Had Humans not "progressed culturally", the proper Starfleet response to finding a craft belonging to a hostile power hanging nearby, cloaked, in the same close area (not just the same system) as a destroyed comms relay, would have been to assume hostile intent and targeted weapons (whether they fired first or waited for further provocation would depend on which segment of Humanity you believe would have controlled the species' attitudes at that point).
Instead, Burnham's solution, evidence-based though it may have been, was rejected out of hand - Georgiou even said, in so many words, "Starfleet doesn't shoot first." Really, you're trying to extrapolate overall human values based on the actions of a protagonist who was not yet a "hero", and who may have been wrong. There's a lot of moral ambiguity around the actions of the former Commander Michael Burnham. I know, I know, you've been taught by Hollywood that when the protagonist acts, it's always the correct thing. As a reader of science fiction since childhood, some fifty years back (family legend is unclear on when I started to read novels independently, but it was definitely no older than five), I'm used to protagonists who TRIBBLE up and have to be corrected (Dr. Conway in Hospital Station, or John Lyle in "If This Goes On--").
There is nothing satisfying watching our heroes do terrible things, especially in Star Trek.
I believe you are confusing several points and thematic concepts here.
First, I do not believe we are meant to cheer with glee and jump for joy when Sisko betrayed his principles in "The Pale Moonlight" or (using your example) Superman had to kill Zod - in any incarnation of the event. We are not meant to feel good about it at all. I believe we are meant to feel that same punch to the gut and empathize with them in that they were left no other choice and did what they had to do. They are not proud of what they did, but ultimately their actions served the greater good.
Second, the Federation may be a utopia, however the rest of the universe clearly is not. We know there are enemies of the Federation out there who are utterly intractable and will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. Some of them are not interested in bargaining, reason or diplomacy.
Lastly, look at the lessons learned from "Q, Who?". Picard arrogantly believed humanity and the Federation were ready for anything. Q gave him a little bloody nose to bring him back to reality. There very well could be species out there that make the Borg look like kittens by comparison.
Against enemies like these, at some point someone is going to have to get their hands dirty. It also makes perfect sense to be pro-active and monitor / deal with potential threats before they become an enormous issue.
So no, I do not believe we are meant to feel good when our heroes do terrible things. I believe we are meant to see that everything that is good and right comes with a price and those things are worth fighting for - even if it means doing things we are not proud of at times.
I don't have a problem with the notion that utopia needs guardians who sometimes have to do unkind things. I have a problem with the notion that in order to guard it, you need an unaccountable shadow government agency motivated by an ultranationalist ideology, especially when the "guys who do the necessary nasty" role is already covered by Starfleet and in particular Starfleet Intelligence.
Underhanded things Starfleet Intelligence does:
Research cloaking devices. Okay, it's an illegal act, but seriously, all they were doing was an R&D project on a technology the Federation already understands. And it's not like the Romulan Star Empire has any problem pushing the limits of its half of the treaty: for Prophets' sake, they tried to invade a Federation core planet during the same series. (An incompetent act of war is still an act of war.)
Send Miles O'Brien undercover to infiltrate the Orion Syndicate. I think we can pretty much all agree this is a good use of covert operations even if there hadn't turned out to be a Dominion connection.
The rest of their remit is mostly just the normal information-gathering and counterintelligence stuff that every government does.
Underhanded things Section 31 does:
Start witch hunts and disrupt the normal operations of a major allied forward operating base, as a recruiting tactic. ("Inquisition")
Use an officer of an allied nation as a typhoid Mary to deliver a biological weapon with the intent of genocide. (Odo/Changeling arc)
Frame a foreign elected official for treason, probably getting her shot, on the suspicion that she might stop liking you at some unknown point in a future that may or may not happen. ("Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges")
Plant operatives at high levels of the civilian government of your own country. That's suggestive of a planned coup d'etat. ("Extreme Measures")
You see the difference here?
Post edited by starswordc on
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
it doesn't matter if you, the viewer, with viewer omniscience know the Klingons were going to start a war, because that's not facts that would be known in character (firstly), nor was there evidence that her idea was supported in character, nor was she a superior expert to the Admirals, her commanding officer, etc.
Well, unless you're willing to acknowledge Burnham was a Mary Sue-which is a completely different conversation, since she would have to have access to viewer omniscience and facts not available to her minus the ability to read the Klingons minds or see the future (Telepathy or Clairvoyance) at a functional level that doesn't leave someone schizophrenic.
but even IF she knew what their plans were, her 'plan' of 'don't wait for backup-just attack the guy who's waiting to ambush you' is still bad tactics and Giorgious Star Power was right to tell her 'no'.
why? because carried to the logical conclusion of your own argument, all it achieves, is dying before help can arrive-because they're not going to back down.
no matter how you bend it, Val, Burnham's conduct was at best unprofessional, the personality she shows subsequently indicates someone who would have trouble leading a pack of starving wolves to meat. so she's also not qualified to be an officer.
a technician, maybe, in a surface installation where breaking the rules when you feel like it won't kill people. Burnham wouldn't make it on a coastal fishing boat, much less as XO of a ship tasked with the sort of things Starfleet Starships are tasked with.
The episode showing her origin story actually explains this really well-she was a nepotism hire, Sarek got her the job.
Which is a hell of a lot better explanation for why Starfleet was losing the war. They stopped promoting on merit and started doing Nepotism and Diversity hires instead, putting unqualified people in key positions to satisfy political blocs domestically in the comfortable assumption that their size and (thus far) record of success would be enough to deter any real threat. Like France in 1872 at the start of the Franco-Prussian war.
Being the viewer has nothing to do with it.
Burnham's knowledge and experience told her something was out of the ordinary with the way the Klingons were behaving. When she asked Georgiou what the "soldier in her" thought to which she replied "nothing good". Sarek also re-affirmed her suspicions. This isn't rocket science.
Here's how the chain of command works: if you are given a legal order you believe to be unwise and your superior is of sound mind, you voice your concerns to your superior. A good superior will take it into account (and in fact a major part of the job of first officer or executive officer is to act as a sounding board for the captain), and Georgiou indeed did. But if they tell you to do it anyway, you follow your orders. You do not assault and incapacitate your CO because you think you know better!
And in fact as the viewer, we know better than Burnham what's going on: the Klingons are there to pick a fight regardless of what the Federation does. Shooting first just means the political side of the conflict is frakked up and Burnham gets blamed for starting an unnecessary war, rather than people perceiving that the Klingons started the war and Starfleet only dutifully responded. That's right, it turns out there's as much a practical aspect to not shooting first as there is a moral one.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
[*] Use an officer of an allied nation as a typhoid Mary to deliver a biological weapon with the intent of genocide. (Odo/Changeling arc)
That's not even a Section 31 tactic, that's a stock Federation tactic.
See "The Mark of Gideon" where the Federation uses Kirk in the same manner
That's not how I remember that episode. It was the Gideon government's idea to import the disease to deal with an overpopulation crisis, not the Federation's idea to commit genocide against the Gideons. The Federation was as much in the dark about it as Kirk was.
(Why would anyone want to genocide Bible salesmen? LOL)
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
McNamara points out that the Picard series won’t be on the service until the end of 2019, and that the Michelle Yeoh-led series is just in development as of now. She’s still expected to be a major part of “Discovery” during season 2, with McNamara adding that the season won’t necessarily serve as a back-door pilot for Yeoh’s standalone show.
“Lower Decks” won’t air soon, either: the animation alone will take a year.
“When I look at how the schedule is theoretically laying out on my desk, it does not feel like it’s one after another,” she said, adding that by the time the Yeoh-led series premieres, “Discovery” may be over.
“Some of these can be considered as replacements as opposed to additions,” she said. “These ‘Trek’ shows take a lot of incubation, because they’re very prep heavy, visual effects heavy… we’re seeing it more as we’re getting a good jump on making sure that there is a good fulsome stream of ‘Trek’ material.”
