Introduction

	Welcome to ST-v-SW.Net.

I'm sure you have a few questions. Let's answer some:

You know that Trek is just a TV show, and that Star Wars is just some movies, right?

Of course! But that doesn't mean we can't have fun thinking about them. It can even be educational.

You know this means you're a geek, don't you?

Yup . . . pretty much. But, then, you came here and you're reading this, so you're probably one, too. :-)

Why bother with such a silly subject?

Honestly, there's no good answer to this question. But then, we all have things we waste time on . . . this is little worse than most others.

As for how I got here . . . you see, long ago, a brother of a friend interrupted her talking about Trek to declare that a Star Destroyer would whoop up on any Enterprise. I had some doubts about that, but this generally quiet fellow launched into a tirade on the matter. I barely held my own against his seemingly-prepared responses, but otherwise thought little of it. Years later, I encountered one of those websites where the author claimed that the Star Wars Galactic Empire would whoop the United Federation of Planets in Star Trek. This is all well and good, but the site was written so obnoxiously and with so many fallacious arguments and ridiculous claims that I just couldn't stand but to offer some corrections. And I soon realized that the site I'd found and other related sites were where the friend's brother had gotten his misguided information.

Being no stranger to web debate at the time, I e-mailed the site author and received a bit of conversation and a lot of attitude. Eventually I started debating on alt.startrek.vs.starwars, and saw the ways of those who'd written the older sites on the matter. There was no rational discussion or even rational argumentation . . . it was largely just flaming, obnoxious behavior, and swarming opponents with numbers.

Worse, as one of my opponents (invariably hailed by his comrades) noted later regarding the Star Trek vs. Star Wars tech debate:

1. Debate is not a search for truth. It is an exercise in rhetoric.
2. As it is not a search for truth, positions which I do not personally agree with may be adopted to win.
3. The objective of debate is to emerge the "victor," having used superior rhetorical tecniques [sic] to gain victory.
4. Any tactic empirically effective at advancing a position should be used.

To translate the above, "facts are irrelevant . . . victory for Star Wars against all opponents is the only important thing".

In short, even when they were demonstrably wrong my opponents would maintain their positions and insult you for disagreeing, repeating the same debunked claims over and over. My defiant personality didn't take too kindly to such things, and thus this site was born. Sure, there are plenty of other things to argue about, but this topic had virtually no representation from the rational side of the aisle (though there were and still are many pretenders).

In my opinion, the following is how we should approach the issue:

1. This debate is a search for the Truth, even if it is truth about a silly contest between fictional universes. It is an exercise in critical thinking.
2. Any position which conforms to the evidence must be accepted.
3. The objective of this debate is to burn away irrelevancies, errors, falsehoods, and so on, in order to arrive at the Truth.
4. Any tactic not firmly based on the precepts of rational discourse should not be used.

Don't you think you're a little biased?

Perhaps. It could be argued that everyone is biased to some degree regarding what they spend their time on. And of course, let's not forget that a lot of what I'm doing revolves around quashing the popular anti-Trek and pro-Wars myths and distortions. I'm not writing in a vacuum, after all . . . much has come before, and, in my estimation, much of it is in error. However, I am absolutely not trying to replace those other myths with anti-Wars, pro-Trek myths . . . that would be just as bad. I'm aiming for fairness and balance, equal treatment for both sides.

That is not bias . . . that is sticking to the facts. Sure, this is science fiction, but we can still investigate it and consider it rationally.

And you know, I'd like to point out here that contrary to many of the pro-Wars site authors' views on pro-Trek parties (the term "Federation Cultist" comes to mind, but that's also probably one of the *least* insulting names you'll find), I do not immediately assume that pro-Wars individuals are evil, stupid, or mentally ill. After all, in regards to some arguments I'm just as pro-Wars as anyone else. That having been said, though . . . there are many pro-Wars debaters out there who *are* sick, demented, self-deceptive, dishonest, and all that. Just take a look at this. But, I certainly don't assume that is the case with everyone.

As far as my personal opinion goes, I like both Trek and Wars, but I prefer Star Trek story-wise. In the realm of special effects, though, Star Wars is far superior. But, to be honest, all the hostile encounters with the more rabid Warsies have significantly reduced my ability to enjoy Star Wars, since they give the franchise a bad reputation. As it happens, the ones I found online happen to be the same ones who, later in life, harassed Star Wars Expanded Universe novel authors for being "minimalist" about troop counts, firepower, et cetera. And so they are now reviled even by other Star Wars fans as "Talifan" . . . fan-terrorists who employ harassment and online aggression to try to make things go their way.

But since I started out more of a Trek fan, I make every effort to be as fair and even-handed as possible, to the point of giving Star Wars every benefit of the doubt, within reason. In general, other sites on the topic do not do the opposite for Star Trek, no matter how pro-Wars the authors are.

