Talk:Subatomic disruptor

I would remove the following from the actual article before placing it here for discussion, but apparently some people like questionable info remaining in articles until after the topic has been discussed, so I'll leave it in the article AND put it here for discussion.


 * The Subatomic Disruptor is obviously far superior to a phaser, as a small ship with one puny weapon was a challenge for a much larger vessel like the Voyager. It seems that the Fighter (Type 4) Subatomic Disruptor is roughly equivalent to a type 12 Phaser array.


 * These weapons appear to be a more powerful version of the much-used Disruptor, pointing to the membership of many Disruptor using races, such as the Klingons, Romulans, and Cardassians, as they would need many new council members to turn the Federation from the beloved Phaser.

The first paragraph might be suitable to keep in the article, but it needs to be changed to be less personal (i.e. saying something is "obviously" superior, or calling a ship's weapon "puny"). The second paragraph might be best saved as background info, or deleted altogether since it's pretty much speculation. --From Andoria with Love 01:37, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed a lot of the hoo-ha. The point of this action is to remove the off-topic or non-canon topics: It is merely an assumption that the future weapon might be a "type 4" anything -- its "Type" was never mentioned onscreen -- nor its classification as a fighter weapon. Neither have "Type 12" phasers been mentioned in canon Star Trek -- and even if these imaginary phasers had been mentioned, how would we compare their output?!


 * Also there's no clear correlation made between the subatomic disruptor and the disruptor -- and there's no need to be obtuse about it and imagine some whimsical scenario of "council members" influencing anyone's weapons choice. It all sounds like fan fiction -- none of it was mentioned in the Star Trek episode. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

"Also it is possible that this weapon uses some sort of gravity distortion to divided the targets particles on a subatomic level." Unless the episode mentioned something about gravity, I would remove this sentence. That's very speculative. The amount of gravity it would take to split apart subatomic particles just seems way too much for a weapon like that to be efficient. (24.168.233.100 10:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC))
 * I've removed it. Not that this belongs in the article either, but if I was trying to disrupt subatomic particles, I'd probably make use of something disrupting the strong nuclear force, not something with gravity. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed
I removed,


 * The subatomic disruptor seems to be superior to the 24th century shields and weapons, as a small ship with one "fighter-sized" weapon was a challenge for a much larger vessel like the USS Voyager. As the technology was unknown to the crew, the subatomic disruptor must have been invented between the 25th and 29th century. It is also unclear how much this future weapon has in common with the more familiar disruptor.

for being pretty unnecessary speculation. -Angry Future Romulan 18:49, September 3, 2010 (UTC)