Guys, first of all, though it's interesting to see this kind of discussion on this topic, remember that there are no such things as Iconians, Heralds, Romulans, et al. Good? Good.
Second, have a little faith that the weapon ship won't actually be the end all of this entire thing. There are too many other plot threads left open to just resolve it THAT way. Like the "Other", whatever it is. And what's this "The Whole must be as One" thing? What are the Iconians after there? Or Sela could show up with a Dominion fleet and play the (anti)hero. And then of course there's the temporal shields of the Krenim to hide whole freakin' planets.
Having said all that, if the devs choose to take the route of the weapon ship, I really hope they give the option NOT to pull the trigger to the player. Something on this scale, considering the temporal repercussions of wiping out a 200,000 year old race, if that's the route, doesn't seem Trek without a reset button or an option to choose it.
In any case, canon insurance can come into this as well (as canon has in writing other FEs). Don't we have some kind of war against the Sphere Builders yet to happen in the 31st century? With the Enterprise-J and the Xindi leading the way?
But they were real. To the people in the ship they saw a planet full of people, and hit a button that made them all go away. Other people might never know you did it, but you willfully removed an entire civilization.
Plato, Descartes, and other Realists/Idealists would like to have a word with you about the notion that "Essence precedes existence" and a hierarchy of reality ...
1. they're dead
2. you asked
3. it's not my definition; go yell at merriam and webster if you have issues with it - assuming they aren't also dead
1. Plenty of metaphysical Realists/Idealists and ontological Essentialists still populate the Philosophy departments of a number of colleges and universities.
2. I dared you to define it.
3. Noah Webster died in 1843. George Merriam died in 1880 and his brother Charles died in 1887.
Back on topic:
In "Time in a Bottle," M'Tara seemed to be acting as the Ego between the Id that was T'Ket and the Superego that was L'Mirien. She was calm and collected. She made statements such as "We cannot risk further losses." Then we get "Broken Circle," and she's gone full-on God complex intent on risking the loss of her own life. So perhaps not merely capricious, but also afflicted with a few psychoses as well. But it did seem rather out-of-character for her until we remember that she was the Iconian who obliterated Klingons in the Great Hall for mere dissent and wiped out a patrol or platoon (can't say which for sure without going back and taking a headcount, and the desolation on ch'Mol'Rihan is not something I enjoyed playing through the first time on a single character, let alone the other times necessary to collect all the rewards for every character I wanted to have them at that time) of RRF personnel after they won the battle in the defense of the Hwael Ruins. So pointing to her "You are forgiven" after one of the Heralds begged mercy from her as some sort of evidence that she's a nice person is a little forgetful, or just plain ... imperceptive.
Everybody's all bent out of shape over the mere possibility that the Krenim weapon is going to be used to totally eradicate a species, but we have to face the fact that the Iconians are not nice people, they're too afflicted with hubris to sit down and talk, and we are not the ones who started this war. So yeah, no, we're not shooting first and asking questions later. They shot first, initially back in the VOY era by use of the Undine as pawns against the Borg, and subsequently by using other pawns, graduating to the use of servitors, and finally brought themselves along to "punish" Klingons and Romulans for celebrating victories (in the first case, for celebrating a victory over Undine pawns, and in the second case, for celebrating a victory over servitors). This is a war which will not be won by appeasement or negotiation. This is a war which will be won by total annihilation of the threat (that means "Kill 'em all" -- which, whether done in defense or not, is still genocide, thus laying bare the stupidity of legalistic views of ethics such as insist that an act in itself is good or evil, without any regard to consequences, attitudes, intentions, motivations, contexts, etc), or their removal from the field of battle by some other means.
In any case, canon insurance can come into this as well (as canon has in writing other FEs). Don't we have some kind of war against the Sphere Builders yet to happen in the 31st century? With the Enterprise-J and the Xindi leading the way?
But 'Enterprise' was nothing more than a dramatized, work of holofiction that took huge creative licence with historical events to make it more entertaining for the 'reader'.
1. Plenty of metaphysical Realists/Idealists and ontological Essentialists still populate the Philosophy departments of a number of colleges and universities.