Let's say the take 2019 to write Section 31, 2020 to make it, that would suggest a release date of 2021 or 2022 at the latest. That suggests if the boss thinks discovery will be over by then she thinks it will last at max 4 to 5 years, that is far fromna vote of confedence given TNG, DS9, and Voy all lasted 7 seasons with nearly twice as many episodes per season. That is not a vote of confedence.
> @somtaawkhar said: > lordgyor wrote: » > > Let's say the take 2019 to write Section 31, 2020 to make it, that would suggest a release date of 2021 or 2022 at the latest. That suggests if the boss thinks discovery will be over by then she thinks it will last at max 4 to 5 years, that is far fromna vote of confedence given TNG, DS9, and Voy all lasted 7 seasons with nearly twice as many episodes per season. That is not a vote of confedence. > > > > This ignores that TNG, DS9, and VOY were made in an era when "episode of the week" formatting, with no overarching storyline, or just a background overarching storyline, was still popular. Whereas nowadays most people scoff at the idea of "filler" episodes, and shows are far more narrative based, and thus tend to end quicker because they tell their story and are done. > > Its easy to spell doom and gloom when you ignore the fundamental difference between what each show tries to do, and the era in which they are made. > > Also, shes going to be in S3 of Disco > http://trekcore.com/blog/2019/01/kurtzman-kadin-picard-georgiou-shows-star-trek-discovery-season-3/ TREKCORE: How do you see a character like ‘evil’ Mirror Georgiou fitting into the overall optimism of the Star Trek universe? > > HEATHER KADIN: What’s great about her, even though yes, she’s quote-unquote ‘evil,’ she’s still within our world that’s been created. I think so much of her ‘evilness’ comes from the deliciousness of her enjoyment of the character, and as an actress playing the role [of prime Georgiou]. > > You should never feel like, “Meanwhile, on a whole other show…” It really feels of a piece. > > TREKCORE: Is there any kind of timeline for when we might see [the Section 31 show]? > > KADIN: Not officially, but she’ll be in ‘Discovery’ Season 3. > > […] > > NEARBY INTERVIEWER LEANS IN:Did you say Georgiou was in Season 3? > > TREKCORE: Season 2? > > KADIN: And Season 3, yes. > > TREKCORE: Oh! > > KADIN: Yes. > > > > > > If that rumored Starfleet Academy show gets made I don't expect it to last more then 4 seasons. Season 1 begins with them entering the Academy, and season 4 ends with graduation/them getting assigned off to various ships. Its not like TNG, DS9, or VOY, where its meant to go on for 7 seasons with a bunch of one off episodes making up a large pat of it, its made to tell a story, and once that story is done, its over.
That is all possible, although there are ways to get say 7 seasons out of Star Trek Academy. Simular shows, without the sci fi elements, have gotten around that I think.
Here's how the chain of command works: if you are given a legal order you believe to be unwise and your superior is of sound mind, you voice your concerns to your superior. A good superior will take it into account (and in fact a major part of the job of first officer or executive officer is to act as a sounding board for the captain), and Georgiou indeed did. But if they tell you to do it anyway, you follow your orders. You do not assault and incapacitate your CO because you think you know better!
And here's how morality works. You are give a legal order that's immoral or unwise and you question your direct superior who is of sound mind but doesn't possess the same morality as you.. So you disobey and take a different route and don't just to get to rest easy later using the obviously legal 'only following orders' line.
In the end it doesn't matter if Burnham mutinied or not because all paths lead to T'Kuvma declaring war but by just producing blanket statements that people should follow orders regardless of any other factors like good little robots is banal.
Or should Kirk have fired the Augmentpedos at Kronos? Marcus was his direct superior and of sound mind acting in his legitimate job giving Kirk a direct order. Trek is full of Admirals of the week only there to be ignored by the main characters giving stupid orders.
Burnham clearly believed her actions would prevent a war and her captains would lead to one, now wars are generally very bad things but I'm sure Burnham could have relaxed on a beach somewhere safe in the knowledge it wasn't her fault even though she had the ability to stop it all before it started with a simple mutiny. Billions dead, but hey, she followed orders instead of taking the easy route of acting for the general good and not the legal good.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Here's how the chain of command works: if you are given a legal order you believe to be unwise and your superior is of sound mind, you voice your concerns to your superior. A good superior will take it into account (and in fact a major part of the job of first officer or executive officer is to act as a sounding board for the captain), and Georgiou indeed did. But if they tell you to do it anyway, you follow your orders. You do not assault and incapacitate your CO because you think you know better!
And here's how morality works. You are give a legal order that's immoral or unwise and you question your direct superior who is of sound mind but doesn't possess the same morality as you.. So you disobey and take a different route and don't just to get to rest easy later using the obviously legal 'only following orders' line.
In the end it doesn't matter if Burnham mutinied or not because all paths lead to T'Kuvma declaring war but by just producing blanket statements that people should follow orders regardless of any other factors like good little robots is banal.
Or should Kirk have fired the Augmentpedos at Kronos? Marcus was his direct superior and of sound mind acting in his legitimate job giving Kirk a direct order. Trek is full of Admirals of the week only there to be ignored by the main characters giving stupid orders.
Burnham clearly believed her actions would prevent a war and her captains would lead to one, now wars are generally very bad things but I'm sure Burnham could have relaxed on a beach somewhere safe in the knowledge it wasn't her fault even though she had the ability to stop it all before it started with a simple mutiny. Billions dead, but hey, she followed orders instead of taking the easy route of acting for the general good and not the legal good.
I can't believe what you've extrapolated out of this. Let's see:
Gorgeous' orders were both legal and moral! There was no grey area here. This was a difference of opinion, and a captain's opinion trumps that of a first officer every time. The immoral part of this was BurntHam's mutiny. She had zero grounds, and her logic was erroneous. Regardless of the Klingon's intent, which cannot be known to the character at the time of the mutiny, Georgiou's orders were in perfect synch with the law, service precedent, and morality. Burnham demonstrated that she was not qualified for the command track, should never have been allowed so close to the command chair, and should never have been allowed to go back to a similar position even after a lifetime of contrition and restitution.
Marcus's orders, as explained by Spock in the movie, were not legal, not based in service precedent, and immoral! It was Kirk's duty to disobey unlawful orders.
SPOCK: As I am again your First Officer, it is now my duty to strongly object to our mission parameters.
KIRK: Of course it is.
SPOCK: There is no Starfleet regulation that condemns a man to die without a trial, something you and Admiral Marcus are forgetting. Also, preemptively firing torpedoes at the Klingon homeworld goes against
KIRK: You yourself said the area's uninhabited. There's only going to be one casualty. And in case you weren't listening, our orders have nothing to do with Starfleet regulation.
MCCOY: Wait a minute. We're firing torpedoes at the Klingons?
SPOCK: Regulations aside, this action is morally wrong.
Regardless of the Klingon's intent, which cannot be known to the character at the time
Actually that was kinda the point. The Klingons's behavior was highly suspicious and pretty much no one thought the Klingons were being honest about what they wanted.
...Her actions disrupted the functioning of the ship and crew in a high-stress environment that was also high-threat, this makes her at fault for the destruction of her ship-because she forced a situation where the crew could not perform due diligence in the face of the external threat, because they were busy and thrown off by her actions generating an internal threat.
The Klingons were going to start a war and destroy every ship they could no matter what. You can try to blame her for it from now until the end of time and it still won't make it true.
Yeah the only thing weird about that scenario is how Starfleet forgot about the way the Vulcans interacted with the Klingons back before the Federation was a thing.
Did the Vulcans ever tell them? They're not exactly known for offering anything freely except sarcasm and condescension.
That's a very good point. Vulcan logic only makes sense to Vulcans.
Regardless of the Klingon's intent, which cannot be known to the character at the time
Actually that was kinda the point. The Klingons's behavior was highly suspicious and pretty much no one thought the Klingons were being honest about what they wanted.
