was shown that a concentrated phase beam can burrow into the planet and drill all the way into its core if need be.

IN the NEW movie , that ship was a mining ship that was destroying worlds. And the Federation made that black hole liquid and they put it on a little baby ship.

In ST:DS9. With two modified torpedo, they made an entire planet uninhabitable.

As for not modifying the existing engine, you'd be surprise at how adaptable they can be. In TNG, for a while they were able to follow the borg around in Transwarp space.

In Voyager they used a quantum slip stream and the borg transwarp conduit. These tech are not suppose to be used on fed ships yet they were able to rig it to do so.

Not to mention the Fed did make a cloak in secret that instead of just merely cloaking it phase through matter also, but they stupidly kept to a treaty.

Speed depending on the timeline you want to attack the federation at might play a big part or a very small part. If they attack during Kirk days, Fed and Alpha quadrant is fricked.

If they attack during the latter stage of Voyager or even the Online universe, the Empire might be running into a buzz saw.

---

LINK

Never shown on screen but its Base Delta Zero.

Stormtroopers vs Federation redshirts...will be amazing how high the casualty count will be, with so many missed shots.

Actually, I take Star Wars in this one also; as long as none of the Federation guys are known heroes, the stormtroopers can shoot ok. Whereas you better fill out your will when you get issued your red shirt and phaser

We on this planet currently have the ability to render a planet uninhabitable. I'm comfortable with the concept that a Star Destroyer carries ordnance superior to our best nukes, and enough of them to similarly ravage a planet. I'm also comfortable with the idea that the Rebels have shielding capable of withstanding that (as was stated in the movie). Even if it's not up to the task, Vader at this point is after Luke on a personal note, and would not risk vaporizing him before he could get to him.

The Death Star reduces a planet to a big cloud of space dust. THAT is what Han Solo was referring to, that it would take more firepower than the entire fleet.

There are no torpedoes in Star Trek that cause entire planets to explode on impact. They have never been used in battle, they certainly would have been deployed against the Borg at some point. Or the Klingons, Romulans, Dominion, Cardassians, or any number of similarly unscrupulous races would definitely used them against the Federation.

Planet destroyers are pretty rare in the modern scifi film genre, that's what makes them memorable. Far as I know offhand, you have the Death Star, the Vorlon planet killers in Babylon 5, I think there was something the Scarrans had in Farscape, and maybe Anubis in SG-1; and that's about it.

Yes and I am comfortable with a lot of different things but I am going with what is actually shown instead of what is speculated further upon.

The have a guarantee planet killer. You saw it in Star Trek movie, the black hole liquid that they made. Open that up on a planet and bye bye.

The Alpha quadrant have the mining ship that can dig it's way into the planet core. So bye bye Vulcan.

All of those things are much smaller than a Death Star.

quote:

---

The have a guarantee planet killer. You saw it in Star Trek movie, the black hole liquid that they made. Open that up on a planet and bye bye.

The Alpha quadrant have the mining ship that can dig it's way into the planet core. So bye bye Vulcan.

---

Yeah, I said I was ignoring the Abrams movies since they totally ignore science... the "liquid black hole" red matter stuff is ridiculous. Note that this stuff supposedly could suck up a supernova, per the premise of the movie. That's what was used to destroy Vulcan... and let's not ignore the fact that Spock was stranded on some moon or planet where he could see the planet collapse during the day, at a distance were Vulcan looked as big as the Moon does to us . By any known science, Spock is gone at that moment too... he's within visual range of a newly formed singularity.

Abrams did this crap with TFA too, as the entire Starkiller Base portion is total insanity. The base sucks energy from a star until it goes dark...WTF? Again, we should then see total collapse of the star and the solar system it's on, and yet people are walking around outside like it's a winter night. You cause a star to do that, it should go nova or something similarly bad to be around; certainly don't want to be close enough that it looks like our Sun.
Doubtful that you could contain such energy in any type of temporary battery or anything else the size of a planet... , the base should by all rights incinerate.
And then you can watch the blast track across the daytime sky from the rebel base (again the JJ visuals), like it's some sort of meteor in the statosphere... only it's across the galaxy, so this must be INCREDIBLY bright, and more than that, must be moving WAY faster than lightspeed, to move that distance in a matter of seconds. And then we cut to a closeup: where the citizens can see this coming (but it's supposedly moving faster than light, so it shouldn't be visible at all, and certainly shouldn't be able to be seen moving so slowly that you can go out on the balcony and watch it coming).

ST at it's core always attempted to explain the science behind the gadgets, and for the most part SW did too. It's part of what makes good sci fi interesting= often you see tech imagined, then real engineers can start trying to create it for real.

I've seen older 'star wars' tech be approached like that; the blasters for example are moving at lightspeed, but what we see is a plasma burst following the track of the actual destructive blast (same way lightning would follow a laser). So it's a hit before we see it.
Or the hyperspace ideas, some folks have posted theories that hyperspace follows channels (like an interstate or river), and this keeps you clear of flying through a star, as Solo says. He's able to more precisely navigate hyperspace in the Falcon, which explains why the famous Kessel Run speed is actually a distance (parsecs), and not a time measurement.

TL;DR version- I ignore JJ Abrams' contributions to both ST and SW, as he completely ignores science in his movies. If you include his films, there is no debate, because there are no rules defining anything.

In a episode of TNG (the one where they are running all over the quadrant collecting DNA) a torpedo is fired into the atmosphere an kills all organic life on the planet. That's all you would have to do, you don't have to blow the planet up to destroy it.

Star Wars is all crap except for the first movie. Star Trek has been pretty good except for this dreadful reboot thing.

The Enterprise was the Federation flagship and it was 700 meters long.

A standard, ship of the line Imperial destroyer is 1600 meters.

OT era Super Star Destoyers are somewhere between 12,500 and 19,000 meters, depending on the source.

No contest.

Millenium Falcon showed it was speed and agility that was key.