2. I dared you to define it.
3. Noah Webster died in 1843. George Merriam died in 1880 and his brother Charles died in 1887.
1. i don't give a TRIBBLE about nonsense like that
2. no, you didn't; you dared anacharas
3. again, i don't give a TRIBBLE; you asked for a definition, i answered, and had i known i was going to get a TRIBBLE lecture, i wouldn't have said a single god damn thing!
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
If the Krenim weapon can remove elements from the timeline, why does it mean that all it can do is erase entire civilizations? Just because that's the only thing Annorax chose to do with it doesn't mean that's all it can do.
Granted it's unlikely, but we might find a way to end the conflict without wiping out the Iconians completely. Maybe it's enough to fiddle with the parameters to change the outcome.
Any which way, the dialogue has repeatedly warned of unintended consequences for using the weapon so it's pretty safe to say that there will be some bad result. We might wipe out the Iconians only to find we have to undo that.
The notion of "killing" people by altering time so that they don't stop existing, but instead never existed, has some interesting implications.
If we are to take the words that are used seriously, then it can't be wrong, in the ordinary sense, to delete somone from time, since you aren't harming him, since he never existed, and you can't harm somone who doesn't exist.
What I mean is, there is a difference between thinking "he existed and then time was altered and he never existed" and the actual meaning, which is "he never existed." You can't use the word 'then,' because If he never existed, he could never be part of any meaningful idea or sentence expressing the relationship meant by the word 'then.'
So, as long as we really mean that the time-weapon works the way we say it does, it can't be wrong to delete whole populations by causing them to never exist.
Merely preventing people that don't exist from coming into existence is not the same as murder. If it were, all sorts of perfectly innocent actions, like choosing to have kids with one person instead of with someone else, would be murder. This is because a huge number of future people will only come into existence if a certain specific egg and sperm come together and eventually become a person. You'll have kids one way or another, but those kids will be different people based on any number of choices you make, with one choice preventing the outcome of all the others.
...aside from the simple aspect, that as a member of the crew, you are fully aware of what that weapon does, and that it is, in fact, a weapon. you will acquire a target, go through a process of complex calculations, checking to make sure you get as close to the desired result as possible, including the generation of detailed list of effects, so you will know what to expect. while there will always be unforeseen occurrences, in terms of taking out a sentient species, you need to be totally aware of them, in order to then remove them, if that is your intention. after firing the weapon you will run more complex calculations to confirm your level of success. this will will confirm if the species do or do not exist any more. so you will know they did exist, and it was your actions that changed that. so from a personal perspective, and that of the crew, is that not still committing murder or genocide
sorry, not you personally, you as in any player character lol
If the Krenim weapon can remove elements from the timeline, why does it mean that all it can do is erase entire civilizations? Just because that's the only thing Annorax chose to do with it doesn't mean that's all it can do.
Granted it's unlikely, but we might find a way to end the conflict without wiping out the Iconians completely. Maybe it's enough to fiddle with the parameters to change the outcome.
Any which way, the dialogue has repeatedly warned of unintended consequences for using the weapon so it's pretty safe to say that there will be some bad result. We might wipe out the Iconians only to find we have to undo that.
I think that was what they were getting at in the annorax episodes, say you remove something as trivial as a single particle, and the loss of that particle causes a single change, it is likely that that change will cause another, maybe even start a chain of changes, with each part of that chain able to start other chains and then other chains *exponentially. if altering a single particle can cause an unexpected mass chain reaction.. the removal of even a tiny functional part of a civilisation, maybe even just a single action by an important person within that civilisation, in terms of the iconians, it could literally have cataclysmic repercussions. i hear all the arguments about they are beast and monsters, and that may well be true, but our knowledge and understanding of them in infinitesimal. it may be that on the 200,000 years they have been responsible for much that has stabilised the galaxy we just don't know. don't get me wrong, what they have been doing is damn awful, but, we have done just as bad, if not worse to each other over the trek era.. maybe not quite as macabre as them, but our own wars, acts of defiance, enslavement and conquest towards each other will have very likely exceeded what they are doing to us. we just do not know enough about the who or the why, to mess with what this weapon can do.
This whole discussion is sad considering there are people who can defend the writing which led us to this sorry point.
Now we're painted into a corner and it's going to be very hard to get out in a way which isn't going to cause major major issues and require even WORSE writing to justify a solution.