I get that. It is not grounds for mutiny. For all the evidence at hand when the mutiny happened, this might have been the Klingon's way of opening peace negotiations. Alien psychology, and all that.
Mysterious? Yes. Grounds for disobeying a lawful order? Nope.
As for what aliens might do, read Footfall by Larry Niven. In that book aliens attacked Earth with a (tiny) moon, with the intent of demonstrating to humans how powerful the aliens were, how helpless the humans were, and how humans should immediately surrender and become a part of the aliens' culture.
Knowing humans as I do I realize that's an unrealistic expectation, but among these aliens, terms of peace always begin with a demonstration of strength.
So, Burnham did not, and could not have known the intentions of the Klingons. Any decision based on her opinion carries exactly that much weight, and a difference of opinion is not grounds for mutiny. She should never have been allowed to wear the Starfleet uniform again, much less become second in command.
(I know, eye-strain Lorca; however, Starfleet has a bureau of personnel which should have vetted any appointments Lorca made and denied this one out of hand.)
As for Section 31: I hope the show does well. I hope my misgivings prove groundless and Starfleet begins to show some of the professionalism and competence it's always been portrayed to have. And I hope we get a shw that upholds the values of Starfleet rather than pays lip service to them.
Here's how the chain of command works: if you are given a legal order you believe to be unwise and your superior is of sound mind, you voice your concerns to your superior. A good superior will take it into account (and in fact a major part of the job of first officer or executive officer is to act as a sounding board for the captain), and Georgiou indeed did. But if they tell you to do it anyway, you follow your orders. You do not assault and incapacitate your CO because you think you know better!
And here's how morality works. You are give a legal order that's immoral or unwise and you question your direct superior who is of sound mind but doesn't possess the same morality as you.. So you disobey and take a different route and don't just to get to rest easy later using the obviously legal 'only following orders' line.
In the end it doesn't matter if Burnham mutinied or not because all paths lead to T'Kuvma declaring war but by just producing blanket statements that people should follow orders regardless of any other factors like good little robots is banal.
Or should Kirk have fired the Augmentpedos at Kronos? Marcus was his direct superior and of sound mind acting in his legitimate job giving Kirk a direct order. Trek is full of Admirals of the week only there to be ignored by the main characters giving stupid orders.
Burnham clearly believed her actions would prevent a war and her captains would lead to one, now wars are generally very bad things but I'm sure Burnham could have relaxed on a beach somewhere safe in the knowledge it wasn't her fault even though she had the ability to stop it all before it started with a simple mutiny. Billions dead, but hey, she followed orders instead of taking the easy route of acting for the general good and not the legal good.
I can't believe what you've extrapolated out of this. Let's see:
Gorgeous' orders were both legal and moral! There was no grey area here. This was a difference of opinion, and a captain's opinion trumps that of a first officer every time. The immoral part of this was BurntHam's mutiny. She had zero grounds, and her logic was erroneous. Regardless of the Klingon's intent, which cannot be known to the character at the time of the mutiny, Georgiou's orders were in perfect synch with the law, service precedent, and morality. Burnham demonstrated that she was not qualified for the command track, should never have been allowed so close to the command chair, and should never have been allowed to go back to a similar position even after a lifetime of contrition and restitution.
Marcus's orders, as explained by Spock in the movie, were not legal, not based in service precedent, and immoral! It was Kirk's duty to disobey unlawful orders.
SPOCK: As I am again your First Officer, it is now my duty to strongly object to our mission parameters.
KIRK: Of course it is.
SPOCK: There is no Starfleet regulation that condemns a man to die without a trial, something you and Admiral Marcus are forgetting. Also, preemptively firing torpedoes at the Klingon homeworld goes against
KIRK: You yourself said the area's uninhabited. There's only going to be one casualty. And in case you weren't listening, our orders have nothing to do with Starfleet regulation.
MCCOY: Wait a minute. We're firing torpedoes at the Klingons?
SPOCK: Regulations aside, this action is morally wrong.
Yes, thank you for that, Brian. These scenarios are similar in only one way: To fire on a foreign military asset is an act of war, and Starfleet is subservient to civilian authorities and therefore (in any sane universe with real-time communications to the command structure) doesn't have the authority to unilaterally commit the Federation to war (which firing first at the Klingons in both "The Vulcan Hello" and Into Whiteness would have done, and was intended to in the latter case).
Therefore, based on the other series, "Starfleet does not fire first" reads to me as less Georgiou's opinion and more as a standard peacetime rule of engagement: one might rephrase it as, "do not fire until fired upon", which is indeed what Starfleet does in the actual battle in episode two. Ergo, Georgiou's orders are both legal and moral, and Marcus's are not (and neither are Burnham's to the bridge crew, for that matter).
By the way, the Vulcans did the same thing. Burnham fundamentally misunderstood the "Vulcan hello": Sarek told her that the Klingons attacked a Vulcan ship, not the other way around, and the Vulcans simply retaliated by fighting the Klingons to a standstill in the subsequent conflict. The "Vulcan hello" isn't "shoot first if you think the other guy is looking for trouble", it's "never start a fight but always finish it" or "never throw the first punch, always throw the last punch".
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
You should rewatch TOS brian, Kirk disobeyed perfectly legal, reasonable orders constantly. He also illegally interferred with Federation Diplomats, violated the Prime Directive on a whim, etc.
Funny you should mention that. I'm halfway through Season 2 right now, and I'm having trouble coming up with examples. Spock's PonFarr? Yes, but Kirk wrestled with that decision and decided his friend's life was worth his career. Commodore Decker? Irrational due to grief, and was repeating the same mistake that cost him his ship, as Spock pointed out. How about the commodore who got them caught in the Neutral Zone after Kirk got old?
I'm curious to see what you can come up with, because I'm coming up dry on this "disobeying legal, reasonable orders constantly" thing.
"The Apple" - Kirk finds a planet of peaceful, happy humanoids who worship an ancient computer. He decides that this is beneath their dignity, and in violation of even the Prime Directive of TOS destroys that computer and ruins their civilization, brutally pushing them into a hunter-gatherer society they weren't prepared for. (Yes, the computer tried to destroy the Enterprise - but only after Kirk started messing with its people.)
"I, Mudd" - I find it difficult to believe that standard Federation treatment for a serial criminal like Harry Mudd is to simply abandon him on an alien world, subject to the whims of an unknown and possibly unstable alien technology (it was pitifully simple for Spock to overcome their ability to reason, and someone with thoughts as twisty as Mudd's would have been offworld again inside a year).
"Friday's Child" - this one was more on McCoy, but he blatantly ignored the Capellans' societal mores because he preferred his own, which is pretty much exactly the sort of thing the Prime Directive is intended to stop.
"Obsession" - Starfleet isn't supposed to deal with an unknown life form that exhibits intelligence by using ship's phasers to open communication. But it's okay here, because Jim ordered it, and we know he's always right - the creature couldn't possibly have killed anyone by accident in a simple attempt to communicate with them using its own species' methods.
"A Piece of the Action" - Gangster World there might have been weird, and admittedly Kirk tried to stay within their societal mold while working with them, but he did commit the Federation to sending ships to collect tribute, essentially creating a treaty with a foreign government on his own authority. Pretty sure that's more authority than a ship's captain is supposed to take.
"A Private Little War" - It was a marvelous allegory for the expansion of the war in Vietnam, but Kirk's decision to arm his preferred side on Neural just because the Klingons were arming the other, without awaiting orders from Command first, was a clear violation of the Directive.
That's... a lot more violations of both orders and good military order than Burnham has ever even been accused of.
