Timey wimey.
In different timelines, the Federation was defeated by the Klingons, the Borg, the Xindi and who knows what else.
In some timelines, the Klingons will certainly join.
We do not know what timeline STO follows in that regard. It would not even break canon for a change if it is a different one. It is just that - a different timeline.
Isn't it odd that some people who complain about canon always seem to forget that Star Trek has established alternate universes? Many of them in fact. It is canon that there are many different timelines, all of which are just as "real" as the next.
*The Feds' allies desert them all the time. The only permanent Federation allies end up as part of it.
**While the Battles of Wolf 359 and Sector 001 were relatively minor blows to the Federation, I would argue that the Dominion War did accomplish some of the above goals. It forced the "sunshine and puppies" feds to come to terms with reality. Now I just want to see a civil war that pits the remaining sunshine and puppies feds (who are apparently still prevalent) against those who acknowledge the difficult realities of the universe.
I actually think the ideological divides of the Federation were more a reflection of the various writers/directors' creative visions for the franchise.
Roddenberry envisioned a very idealized work where humanity, (in a way the only ones who matter in the franchise since they have a basis in reality as opposed to the aliens who are either analogues for non-Western nations or concepts writ large) is trying to better itself and expand its mind.
Other writers wanted to do adventure/action stories and the plots for those are far more compelling if the people are flawed and fallible.
Star Trek is at it's best when it occupies the middle.
The Motion Picture was to most people horrible because it was dull, a bit up it's own TRIBBLE, and preachy. (I will say the interpersonal conflict between Kirk and Decker was good.)
The other extreme was encompassed by the last three Star Trek movies. They had a ton of big action, but were plot hole ridden monstrosities with several unlikeable characters.
What the Federation does in 50-100 years is hard to say. I don't think they would revert to the high-minded and sanctimonious Roddenberry era of TNG. Especially in a future launched from this game. Way too many dead to act like that. At the same time it'd be nice if the conflict was a bit internal kind of like America has now. Do we want/can we intervene in more places? Have our democratic (small d) politics ground to a standstill? What does a society do when it basically has everything it needs and it's immediate borders are secure. (Rising rates of holoaddiction maybe.)
I don't think an outright civil war would happen unless Starfleet was effectively mothballed by the flower-brigade and some Andorian extremist revenged themselves on the Vulcans over some ancient slight.
The other extreme was encompassed by the last three Star Trek movies. They had a ton of big action, but were plot hole ridden monstrosities with several unlikeable characters.
The absolute worst example of this is Nemesis ... Shinzon was one of the worst Trek villains of all time. Replace him with Sela and the movie is 10 times better, guaranteed. She has a personal connection to Picard, like Shinzon, but without being a ridiculous clone.
The absolute worst example of this is Nemesis ... Shinzon was one of the worst Trek villains of all time. Replace him with Sela and the movie is 10 times better, guaranteed. She has a personal connection to Picard, like Shinzon, but without being a ridiculous clone.
Agreed, also no mind ****. That was just too damn much by Shinzon.
Let me get this straight. You think a large chunk of the Federation / Starfleet is going to take up arms against their comrades and engage in civil war... because they don't want to go to war against an invading force in another section of the galaxy. And it doesn't occur to them to just sit it out instead. And it reached that point of intractable disagreement because nobody bothered to use the democratic mechanisms of civil government or the strategic and doctrinal decision making authority of Starfleet Command to settle the issue and enforce a consensus on the highly disciplined and loyal Starfleet rank and file.
Sure, that makes perfect sense!!
I can see it now, two former Starfleet brothers in arms, locked in bloody combat over this bitter divide.
Pro-War Officer: Oh bitter irony, we were once on the same side! Why must we be at odds?!
Anti-War Officer: Because I don't want to fight another war!
PWO: Then why are you fighting one against ME?
AWO: I DON'T KNOW!
Compelling drama, indeed.
I was thinking more along the lines of: the Democratic system of the Federation elects NOT to go to war, but then half of Starfleet defects and goes with the Klingons anyway. As a result, the Anti-War starfleet attempt to apprehend them (not intending to start a war), but the pro-war AWOL Starfleet fights back, and the war starts anyway.
Comments
Isn't it odd that some people who complain about canon always seem to forget that Star Trek has established alternate universes? Many of them in fact. It is canon that there are many different timelines, all of which are just as "real" as the next.
I actually think the ideological divides of the Federation were more a reflection of the various writers/directors' creative visions for the franchise.
Roddenberry envisioned a very idealized work where humanity, (in a way the only ones who matter in the franchise since they have a basis in reality as opposed to the aliens who are either analogues for non-Western nations or concepts writ large) is trying to better itself and expand its mind.
Other writers wanted to do adventure/action stories and the plots for those are far more compelling if the people are flawed and fallible.
Star Trek is at it's best when it occupies the middle.
The Motion Picture was to most people horrible because it was dull, a bit up it's own TRIBBLE, and preachy. (I will say the interpersonal conflict between Kirk and Decker was good.)
The other extreme was encompassed by the last three Star Trek movies. They had a ton of big action, but were plot hole ridden monstrosities with several unlikeable characters.
What the Federation does in 50-100 years is hard to say. I don't think they would revert to the high-minded and sanctimonious Roddenberry era of TNG. Especially in a future launched from this game. Way too many dead to act like that. At the same time it'd be nice if the conflict was a bit internal kind of like America has now. Do we want/can we intervene in more places? Have our democratic (small d) politics ground to a standstill? What does a society do when it basically has everything it needs and it's immediate borders are secure. (Rising rates of holoaddiction maybe.)
I don't think an outright civil war would happen unless Starfleet was effectively mothballed by the flower-brigade and some Andorian extremist revenged themselves on the Vulcans over some ancient slight.
The absolute worst example of this is Nemesis ... Shinzon was one of the worst Trek villains of all time. Replace him with Sela and the movie is 10 times better, guaranteed. She has a personal connection to Picard, like Shinzon, but without being a ridiculous clone.
Agreed, also no mind ****. That was just too damn much by Shinzon.
I was thinking more along the lines of: the Democratic system of the Federation elects NOT to go to war, but then half of Starfleet defects and goes with the Klingons anyway. As a result, the Anti-War starfleet attempt to apprehend them (not intending to start a war), but the pro-war AWOL Starfleet fights back, and the war starts anyway.