"He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
1. Plenty of metaphysical Realists/Idealists and ontological Essentialists still populate the Philosophy departments of a number of colleges and universities.
2. I dared you to define it.
3. Noah Webster died in 1843. George Merriam died in 1880 and his brother Charles died in 1887.
1. i don't give a [REDACTED] about nonsense like that
2. no, you didn't; you dared anacharas
3. again, i don't give a [REDACTED]; you asked for a definition, i answered, and had i known i was going to get a [REDACTED] lecture, i wouldn't have said a single god damn thing!
1. Plenty of other people do.
2. Either way, I didn't "ask" for "a definition." I dared someone to define it on their own, not to go grab a link to a general dictionary; it was fairly obviously an example of Socratic dialectic intended to solicit a philosophical definition, and not a request for someone to provide a link to a layperson's definition. A link to, say, an article on metaphysics in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy I might have regarded as a more appropriate response.
3. If you think that was a lecture, I pity you trying to read one of my actual lectures.
If the Krenim weapon can remove elements from the timeline, why does it mean that all it can do is erase entire civilizations? Just because that's the only thing Annorax chose to do with it doesn't mean that's all it can do.
Exactly. As I noted elsewhere about Hasty Generalization and Racism, and allusion to Annorax's grief as a motivation for his actions.
Any which way, the dialogue has repeatedly warned of unintended consequences for using the weapon so it's pretty safe to say that there will be some bad result. We might wipe out the Iconians only to find we have to undo that.
That's almost certainly going to be the case, if the option chosen is "erasing them from ever having existed." It's probably going to be the case even if we choose to erase something else instead. Time can be changed, but how much change results from even a butterfly flapping its wings on the other side of the planet? We may well wind up causing too much change for the altered situation to be tolerable, and then have to go back and undo that.
...aside from the simple aspect, that as a member of the crew, you are fully aware of what that weapon does, and that it is, in fact, a weapon. you will acquire a target, go through a process of complex calculations, checking to make sure you get as close to the desired result as possible, including the generation of detailed list of effects, so you will know what to expect. while there will always be unforeseen occurrences, in terms of taking out a sentient species, you need to be totally aware of them, in order to then remove them, if that is your intention. after firing the weapon you will run more complex calculations to confirm your level of success. this will will confirm if the species do or do not exist any more. so you will know they did exist, and it was your actions that changed that. so from a personal perspective, and that of the crew, is that not still committing murder or genocide
sorry, not you personally, you as in any player character lol
Murder? No. Genocide? Yes. But just as the law recognizes the reality of "justifiable homicide," in this case, I would argue, there is such a thing as "justifiable genocide." We're in a situation where the only outcomes we have been presented as options are "us or them." I would feel entirely justified in wiping them out completely, whether it be by totally erasing them from history (this isn't likely to happen, for multiple reasons, and if it should happen, it will be quickly undone, because the timeline would be altered far too much) or by shooting every one of them in the face repeatedly until they are all dead. And, yes, make no mistake about it, that latter would be as much genocide as the former, possibly even more definitely genocide than the former. Yes, it's war. That doesn't make it any less genocide, but it does at least suggest justification. Again, the act itself is genocide, from Greek genos (race, species, kind) + Latin caedere "to strike down, chop, beat, hew, fell, slay." And again, focusing on the act alone as good or evil is legalism. We must also consider consequences, intentions, motivations, and circumstances/context, and not merely the act alone, if we hope to judge the ethicality of the thing.
Edit:
Had to edit again because the first edit resulted in circumventing the language filter in the quote.
I now feel the need to point out the it's only genocide if you don't kill them as part of a war. Fighting an entire race to the death is regrettable and unpleasant, but it is not genocide unless you did it simply because you wanted to kill them.
Granted, I'm hoping the story doesn't go that way but...
I know that some characters show reservations about using the temporal weapon, but it's all in the context of "what if we change the timeline too much" etc.
But um.. why isn't anyone discussing the fact that this is an instant genocide gun?
Don't try to tell me that "if they never existed it's not genocide" because it's a false argument, you're still taking action to wipe out an entire species.. it's worse because you wipe out their contributions too.