As for what aliens might do, read Footfall by Larry Niven. In that book aliens attacked Earth with a (tiny) moon, with the intent of demonstrating to humans how powerful the aliens were, how helpless the humans were, and how humans should immediately surrender and become a part of the aliens' culture.
did that already. The Fithp have one major cultural flaw which leads to their defeat. That they are less able to learn to understand their enemies. There are several entire chapters told from the PoV of the Fithp as they study captured Humans or Human stuff because they don't understand it. Humans are able to figure out how to reverse-engineer Fithp-tech, but not the reverse. Of course at some point we find out the Fithp were once the pets of a more advanced, now vanished race, and may actually be generally less intelligent than Humans. Yeah, most of their tech they don't understand and barely know how to use. Also... their only experience with warfare is against other Fithp. Their entire culture is centered around following a leader and if a leader gets beaten, well... Which is where the "Footfall" name comes from. Their grand plan for forcing Humans to surrender is to smash an asteroid named "Foot" by the Fithp into Earth as a way of showing that Humans must surrender or die.
The Fithp were interesting in that while alien conquerors they didn't actually want to kill anyone. Thus they spent most of the war trying to figure out how convince the Humans to surrender. If the Humans had played by Fithp rules being enslaved would have meant they would become loyal to the Fithp, which almost never happened. And the Fithp NEVER came to understand why. Which is why they didn't START by deploying Foot as a weapon. It was their last ditch option to force servitude.
At any rate, this really doesn't translate well into the context of Star Trek. The purpose of the "Vulcan hello" was not to intimidate the Klingons into surrender, it was to scare them into not attacking. Basically a more aggressive version of a warning shot.
"The Apple" - Kirk finds a planet of peaceful, happy humanoids who worship an ancient computer. He decides that this is beneath their dignity, and in violation of even the Prime Directive of TOS destroys that computer and ruins their civilization, brutally pushing them into a hunter-gatherer society they weren't prepared for. (Yes, the computer tried to destroy the Enterprise - but only after Kirk started messing with its people.)
"I, Mudd" - I find it difficult to believe that standard Federation treatment for a serial criminal like Harry Mudd is to simply abandon him on an alien world, subject to the whims of an unknown and possibly unstable alien technology (it was pitifully simple for Spock to overcome their ability to reason, and someone with thoughts as twisty as Mudd's would have been offworld again inside a year).
"Friday's Child" - this one was more on McCoy, but he blatantly ignored the Capellans' societal mores because he preferred his own, which is pretty much exactly the sort of thing the Prime Directive is intended to stop.
"Obsession" - Starfleet isn't supposed to deal with an unknown life form that exhibits intelligence by using ship's phasers to open communication. But it's okay here, because Jim ordered it, and we know he's always right - the creature couldn't possibly have killed anyone by accident in a simple attempt to communicate with them using its own species' methods.
"A Piece of the Action" - Gangster World there might have been weird, and admittedly Kirk tried to stay within their societal mold while working with them, but he did commit the Federation to sending ships to collect tribute, essentially creating a treaty with a foreign government on his own authority. Pretty sure that's more authority than a ship's captain is supposed to take.
"A Private Little War" - It was a marvelous allegory for the expansion of the war in Vietnam, but Kirk's decision to arm his preferred side on Neural just because the Klingons were arming the other, without awaiting orders from Command first, was a clear violation of the Directive.
That's... a lot more violations of both orders and good military order than Burnham has ever even been accused of.
A few of these can be justified a little bit by the fact that in TOS they apparently didn't have the ability to communicate with Starfleet Command in real time (which they did in the later series). They drew a lot of influence in TOS from classic military fiction e.g. Horatio Hornblower, which of course was set in a time when communicating beyond visual range in real time was impossible. This means commanding officers get more latitude to act since they don't have the capability of receiving orders to the contrary the minute a flag officer back at HQ can reach a phone, and consequently can get away with certain things on the principle of "it worked, and therefore it's better to ask forgiveness than permission". Of course, this means yet another place where ENT and DSC retconned things: those series do appear to have real-time communication at long distance, so it makes less sense for the CO to have as much latitude.*
It's also fairly consistent that the Prime Directive has a loophole if a third party interferes first (I saw the tail end of "Friday's Child" once on MeTV, and there was a Klingon involved), and in TOS (and DSC) the PD isn't applied to warp-capable civilizations (the Capellans aren't warp-capable, but they are already aware that extrasolar civilizations exist, which I guess is the next best thing).
* By the way, this is also why I dislike the second episode of The Orville: Lieutenant Kitan was given a direct order, to her face, by a five-star admiral, to return to base and await further orders, and she disobeyed it pretty much based on peer pressure, and came within a hair of getting her captain and first officer killed as a consequence. And yet she came away with a medal because she pulled it out at the last second.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
"The Apple" - Kirk finds a planet of peaceful, happy humanoids who worship an ancient computer. He decides that this is beneath their dignity, and in violation of even the Prime Directive of TOS destroys that computer and ruins their civilization, brutally pushing them into a hunter-gatherer society they weren't prepared for. (Yes, the computer tried to destroy the Enterprise - but only after Kirk started messing with its people.)
"I, Mudd" - I find it difficult to believe that standard Federation treatment for a serial criminal like Harry Mudd is to simply abandon him on an alien world, subject to the whims of an unknown and possibly unstable alien technology (it was pitifully simple for Spock to overcome their ability to reason, and someone with thoughts as twisty as Mudd's would have been offworld again inside a year).
"Friday's Child" - this one was more on McCoy, but he blatantly ignored the Capellans' societal mores because he preferred his own, which is pretty much exactly the sort of thing the Prime Directive is intended to stop.
"Obsession" - Starfleet isn't supposed to deal with an unknown life form that exhibits intelligence by using ship's phasers to open communication. But it's okay here, because Jim ordered it, and we know he's always right - the creature couldn't possibly have killed anyone by accident in a simple attempt to communicate with them using its own species' methods.
"A Piece of the Action" - Gangster World there might have been weird, and admittedly Kirk tried to stay within their societal mold while working with them, but he did commit the Federation to sending ships to collect tribute, essentially creating a treaty with a foreign government on his own authority. Pretty sure that's more authority than a ship's captain is supposed to take.
"A Private Little War" - It was a marvelous allegory for the expansion of the war in Vietnam, but Kirk's decision to arm his preferred side on Neural just because the Klingons were arming the other, without awaiting orders from Command first, was a clear violation of the Directive.
That's... a lot more violations of both orders and good military order than Burnham has ever even been accused of.
As Janeway said "the whole lot of them would have been booted out of Starfleet today"
Here's how the chain of command works: if you are given a legal order you believe to be unwise and your superior is of sound mind, you voice your concerns to your superior. A good superior will take it into account (and in fact a major part of the job of first officer or executive officer is to act as a sounding board for the captain), and Georgiou indeed did. But if they tell you to do it anyway, you follow your orders. You do not assault and incapacitate your CO because you think you know better!
And here's how morality works. You are give a legal order that's immoral or unwise and you question your direct superior who is of sound mind but doesn't possess the same morality as you.. So you disobey and take a different route and don't just to get to rest easy later using the obviously legal 'only following orders' line.
In the end it doesn't matter if Burnham mutinied or not because all paths lead to T'Kuvma declaring war but by just producing blanket statements that people should follow orders regardless of any other factors like good little robots is banal.
Or should Kirk have fired the Augmentpedos at Kronos? Marcus was his direct superior and of sound mind acting in his legitimate job giving Kirk a direct order. Trek is full of Admirals of the week only there to be ignored by the main characters giving stupid orders.
Burnham clearly believed her actions would prevent a war and her captains would lead to one, now wars are generally very bad things but I'm sure Burnham could have relaxed on a beach somewhere safe in the knowledge it wasn't her fault even though she had the ability to stop it all before it started with a simple mutiny. Billions dead, but hey, she followed orders instead of taking the easy route of acting for the general good and not the legal good.