From such authors come a mass of arguments that would seem to suggest that Star Wars has the edge, and those arguments are often quite alluring, on the surface. However, such arguments are almost invariably wrong. Of course, make no mistake: the Death Star rules. But, as demonstrated twice, even Death Stars aren't invincible . . . nor are the Death-Star-sized volumes of fanboy wankery which purport to show that a lone Star Destroyer would destroy the Federation fleet (followed by the Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, Dominion, Borg, and anyone else). All that one has to do is point out the flaws in the claims about the evidence, logic, and math. The first two are the most likely, since most of the time the math is flawless . . . however, mathematics proves nothing when based upon false assumptions.

I realize that even the best of us are capable of being misled by a subtle error or subtle deception, especially when it is repeated ad infinitum. There are so many argument variants which branch from the same misbegotten sources that, by sheer volume alone, some would want to say "Okay, Star Wars wins it". However, this is not necessary, or prudent. The facts alone are the final arbiter . . . not popularity, box office draw, the clash of egos so prevalent in such debates, or any other criteria . . . just the facts the two science-fiction universes present of themselves.

In my opinion, based on my research of the topic, the facts suggest that Star Trek technology is superior, though the question of who would win a war is still open. Your opinion may differ, and that's fine. This site is an exposition of how I arrived at my opinion . . . if you think I've missed an important fact, let me know.

Granted, this is not the most important topic on the planet . . . or in this country . . . or even in this room. But, that which is false must be challenged. Oh, I could engage in some other debate, but this one is kinda fun, and makes good practice for the others.

G2k

There's a lot to talk about in regards to ST vs. SW . . . though the site is small, it's growing. If there's anything you would like to see addressed, let me know via the Feedback page.

This site makes extensive use of the Arial Narrow and Trebuchet fonts. Windows users can acquire these standard fonts here (700kb download).

Other Questions:

What about the Star Trek vs. Star Wars material on Mike Wong's StarDestroyer.Net, or the Star Wars pages of Curtis Saxton's Technical Commentaries, et cetera?

Some of that work is very well thought out, and well-presented. However, there are several points of departure in the logic used at this site compared to those, and where one ends up definitely depends on where one starts. Most notably, the above sites both make heavy (sometimes exclusive) use of the non-canon materials, sometimes ignoring or contradicting canon (i.e. onscreen) fact. That is a methodology I do not agree with. This site and the findings thereon are based strictly on canon material, though there are a few references and rebuttals to certain popular arguments based on non-canon data. A further explanation of this position can be found on the Preface and Canon page, linked below.

What about Babylon 5, or Stargate SG-1's Goa'uld or Asgard, or Iain M. Banks' "Culture", et cetera?

You came here expecting to find that?!? ;-)

I confess, I didn't see much Babylon 5, but for a few episodes here and there of the main show and a couple of episodes of Crusade. What I saw wasn't too bad (the finale was extremely moving, even to me, and I had only the slightest knowledge of the show's arc), but I don't know enough about it to make reliable technical comparisons. If you're interested, this site seems to focus more on the canonical representation, whereas this one seems to include a bit more independent guesswork at times. Their opinions differ rather greatly, and there are times when one is probably more correct than the other, but I'm not getting in the middle of that one. :-)

I know far more about Stargate SG-1, though nothing since the destruction of the Goa'uld. Frankly, I think it's some of the best sci-fi ever made. Even when they borrow a plot or two from Star Trek, it's rendered in such a fresh form that it is still a joy to watch. O'Neill is one of my favorite fictional characters ever.

I'm not sure about the tech level of the Goa'uld . . . and it's hard to say what that is, since they're more of the tech leeching sort, as opposed to being tech developers. I do know that rather early on in the series Goa'uld ships started being able to make much better speed than their prior 10 times lightspeed hyperdrive limit, and they seemed to make some surprising advances in shielding technology (personal shielding for certain Goa'uld and starship shields effortlessly withstanding 1000 megaton nuclear weapons). In any event, the peculiar fragmentation and "checks and balances" of the Goa'uld system lord culture would make it hard to say just who has what. Ship to ship, though, I'd guesstimate them as a rough match for many types of Federation starship. But, that's just a rough placement. In a total war scenario, though, I think the Federation would "clean their chronometers", to coin a phrase, if even only because it is a united Starfleet.

As for the Asgard . . . they would quite probably wipe the floor with the UFP and the Empire, as could the Culture, several times over.

There's also the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, which is a pretty good show. I'm intrigued by the possibility that they have greater FTL velocities than either the Federation or the Empire, but other that that they are most likely toast (or, in the case of the Cylons, toasted toasters).

But, this site is about Star Trek and Star Wars. Click the link below, and see how the comparison will be made.

Star Trek vs. Star Wars: Preface and Canon Policies, or "How can you even compare them?"