I know that things are really desperate... and I'm not saying the gun shouldn't be used if it's an "us or them only" situation, but why isn't anyone even talking about this weapon for what it really is?
We should be seeing this debate for what it really is. It feels out of character to see all those TV show alumni just happily skipping off merry-do to build a genocide weapon and wipe out the Iconians. Why isn't the debate being shown? Too much effort to write?
These episodes are enraging me because not one character has even voiced concern about this beyond "well what if it hurts us more than helps us"?
1. The temporal weapon isn't necessarily a "genocide gun". It could very easily be nothing more than a "reset button", which could easily be a whole bag of issues in it's own right, toying with the timeline and all that. Other than basic information concerning it, we really have no idea how it actually works against the enemy.
2. Morals, ethics, and ideals are nice and all. But there are two things that can kill them rather quickly: famine and imminent extinction.
3. Starfleet has always had a regulation on the books that allows starship commanders to destroy a civilization/culture/species if they pose an extraordinary threat to the Federation. It's called General Order 24. The Iconians and their actions fit the bill to a tee.
4. The Iconians arrogantly pursue a war of pure conquest and destruction against civilizations that had nothing to do with their downfall. They (judging by their dialogue) expect the current powers to be a bunch of cowards, and can't understand why we just don't bow down to their sheer awesomeness to save our skins, all the while doing whatever the hell they want like they own the place. And they get all pissy when we actually fight back to defend what is ours, and kill off their leaders in legitimate military operations against their assets. You can't reason with a collection of psychos and nutjobs like the Iconians.
5. They started it. And it's up to Team Good Guy to finish it. The the Iconians want to play hardball, and that is a game that you have to play to win. There is no room for half-assed efforts and the indecisive.
I now feel the need to point out the it's only genocide if you don't kill them as part of a war. Fighting an entire race to the death is regrettable and unpleasant, but it is not genocide unless you did it simply because you wanted to kill them.
Granted, I'm hoping the story doesn't go that way but...
From a purely etymological perspective, it is still genocide. All murder is homicide, but not all homicide is murder. Again, homicide is from the Latin word for human (which I probably cannot post here without it being censored) + caedere (to strike down, chop, beat, hew, fell, slay). In practical usage, "homicide" means simply "the taking of a human life," and that's essentially the etymological meaning as well. From an etymological perspective, "genocide" is merely "the killing of a race/species," an act, without any consideration of the context. It is not ordinarily used that way (and even extends to eradication of culture), but that's what the etymology means literally.
I now feel the need to point out the it's only genocide if you don't kill them as part of a war. Fighting an entire race to the death is regrettable and unpleasant, but it is not genocide unless you did it simply because you wanted to kill them.
Granted, I'm hoping the story doesn't go that way but...
Fighting someone to the last on the field of battle is regrettable, but I don't think either side really loses much face. I'm actually pretty sure that is how the Klingons want to go out if it ever comes to that. On the other hand if you killed the last half dozen klingons with the time eraser, you not only kill those 6, but you erase the honor and glory of every klingon ever born. Even without the moral issues that the federation should be having, a klingon should see this for the honorless weapon it is. Unfortunately we seem fresh out of K'Valks
1. The temporal weapon isn't necessarily a "genocide gun". It could very easily be nothing more than a "reset button", which could easily be a whole bag of issues in it's own right, toying with the timeline and all that. Other than basic information concerning it, we really have no idea how it actually works against the enemy.
2. Morals, ethics, and ideals are nice and all. But there are two things that can kill them rather quickly: famine and imminent extinction.
3. Starfleet has always had a regulation on the books that allows starship commanders to destroy a civilization/culture/species if they pose an extraordinary threat to the Federation. It's called General Order 24. The Iconians and their actions fit the bill to a tee.
4. The Iconians arrogantly pursue a war of pure conquest and destruction against civilizations that had nothing to do with their downfall. They (judging by their dialogue) expect the current powers to be a bunch of cowards, and can't understand why we just don't bow down to their sheer awesomeness to save our skins, all the while doing whatever the hell they want like they own the place. And they get all pissy when we actually fight back to defend what is ours, and kill off their leaders in legitimate military operations against their assets. You can't reason with a collection of psychos and nutjobs like the Iconians.