I can't believe what you've extrapolated out of this. Let's see:
Gorgeous' orders were both legal and moral! There was no grey area here. This was a difference of opinion, and a captain's opinion trumps that of a first officer every time. The immoral part of this was BurntHam's mutiny. She had zero grounds, and her logic was erroneous. Regardless of the Klingon's intent, which cannot be known to the character at the time of the mutiny, Georgiou's orders were in perfect synch with the law, service precedent, and morality. Burnham demonstrated that she was not qualified for the command track, should never have been allowed so close to the command chair, and should never have been allowed to go back to a similar position even after a lifetime of contrition and restitution.
Marcus's orders, as explained by Spock in the movie, were not legal, not based in service precedent, and immoral! It was Kirk's duty to disobey unlawful orders.
SPOCK: As I am again your First Officer, it is now my duty to strongly object to our mission parameters.
KIRK: Of course it is.
SPOCK: There is no Starfleet regulation that condemns a man to die without a trial, something you and Admiral Marcus are forgetting. Also, preemptively firing torpedoes at the Klingon homeworld goes against
KIRK: You yourself said the area's uninhabited. There's only going to be one casualty. And in case you weren't listening, our orders have nothing to do with Starfleet regulation.
MCCOY: Wait a minute. We're firing torpedoes at the Klingons?
SPOCK: Regulations aside, this action is morally wrong.
Yes, thank you for that, Brian. These scenarios are similar in only one way: To fire on a foreign military asset is an act of war, and Starfleet is subservient to civilian authorities and therefore (in any sane universe with real-time communications to the command structure) doesn't have the authority to unilaterally commit the Federation to war (which firing first at the Klingons in both "The Vulcan Hello" and Into Whiteness would have done, and was intended to in the latter case).
Therefore, based on the other series, "Starfleet does not fire first" reads to me as less Georgiou's opinion and more as a standard peacetime rule of engagement: one might rephrase it as, "do not fire until fired upon", which is indeed what Starfleet does in the actual battle in episode two. Ergo, Georgiou's orders are both legal and moral, and Marcus's are not (and neither are Burnham's to the bridge crew, for that matter).
By the way, the Vulcans did the same thing. Burnham fundamentally misunderstood the "Vulcan hello": Sarek told her that the Klingons attacked a Vulcan ship, not the other way around, and the Vulcans simply retaliated by fighting the Klingons to a standstill in the subsequent conflict. The "Vulcan hello" isn't "shoot first if you think the other guy is looking for trouble", it's "never start a fight but always finish it" or "never throw the first punch, always throw the last punch".
I'm just going to add something to what I said earlier: The reason the standard is "lawful orders" rather than "moral orders" is because morality can differ from person to person and situation to situation, but law, including general orders, standing orders, and rules of engagement, reflects the standards of the organization and is (usually) pretty black and white on what is acceptable. And in the case of war in particular, a lot of normal morality has to be suspended. E.g. normally most cultures consider killing people to be immoral, but war is killing, no matter the justification or lack thereof. So you go by, is killing this person fully authorized by your command structure and system of laws, from the treaty level (e.g. Seldonis IV Convention), to the branch of government that authorizes the war effort (in Star Trek, presumably the Federation Council), down to mission-specific rules of engagement. So for example, under the Geneva Conventions you're not permitted to kill a combatant who's trying to surrender, but you are permitted to kill one who claims he is and then pulls a knife on you: the former is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, the latter is justified (and under the Geneva Conventions, a fake surrender is itself a war crime: the technical term is "perfidy").
This is a standard that the United States developed, early in its history. I like this story because it's illustrative of a great deal about how the US government and system of law is supposed to work. Back in the late 1790s, the US got into an undeclared war with post-Revolution France (if you'll excuse some black comedy, the US had defaulted on its Revolutionary War debt to France on grounds that it was owed to a government that had been rather literally decapitated). Congress passed a law permitting the Navy to seize ships traveling to French ports, but the executive order from the Adams Administration enacting the law specified "to or from French ports". As such, a US Navy ship seized a Danish ship leaving a French port, and the Danish crew sued the Navy in US court and won, on grounds that the orders from the President authorizing the seizure exceeded what Congress had authorized. The US Supreme Court upheld this ruling, a case called Little v. Barreme, and thus was the "lawful versus unlawful orders" doctrine enshrined in US law (and subsequently imported into international law by the Nuremberg trials, at the suggestion of the United States).
And this is why the USS Pegasus incident is so interesting. I know I waved it off as small potatoes up-page, but regardless of the rightness or wrongness of it (a moral judgement, which I disagree with), the fact is that at that time, rightly or wrongly, researching a cloaking device is unlawful (a legal judgement, which is valid regardless of whether or not I think it's foolish), and therefore removing then-Captain Pressman from command is justifiable. And that's why the Riker of the present day regrets defending him.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
"The Apple" - Kirk finds a planet of peaceful, happy humanoids who worship an ancient computer. He decides that this is beneath their dignity, and in violation of even the Prime Directive of TOS destroys that computer and ruins their civilization, brutally pushing them into a hunter-gatherer society they weren't prepared for. (Yes, the computer tried to destroy the Enterprise - but only after Kirk started messing with its people.)
"I, Mudd" - I find it difficult to believe that standard Federation treatment for a serial criminal like Harry Mudd is to simply abandon him on an alien world, subject to the whims of an unknown and possibly unstable alien technology (it was pitifully simple for Spock to overcome their ability to reason, and someone with thoughts as twisty as Mudd's would have been offworld again inside a year).
"Friday's Child" - this one was more on McCoy, but he blatantly ignored the Capellans' societal mores because he preferred his own, which is pretty much exactly the sort of thing the Prime Directive is intended to stop.
"Obsession" - Starfleet isn't supposed to deal with an unknown life form that exhibits intelligence by using ship's phasers to open communication. But it's okay here, because Jim ordered it, and we know he's always right - the creature couldn't possibly have killed anyone by accident in a simple attempt to communicate with them using its own species' methods.
"A Piece of the Action" - Gangster World there might have been weird, and admittedly Kirk tried to stay within their societal mold while working with them, but he did commit the Federation to sending ships to collect tribute, essentially creating a treaty with a foreign government on his own authority. Pretty sure that's more authority than a ship's captain is supposed to take.
"A Private Little War" - It was a marvelous allegory for the expansion of the war in Vietnam, but Kirk's decision to arm his preferred side on Neural just because the Klingons were arming the other, without awaiting orders from Command first, was a clear violation of the Directive.
That's... a lot more violations of both orders and good military order than Burnham has ever even been accused of.
A few of these can be justified a little bit by the fact that in TOS they apparently didn't have the ability to communicate with Starfleet Command in real time (which they did in the later series).
And since Disco is set ten years pre-TOS, one can assume similar limitations (no idea how Burnham got that realtime comm with Vulcan, though).
Oh, and the violation in "Friday's Child"? Capellan mores called for the child to be abandoned when the father was killed. McCoy disagreed with that, and violated the Prime Directive to save the child over the mother's objections. (That's part of why the mother named her son "Leonard".)
