Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ssc-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!wanttaja
From: wanttaja@ssc-vax.UUCP (Ronald J Wanttaja)
Newsgroups: net.startrek
Subject: YA Enterprise Destruct
Message-ID: <260@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Dec-84 22:55:13 EST
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.260
Posted: Mon Dec 10 22:55:13 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Dec-84 05:24:26 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, WA
Lines: 70



>  But what if the purpose of the self-destruct mechanism was simply
>  to protect classified information (including design details) ?

>  I can think of a few reasons for not setting off the engines (which,
>  we learn from The Doomsday Machine, would make a bigger bang than 
>  any nuke ever tested.  For one thing, if the ship were evacuated first,
>  the crew might not survive a matter-antimatter blast nearby.

>  Does anyone know of analogies from Earth's navies?  Does any country
>  have contingency plans for scuttling its major combat vessels?  If
>  so, I doubt that such plans involve using onboard nuclear weapons.

>  Fred Wamsley

I feel Fred has hit the nail right on the noggin.  Naval (and for that matter,
army and aviation) history is full of examples.  A ship is scuttled, a    
diabled airplane is burned, a cannon is spiked for one reason... to deny
value to the enemy.  Not to make a big flash and a lot of noise.

Admittedly, scuttling a space vehicle is a little different from scuttling
a sea vessel... the sea vessel will disappear (sink) leaving no trace, while   
the wreckage of a spaceship remains.  But there are other reasons for a
minimal-violence scuttling:

Take a modern day analogy... Say the USS Nimitz is involved in large scale
battle and takes a fatal hit.  Offhand I cannot think of a single
US first line carrier that has actually sunk under enemy fire.  We did
lose some escort carriers that way (Gambier Bay) but after the battles
such as Coral Sea and Midway, critically damaged US carriers were still
afloat... and were given the coup de grace by US destroyers to prevent
them from falling into enemy hands.  So, we can be reasonably sure Nimitz
is still afloat.  However, Nimitz NEVER sails alone- it is surrounded by
a large task group, some of which are sunk, but some will survive.  Would
the Captain of Nimitz order a nuclear scuttling?  NO! in addition to the
loss of the crew, the remaining ships of the task group would be damaged.
OK, the Nimitz could be nuclear scuttled on a long delay timer, but who
knows?  The enemy could retake the ship and disconnect the timer.  No 
US warship has been captured afloat since at least the Civil War.  The
Nimitz would be conventionally scuttled, within sight of the fleet to
ensure destruction.

Space fleets should operate the same way.  At the moment a Federation
starship might need to scuttle to prevent capture, another federation
vessel might be within the danger range of a matter-antimatter destruct.
Standard self-destruct would be at most, a low order explosion.

Another argument is the vulnerability of a massive-destruct system to
accidental triggering.  Commander J. Murphy, famed naval strategist,
once said, "If it will cause grevious harm when impacted by enemy shot
or shell, a large percentage of concievable enemy threats will be 
capable of penetrating any given layers  of protection."  No single hit
should be capable of destroying the vessel, and, while 
any type of destruct system is vulnerable, one would prefer a more 
complex method of destruct rather than mixing matter and antimatter, just
on the basis that a complex system may be easier to stop if triggered 
accidentally.

This is not to say that the engineering staff would be incapable of
concocting a matter/antimatter self destruct if the need arose...
It's just not the sort of thing you would leave lying
around!

					   Ron Wanttaja
					   (ssc-vax!wanttaja)

"Of course, the transporter is fixed,
Ensign... and wipe that smile off
your elbow!"