5. They started it. And it's up to Team Good Guy to finish it. The the Iconians want to play hardball, and that is a game that you have to play to win. There is no room for half-assed efforts and the indecisive.
I agree with you on all but point 2, but I will concede that at least a fair percentage will violate their legalistic ethic when those situations arise. Fortunately, not everyone subscribes to a legalistic ethic.
As reference for those who have their doubts about point 3:
General Order 24: An order to destroy all life on an entire planet. This order has been given by Captain Garth (Antos IV) and Captain Kirk (Eminiar VII). On neither occasion was the order actually fulfilled. (TOS: "Whom Gods Destroy", "A Taste of Armageddon")
Garth may have explained the spirit of the order when he suggested he gave the order because, "I could say they were actively hostile towards the Federation".
Based on the way most things end in STO, I expect the actual target will be to stop the original Iconian war that changed them to these suicidal energy gods. Hippy peace loving Iconians are the future past.
Based on the way most things end in STO, I expect the actual target will be to stop the original Iconian war that changed them to these suicidal energy gods. Hippy peace loving Iconians are the future past.
Be kind of difficult, as the moment you would have to stop is the point where the Iconians put themselves in charge. This also causes the ripple issues of two hundred thousand years of changes. The unintended side effects are always going to be the issue.
We might be able to steal the Iconians that would have survived the bombing of their homeworld and put them in the field that protects the people inside the time ship from paradoxes. It would directly keep them from becoming the demons of air and darkness that we have, along with not directly causing all of the time ripples that saving all of them would. Then the issue comes down to what changes on the galaxy have the iconians done post destruction of iconia. Destruction of romulus, the Undine attacks, the Vaadwaur. We still have some real issues to deal with, but nothing time related is simple.
So claiming that "it goes against everything we stand for" is a dubious contention, at best.
Given how many other good reasons we have already discussed to HELL NO NEVER TOUCH THIS,
I don't think that even matters.
"He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
1. Plenty of metaphysical Realists/Idealists and ontological Essentialists still populate the Philosophy departments of a number of colleges and universities.
2. I dared you to define it.
3. Noah Webster died in 1843. George Merriam died in 1880 and his brother Charles died in 1887.
1. i don't give a TRIBBLE about nonsense like that
2. no, you didn't; you dared anacharas
3. again, i don't give a TRIBBLE; you asked for a definition, i answered, and had i known i was going to get a TRIBBLE lecture, i wouldn't have said a single god damn thing!
1. Plenty of other people do.
2. Either way, I didn't "ask" for "a definition." I dared someone to define it on their own, not to go grab a link to a general dictionary; it was fairly obviously an example of Socratic dialectic intended to solicit a philosophical definition, and not a request for someone to provide a link to a layperson's definition. A link to, say, an article on metaphysics in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy I might have regarded as a more appropriate response.
3. If you think that was a lecture, I pity you trying to read one of my actual lectures.
If the Krenim weapon can remove elements from the timeline, why does it mean that all it can do is erase entire civilizations? Just because that's the only thing Annorax chose to do with it doesn't mean that's all it can do.
Exactly. As I noted elsewhere about Hasty Generalization and Racism, and allusion to Annorax's grief as a motivation for his actions.
Any which way, the dialogue has repeatedly warned of unintended consequences for using the weapon so it's pretty safe to say that there will be some bad result. We might wipe out the Iconians only to find we have to undo that.
That's almost certainly going to be the case, if the option chosen is "erasing them from ever having existed." It's probably going to be the case even if we choose to erase something else instead. Time can be changed, but how much change results from even a butterfly flapping its wings on the other side of the planet? We may well wind up causing too much change for the altered situation to be tolerable, and then have to go back and undo that.