> @jonsills said: > starswordc wrote: » > > jonsills wrote: » > > "The Apple" - Kirk finds a planet of peaceful, happy humanoids who worship an ancient computer. He decides that this is beneath their dignity, and in violation of even the Prime Directive of TOS destroys that computer and ruins their civilization, brutally pushing them into a hunter-gatherer society they weren't prepared for. (Yes, the computer tried to destroy the Enterprise - but only after Kirk started messing with its people.) > > "I, Mudd" - I find it difficult to believe that standard Federation treatment for a serial criminal like Harry Mudd is to simply abandon him on an alien world, subject to the whims of an unknown and possibly unstable alien technology (it was pitifully simple for Spock to overcome their ability to reason, and someone with thoughts as twisty as Mudd's would have been offworld again inside a year). > > "Friday's Child" - this one was more on McCoy, but he blatantly ignored the Capellans' societal mores because he preferred his own, which is pretty much exactly the sort of thing the Prime Directive is intended to stop. > > "Obsession" - Starfleet isn't supposed to deal with an unknown life form that exhibits intelligence by using ship's phasers to open communication. But it's okay here, because Jim ordered it, and we know he's always right - the creature couldn't possibly have killed anyone by accident in a simple attempt to communicate with them using its own species' methods. > > "A Piece of the Action" - Gangster World there might have been weird, and admittedly Kirk tried to stay within their societal mold while working with them, but he did commit the Federation to sending ships to collect tribute, essentially creating a treaty with a foreign government on his own authority. Pretty sure that's more authority than a ship's captain is supposed to take. > > "A Private Little War" - It was a marvelous allegory for the expansion of the war in Vietnam, but Kirk's decision to arm his preferred side on Neural just because the Klingons were arming the other, without awaiting orders from Command first, was a clear violation of the Directive. > > That's... a lot more violations of both orders and good military order than Burnham has ever even been accused of. > > > > > A few of these can be justified a little bit by the fact that in TOS they apparently didn't have the ability to communicate with Starfleet Command in real time (which they did in the later series). > > > > And since Disco is set ten years pre-TOS, one can assume similar limitations (no idea how Burnham got that realtime comm with Vulcan, though). > > Oh, and the violation in "Friday's Child"? Capellan mores called for the child to be abandoned when the father was killed. McCoy disagreed with that, and violated the Prime Directive to save the child over the mother's objections. (That's part of why the mother named her son "Leonard".)
They were out there to fix a communications relay. Did they fix the relay before everything popped off?
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Actually Sarek said that after the first Klingon attack the Vulcans adopted a pokicy of firing first when sightung Klingon vessels, which eventually lead the Klingons to respect their combat capability enough to talk.
Yeah, that's... kinda exactly what I said. The point is, the Klingons initiated the conflict, not the Vulcans; the Vulcans just finished it. Which is the opposite of what Burnham tried to do.
"The Apple" - Kirk finds a planet of peaceful, happy humanoids who worship an ancient computer. He decides that this is beneath their dignity, and in violation of even the Prime Directive of TOS destroys that computer and ruins their civilization, brutally pushing them into a hunter-gatherer society they weren't prepared for. (Yes, the computer tried to destroy the Enterprise - but only after Kirk started messing with its people.)
"I, Mudd" - I find it difficult to believe that standard Federation treatment for a serial criminal like Harry Mudd is to simply abandon him on an alien world, subject to the whims of an unknown and possibly unstable alien technology (it was pitifully simple for Spock to overcome their ability to reason, and someone with thoughts as twisty as Mudd's would have been offworld again inside a year).
"Friday's Child" - this one was more on McCoy, but he blatantly ignored the Capellans' societal mores because he preferred his own, which is pretty much exactly the sort of thing the Prime Directive is intended to stop.
"Obsession" - Starfleet isn't supposed to deal with an unknown life form that exhibits intelligence by using ship's phasers to open communication. But it's okay here, because Jim ordered it, and we know he's always right - the creature couldn't possibly have killed anyone by accident in a simple attempt to communicate with them using its own species' methods.
"A Piece of the Action" - Gangster World there might have been weird, and admittedly Kirk tried to stay within their societal mold while working with them, but he did commit the Federation to sending ships to collect tribute, essentially creating a treaty with a foreign government on his own authority. Pretty sure that's more authority than a ship's captain is supposed to take.
"A Private Little War" - It was a marvelous allegory for the expansion of the war in Vietnam, but Kirk's decision to arm his preferred side on Neural just because the Klingons were arming the other, without awaiting orders from Command first, was a clear violation of the Directive.
That's... a lot more violations of both orders and good military order than Burnham has ever even been accused of.
A few of these can be justified a little bit by the fact that in TOS they apparently didn't have the ability to communicate with Starfleet Command in real time (which they did in the later series).
And since Disco is set ten years pre-TOS, one can assume similar limitations (no idea how Burnham got that realtime comm with Vulcan, though).
Oh, and the violation in "Friday's Child"? Capellan mores called for the child to be abandoned when the father was killed. McCoy disagreed with that, and violated the Prime Directive to save the child over the mother's objections. (That's part of why the mother named her son "Leonard".)
And I can't say I disagree with him for doing that. In TOS the Prime Directive was treated much more as a guideline than an absolute rule. Though I reckon Starfleet let that one slide to flip the bird to the Klingons more than anything else.
I can't defend "The Apple" or "Obsession" (haven't seen either episode to know it well enough to talk it out), though the latter reminds me of the whole thing with the whale probe in ST4. Maybe Kirk learned better?
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Comments
Instead, Burnham's solution, evidence-based though it may have been, was rejected out of hand - Georgiou even said, in so many words, "Starfleet doesn't shoot first." Really, you're trying to extrapolate overall human values based on the actions of a protagonist who was not yet a "hero", and who may have been wrong. There's a lot of moral ambiguity around the actions of the former Commander Michael Burnham. I know, I know, you've been taught by Hollywood that when the protagonist acts, it's always the correct thing. As a reader of science fiction since childhood, some fifty years back (family legend is unclear on when I started to read novels independently, but it was definitely no older than five), I'm used to protagonists who TRIBBLE up and have to be corrected (Dr. Conway in Hospital Station, or John Lyle in "If This Goes On--").
I don't have a problem with the notion that utopia needs guardians who sometimes have to do unkind things. I have a problem with the notion that in order to guard it, you need an unaccountable shadow government agency motivated by an ultranationalist ideology, especially when the "guys who do the necessary nasty" role is already covered by Starfleet and in particular Starfleet Intelligence.
Underhanded things Starfleet Intelligence does:
- Research cloaking devices. Okay, it's an illegal act, but seriously, all they were doing was an R&D project on a technology the Federation already understands. And it's not like the Romulan Star Empire has any problem pushing the limits of its half of the treaty: for Prophets' sake, they tried to invade a Federation core planet during the same series. (An incompetent act of war is still an act of war.)
- Send Miles O'Brien undercover to infiltrate the Orion Syndicate. I think we can pretty much all agree this is a good use of covert operations even if there hadn't turned out to be a Dominion connection.
The rest of their remit is mostly just the normal information-gathering and counterintelligence stuff that every government does.Underhanded things Section 31 does:
You see the difference here?
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Here's how the chain of command works: if you are given a legal order you believe to be unwise and your superior is of sound mind, you voice your concerns to your superior. A good superior will take it into account (and in fact a major part of the job of first officer or executive officer is to act as a sounding board for the captain), and Georgiou indeed did. But if they tell you to do it anyway, you follow your orders. You do not assault and incapacitate your CO because you think you know better!
And in fact as the viewer, we know better than Burnham what's going on: the Klingons are there to pick a fight regardless of what the Federation does. Shooting first just means the political side of the conflict is frakked up and Burnham gets blamed for starting an unnecessary war, rather than people perceiving that the Klingons started the war and Starfleet only dutifully responded. That's right, it turns out there's as much a practical aspect to not shooting first as there is a moral one.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
That's not how I remember that episode. It was the Gideon government's idea to import the disease to deal with an overpopulation crisis, not the Federation's idea to commit genocide against the Gideons. The Federation was as much in the dark about it as Kirk was.
(Why would anyone want to genocide Bible salesmen? LOL)
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Let's say the take 2019 to write Section 31, 2020 to make it, that would suggest a release date of 2021 or 2022 at the latest. That suggests if the boss thinks discovery will be over by then she thinks it will last at max 4 to 5 years, that is far fromna vote of confedence given TNG, DS9, and Voy all lasted 7 seasons with nearly twice as many episodes per season. That is not a vote of confedence.
> lordgyor wrote: »
>
> Let's say the take 2019 to write Section 31, 2020 to make it, that would suggest a release date of 2021 or 2022 at the latest. That suggests if the boss thinks discovery will be over by then she thinks it will last at max 4 to 5 years, that is far fromna vote of confedence given TNG, DS9, and Voy all lasted 7 seasons with nearly twice as many episodes per season. That is not a vote of confedence.
>
>
>
> This ignores that TNG, DS9, and VOY were made in an era when "episode of the week" formatting, with no overarching storyline, or just a background overarching storyline, was still popular. Whereas nowadays most people scoff at the idea of "filler" episodes, and shows are far more narrative based, and thus tend to end quicker because they tell their story and are done.
>
> Its easy to spell doom and gloom when you ignore the fundamental difference between what each show tries to do, and the era in which they are made.
>
> Also, shes going to be in S3 of Disco
> http://trekcore.com/blog/2019/01/kurtzman-kadin-picard-georgiou-shows-star-trek-discovery-season-3/ TREKCORE: How do you see a character like ‘evil’ Mirror Georgiou fitting into the overall optimism of the Star Trek universe?
>
> HEATHER KADIN: What’s great about her, even though yes, she’s quote-unquote ‘evil,’ she’s still within our world that’s been created. I think so much of her ‘evilness’ comes from the deliciousness of her enjoyment of the character, and as an actress playing the role [of prime Georgiou].
>
> You should never feel like, “Meanwhile, on a whole other show…” It really feels of a piece.
>
> TREKCORE: Is there any kind of timeline for when we might see [the Section 31 show]?
>
> KADIN: Not officially, but she’ll be in ‘Discovery’ Season 3.
>
> […]
>
> NEARBY INTERVIEWER LEANS IN:Did you say Georgiou was in Season 3?
>
> TREKCORE: Season 2?
>
> KADIN: And Season 3, yes.
>
> TREKCORE: Oh!
>
> KADIN: Yes.
>
>
>
>
>
> If that rumored Starfleet Academy show gets made I don't expect it to last more then 4 seasons. Season 1 begins with them entering the Academy, and season 4 ends with graduation/them getting assigned off to various ships. Its not like TNG, DS9, or VOY, where its meant to go on for 7 seasons with a bunch of one off episodes making up a large pat of it, its made to tell a story, and once that story is done, its over.
That is all possible, although there are ways to get say 7 seasons out of Star Trek Academy. Simular shows, without the sci fi elements, have gotten around that I think.
And here's how morality works. You are give a legal order that's immoral or unwise and you question your direct superior who is of sound mind but doesn't possess the same morality as you.. So you disobey and take a different route and don't just to get to rest easy later using the obviously legal 'only following orders' line.
In the end it doesn't matter if Burnham mutinied or not because all paths lead to T'Kuvma declaring war but by just producing blanket statements that people should follow orders regardless of any other factors like good little robots is banal.
Or should Kirk have fired the Augmentpedos at Kronos? Marcus was his direct superior and of sound mind acting in his legitimate job giving Kirk a direct order. Trek is full of Admirals of the week only there to be ignored by the main characters giving stupid orders.
Burnham clearly believed her actions would prevent a war and her captains would lead to one, now wars are generally very bad things but I'm sure Burnham could have relaxed on a beach somewhere safe in the knowledge it wasn't her fault even though she had the ability to stop it all before it started with a simple mutiny. Billions dead, but hey, she followed orders instead of taking the easy route of acting for the general good and not the legal good.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I can't believe what you've extrapolated out of this. Let's see:
Gorgeous' orders were both legal and moral! There was no grey area here. This was a difference of opinion, and a captain's opinion trumps that of a first officer every time. The immoral part of this was BurntHam's mutiny. She had zero grounds, and her logic was erroneous. Regardless of the Klingon's intent, which cannot be known to the character at the time of the mutiny, Georgiou's orders were in perfect synch with the law, service precedent, and morality. Burnham demonstrated that she was not qualified for the command track, should never have been allowed so close to the command chair, and should never have been allowed to go back to a similar position even after a lifetime of contrition and restitution.
Marcus's orders, as explained by Spock in the movie, were not legal, not based in service precedent, and immoral! It was Kirk's duty to disobey unlawful orders.
My character Tsin'xing
My character Tsin'xing
I get that. It is not grounds for mutiny. For all the evidence at hand when the mutiny happened, this might have been the Klingon's way of opening peace negotiations. Alien psychology, and all that.
Mysterious? Yes. Grounds for disobeying a lawful order? Nope.
As for what aliens might do, read Footfall by Larry Niven. In that book aliens attacked Earth with a (tiny) moon, with the intent of demonstrating to humans how powerful the aliens were, how helpless the humans were, and how humans should immediately surrender and become a part of the aliens' culture.
Knowing humans as I do I realize that's an unrealistic expectation, but among these aliens, terms of peace always begin with a demonstration of strength.
So, Burnham did not, and could not have known the intentions of the Klingons. Any decision based on her opinion carries exactly that much weight, and a difference of opinion is not grounds for mutiny. She should never have been allowed to wear the Starfleet uniform again, much less become second in command.
(I know, eye-strain Lorca; however, Starfleet has a bureau of personnel which should have vetted any appointments Lorca made and denied this one out of hand.)
As for Section 31: I hope the show does well. I hope my misgivings prove groundless and Starfleet begins to show some of the professionalism and competence it's always been portrayed to have. And I hope we get a shw that upholds the values of Starfleet rather than pays lip service to them.
Yes, thank you for that, Brian.
Therefore, based on the other series, "Starfleet does not fire first" reads to me as less Georgiou's opinion and more as a standard peacetime rule of engagement: one might rephrase it as, "do not fire until fired upon", which is indeed what Starfleet does in the actual battle in episode two. Ergo, Georgiou's orders are both legal and moral, and Marcus's are not (and neither are Burnham's to the bridge crew, for that matter).
By the way, the Vulcans did the same thing. Burnham fundamentally misunderstood the "Vulcan hello": Sarek told her that the Klingons attacked a Vulcan ship, not the other way around, and the Vulcans simply retaliated by fighting the Klingons to a standstill in the subsequent conflict. The "Vulcan hello" isn't "shoot first if you think the other guy is looking for trouble", it's "never start a fight but always finish it" or "never throw the first punch, always throw the last punch".
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Funny you should mention that. I'm halfway through Season 2 right now, and I'm having trouble coming up with examples. Spock's PonFarr? Yes, but Kirk wrestled with that decision and decided his friend's life was worth his career. Commodore Decker? Irrational due to grief, and was repeating the same mistake that cost him his ship, as Spock pointed out. How about the commodore who got them caught in the Neutral Zone after Kirk got old?
I'm curious to see what you can come up with, because I'm coming up dry on this "disobeying legal, reasonable orders constantly" thing.
"I, Mudd" - I find it difficult to believe that standard Federation treatment for a serial criminal like Harry Mudd is to simply abandon him on an alien world, subject to the whims of an unknown and possibly unstable alien technology (it was pitifully simple for Spock to overcome their ability to reason, and someone with thoughts as twisty as Mudd's would have been offworld again inside a year).
"Friday's Child" - this one was more on McCoy, but he blatantly ignored the Capellans' societal mores because he preferred his own, which is pretty much exactly the sort of thing the Prime Directive is intended to stop.
"Obsession" - Starfleet isn't supposed to deal with an unknown life form that exhibits intelligence by using ship's phasers to open communication. But it's okay here, because Jim ordered it, and we know he's always right - the creature couldn't possibly have killed anyone by accident in a simple attempt to communicate with them using its own species' methods.
"A Piece of the Action" - Gangster World there might have been weird, and admittedly Kirk tried to stay within their societal mold while working with them, but he did commit the Federation to sending ships to collect tribute, essentially creating a treaty with a foreign government on his own authority. Pretty sure that's more authority than a ship's captain is supposed to take.
"A Private Little War" - It was a marvelous allegory for the expansion of the war in Vietnam, but Kirk's decision to arm his preferred side on Neural just because the Klingons were arming the other, without awaiting orders from Command first, was a clear violation of the Directive.