...aside from the simple aspect, that as a member of the crew, you are fully aware of what that weapon does, and that it is, in fact, a weapon. you will acquire a target, go through a process of complex calculations, checking to make sure you get as close to the desired result as possible, including the generation of detailed list of effects, so you will know what to expect. while there will always be unforeseen occurrences, in terms of taking out a sentient species, you need to be totally aware of them, in order to then remove them, if that is your intention. after firing the weapon you will run more complex calculations to confirm your level of success. this will will confirm if the species do or do not exist any more. so you will know they did exist, and it was your actions that changed that. so from a personal perspective, and that of the crew, is that not still committing murder or genocide
sorry, not you personally, you as in any player character lol
Murder? No. Genocide? Yes. But just as the law recognizes the reality of "justifiable homicide," in this case, I would argue, there is such a thing as "justifiable genocide." We're in a situation where the only outcomes we have been presented as options are "us or them." I would feel entirely justified in wiping them out entirely, whether it be by erasing them from history entirely (this isn't likely to happen, for multiple reasons, and if it should happen, it will be quickly undone, because the timeline would be altered far too much) or by shooting every one of them in the face repeatedly until they are all dead. And, yes, make no mistake about it, that latter would be as much genocide as the former, possibly even more definitely genocide than the former.
surely what you mean to say is, they are the only options we seem willing to consider. if we haven't attempted to communicate on the assumption they wouldn't talk to us, what we are saying is, we don't want to hear what they may have to say. so as yet we have not clearly confirmed all our options. we are acting out of desperation and fear, and considering an option that could.
a) wipe ourselves out, with the iconians, who you believe want us all dead.
b) wipe ourselves out, when there may be an alternative option, that doesn't require that weapon.
we cannot make such a massive decision, one which could effect every sentient being in the galaxy, through fear, ignorance and pride. do the "people" not have the right to make an informed decision about something this monumental? and by informed i mean with all the facts and all the options? does our leadership really have the right to potentially condemn us, or an entire civilisation in our names, if they haven't explored every possibility yet?
i remember watching the film 'bulletproof monk' with my 15yr old daughter, there is a scene in the museum, next to this photograph of an aggressor with a assault rifle pointed at a the head of civilian mother holding a child, the question is asked, who would you rather be, the one holding the gun, or the one about to be shot? my daughter asked me the same question.. "well babes, i can't see me ever being in that situation, but i know i'd never be that TRIBBLE holding that gun, i would rather be shot dead, for not shooting that woman"
when it comes to the taking of life, i would genuinely rather be shot dead for refusing to do something i felt was wrong, than owe my own life to taking part in something i knew was wrong. that simple principle was the deciding factor in deciding i had spent enough time as a serviceman.
there has never been, nor will there ever be such a thing as justifiable genocide, because even warrior cultures don't exist as purely warriors. justifiable homicide is self defence, killing a person in self defence and then going to their home and killing the wife and children, would not be deemed as justified. wars are fought by combatants till terms are agreed, 1 side surrenders, or 1 side can fight no more. war is not fought by breast feeding mothers, children, or the old and infirm. genocide is the purposeful extermination of a civilisation down to the very last innocent. during world war 1, out of a population of about 1.8billion, only about 65million were combatants, that is a measly 3.6% of the planets population. justifiable genocide.. never! if a persons principles can shift with the sand, they are not principles.
sorry if this post has come over too confrontational.. trying to put emphasise on it but my tinitus is likely making it much shaper than intended.. i'll check it and correct it in the morning though.
...aside from the simple aspect, that as a member of the crew, you are fully aware of what that weapon does, and that it is, in fact, a weapon. you will acquire a target, go through a process of complex calculations, checking to make sure you get as close to the desired result as possible, including the generation of detailed list of effects, so you will know what to expect. while there will always be unforeseen occurrences, in terms of taking out a sentient species, you need to be totally aware of them, in order to then remove them, if that is your intention. after firing the weapon you will run more complex calculations to confirm your level of success. this will will confirm if the species do or do not exist any more. so you will know they did exist, and it was your actions that changed that. so from a personal perspective, and that of the crew, is that not still committing murder or genocide
sorry, not you personally, you as in any player character lol
Murder? No. Genocide? Yes. But just as the law recognizes the reality of "justifiable homicide," in this case, I would argue, there is such a thing as "justifiable genocide." We're in a situation where the only outcomes we have been presented as options are "us or them." I would feel entirely justified in wiping them out entirely, whether it be by erasing them from history entirely (this isn't likely to happen, for multiple reasons, and if it should happen, it will be quickly undone, because the timeline would be altered far too much) or by shooting every one of them in the face repeatedly until they are all dead. And, yes, make no mistake about it, that latter would be as much genocide as the former, possibly even more definitely genocide than the former.