That's... a lot more violations of both orders and good military order than Burnham has ever even been accused of.
The Fithp were interesting in that while alien conquerors they didn't actually want to kill anyone. Thus they spent most of the war trying to figure out how convince the Humans to surrender. If the Humans had played by Fithp rules being enslaved would have meant they would become loyal to the Fithp, which almost never happened. And the Fithp NEVER came to understand why. Which is why they didn't START by deploying Foot as a weapon. It was their last ditch option to force servitude.
At any rate, this really doesn't translate well into the context of Star Trek. The purpose of the "Vulcan hello" was not to intimidate the Klingons into surrender, it was to scare them into not attacking. Basically a more aggressive version of a warning shot.
My character Tsin'xing
A few of these can be justified a little bit by the fact that in TOS they apparently didn't have the ability to communicate with Starfleet Command in real time (which they did in the later series). They drew a lot of influence in TOS from classic military fiction e.g. Horatio Hornblower, which of course was set in a time when communicating beyond visual range in real time was impossible. This means commanding officers get more latitude to act since they don't have the capability of receiving orders to the contrary the minute a flag officer back at HQ can reach a phone, and consequently can get away with certain things on the principle of "it worked, and therefore it's better to ask forgiveness than permission". Of course, this means yet another place where ENT and DSC retconned things: those series do appear to have real-time communication at long distance, so it makes less sense for the CO to have as much latitude.*
It's also fairly consistent that the Prime Directive has a loophole if a third party interferes first (I saw the tail end of "Friday's Child" once on MeTV, and there was a Klingon involved), and in TOS (and DSC) the PD isn't applied to warp-capable civilizations (the Capellans aren't warp-capable, but they are already aware that extrasolar civilizations exist, which I guess is the next best thing).
* By the way, this is also why I dislike the second episode of The Orville: Lieutenant Kitan was given a direct order, to her face, by a five-star admiral, to return to base and await further orders, and she disobeyed it pretty much based on peer pressure, and came within a hair of getting her captain and first officer killed as a consequence. And yet she came away with a medal because she pulled it out at the last second.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
As Janeway said "the whole lot of them would have been booted out of Starfleet today"
I'm just going to add something to what I said earlier: The reason the standard is "lawful orders" rather than "moral orders" is because morality can differ from person to person and situation to situation, but law, including general orders, standing orders, and rules of engagement, reflects the standards of the organization and is (usually) pretty black and white on what is acceptable. And in the case of war in particular, a lot of normal morality has to be suspended. E.g. normally most cultures consider killing people to be immoral, but war is killing, no matter the justification or lack thereof. So you go by, is killing this person fully authorized by your command structure and system of laws, from the treaty level (e.g. Seldonis IV Convention), to the branch of government that authorizes the war effort (in Star Trek, presumably the Federation Council), down to mission-specific rules of engagement. So for example, under the Geneva Conventions you're not permitted to kill a combatant who's trying to surrender, but you are permitted to kill one who claims he is and then pulls a knife on you: the former is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, the latter is justified (and under the Geneva Conventions, a fake surrender is itself a war crime: the technical term is "perfidy").
This is a standard that the United States developed, early in its history. I like this story because it's illustrative of a great deal about how the US government and system of law is supposed to work. Back in the late 1790s, the US got into an undeclared war with post-Revolution France (if you'll excuse some black comedy, the US had defaulted on its Revolutionary War debt to France on grounds that it was owed to a government that had been rather literally decapitated). Congress passed a law permitting the Navy to seize ships traveling to French ports, but the executive order from the Adams Administration enacting the law specified "to or from French ports". As such, a US Navy ship seized a Danish ship leaving a French port, and the Danish crew sued the Navy in US court and won, on grounds that the orders from the President authorizing the seizure exceeded what Congress had authorized. The US Supreme Court upheld this ruling, a case called Little v. Barreme, and thus was the "lawful versus unlawful orders" doctrine enshrined in US law (and subsequently imported into international law by the Nuremberg trials, at the suggestion of the United States).
And this is why the USS Pegasus incident is so interesting. I know I waved it off as small potatoes up-page, but regardless of the rightness or wrongness of it (a moral judgement, which I disagree with), the fact is that at that time, rightly or wrongly, researching a cloaking device is unlawful (a legal judgement, which is valid regardless of whether or not I think it's foolish), and therefore removing then-Captain Pressman from command is justifiable. And that's why the Riker of the present day regrets defending him.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Oh, and the violation in "Friday's Child"? Capellan mores called for the child to be abandoned when the father was killed. McCoy disagreed with that, and violated the Prime Directive to save the child over the mother's objections. (That's part of why the mother named her son "Leonard".)
Hard pass.
I Support Disco | Disco is Love | Disco is Life
> starswordc wrote: »
>
> jonsills wrote: »
>
> "The Apple" - Kirk finds a planet of peaceful, happy humanoids who worship an ancient computer. He decides that this is beneath their dignity, and in violation of even the Prime Directive of TOS destroys that computer and ruins their civilization, brutally pushing them into a hunter-gatherer society they weren't prepared for. (Yes, the computer tried to destroy the Enterprise - but only after Kirk started messing with its people.)
>
> "I, Mudd" - I find it difficult to believe that standard Federation treatment for a serial criminal like Harry Mudd is to simply abandon him on an alien world, subject to the whims of an unknown and possibly unstable alien technology (it was pitifully simple for Spock to overcome their ability to reason, and someone with thoughts as twisty as Mudd's would have been offworld again inside a year).
>
> "Friday's Child" - this one was more on McCoy, but he blatantly ignored the Capellans' societal mores because he preferred his own, which is pretty much exactly the sort of thing the Prime Directive is intended to stop.
>
> "Obsession" - Starfleet isn't supposed to deal with an unknown life form that exhibits intelligence by using ship's phasers to open communication. But it's okay here, because Jim ordered it, and we know he's always right - the creature couldn't possibly have killed anyone by accident in a simple attempt to communicate with them using its own species' methods.
>
> "A Piece of the Action" - Gangster World there might have been weird, and admittedly Kirk tried to stay within their societal mold while working with them, but he did commit the Federation to sending ships to collect tribute, essentially creating a treaty with a foreign government on his own authority. Pretty sure that's more authority than a ship's captain is supposed to take.
>
> "A Private Little War" - It was a marvelous allegory for the expansion of the war in Vietnam, but Kirk's decision to arm his preferred side on Neural just because the Klingons were arming the other, without awaiting orders from Command first, was a clear violation of the Directive.
>
> That's... a lot more violations of both orders and good military order than Burnham has ever even been accused of.
>
>
>
>
> A few of these can be justified a little bit by the fact that in TOS they apparently didn't have the ability to communicate with Starfleet Command in real time (which they did in the later series).
>
>
>
> And since Disco is set ten years pre-TOS, one can assume similar limitations (no idea how Burnham got that realtime comm with Vulcan, though).
>
> Oh, and the violation in "Friday's Child"? Capellan mores called for the child to be abandoned when the father was killed. McCoy disagreed with that, and violated the Prime Directive to save the child over the mother's objections. (That's part of why the mother named her son "Leonard".)
They were out there to fix a communications relay. Did they fix the relay before everything popped off?
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Yeah, that's... kinda exactly what I said. The point is, the Klingons initiated the conflict, not the Vulcans; the Vulcans just finished it. Which is the opposite of what Burnham tried to do.
Yeah, like I said: retcons.
And I can't say I disagree with him for doing that. In TOS the Prime Directive was treated much more as a guideline than an absolute rule. Though I reckon Starfleet let that one slide to flip the bird to the Klingons more than anything else.
I can't defend "The Apple" or "Obsession" (haven't seen either episode to know it well enough to talk it out), though the latter reminds me of the whole thing with the whale probe in ST4. Maybe Kirk learned better?
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/