surely what you mean to say is, they are the only options we seem willing to consider. if we haven't attempted to communicate on the assumption they wouldn't talk to us, what we are saying is, we don't want to hear what they may have to say. so as yet we have not clearly confirmed all our options. we are acting out of desperation and fear, and considering an option that could.
a) wipe ourselves out, with the iconians, who you believe want us all dead.
b) wipe ourselves out, when there may be an alternative option, that doesn't require that weapon.
we cannot make such a massive decision, one which could effect every sentient being in the galaxy, through fear, ignorance and pride. do the "people" not have the right to make an informed decision about something this monumental? and by informed i mean with all the facts and all the options? does our leadership really have the right to potentially condemn us, or an entire civilisation in our names, if they haven't explored every possibility yet?
i remember watching the film 'bulletproof monk' with my 15yr old daughter, there is a scene in the museum, next to this photograph of an aggressor with a assault rifle pointed at a the head of civilian mother holding a child, the question is asked, who would you rather be, the one holding the gun, or the one about to be shot? my daughter asked me the same question.. "well babes, i can't see me ever being in that situation, but i know i'd never be that TRIBBLE holding that gun, i would rather be shot dead, for not shooting that woman"
when it comes to the taking of life, i would genuinely rather be shot dead for refusing to do something i felt was wrong, than save my own life for taking part in something i knew was wrong. that simple principle was the deciding factor in deciding i had spent enough time as a serviceman.
there has never been, nor will there ever be such a thing as justifiable genocide, because even warrior cultures don't exist as purely warriors. justifiable homicide is self defence, killing a person in self defence and then going to their home and killing the wife and children, would not be deemed as justified. wars are fought by combatants till terms are agreed, 1 side surrenders, or 1 side can fight no more. war is not fought by breast feeding mothers, children, or the old and infirm. genocide is the purposeful extermination of a civilisation down to the very last innocent. during world war 1, out of a population of about 1.8billion, only about 65million were combatants, that is a measly 3.6% of the planets population. justifiable genocide.. never! if a persons principles can shift with the sand, they are not principles.
1. It's not an assumption. When they explicitly refer to us as "worms," when they show up and warn us not to attract their attention again after we fought off an attack by a group of their pawns (not even their actual servitors, but their pawns) whom they set against us and then they annihilate a whole room full of Klingon warriors for merely objecting, when they make plain that they intend to rule the galaxy, when their own database states explicitly what their intentions are for Earth, Qo'noS, and New Romulus and their inhabitants, continuing to assert that we're making assumptions is tantamount to sticking your head up your rear end so as to mute the voices of others who are only stating what is not mere speculation, but actual evidence.
2. We don't yet know what the option is that we're considering. Here's where the real assumption comes into play: because Federation President Ra-ghoratreii -- sorry; Annorax -- used the ship in "Year of Hell" to erase species from existence, people are assuming we are considering doing likewise to the Iconians. In reality, the ship was also used to erase events, and that may be what is being considered. WE DON'T KNOW, and the only evidence of it being used o erase entire species is in VOY, with a tantalizing clue in the description of the first special project for the new Research Lab holding. But nowhere in-game, apart from Nog's overenthusiastic dialogue in "Time in a Bottle," is there even so much as a hint that such a thing is on the table.
3. Fear and ignorance are not the issues here. I'll go to my death fighting them and trying to kill every last one of them in the process, not because I fear them, but because I value freedom and will do whatever I can to ensure that my daughters are not slaves to a group of rulers who were ousted from power 200,000 years ago and have demonstrated only capriciousness and possible symptoms of various psychoses. Stop saying we don't know their intentions. We do. Those intentions have been made plain since at least "Sphere of Influence," with more and more evidence mounting up since then. Pride? Pride is fine. Conceit is another matter, and the Iconians are full of it.
4. Some things the average citizen does not have a need to know, because they don't have the education, the experience, or the context to form any opinion on the matter. Thus, they obviously should not be entrusted with a referendum on the question.
5. Your movie reference has nothing to do with this situation; none of the Iconians are innocent civilians; they are would-be conquerors, and have made the fact that they are a threat to life and freedom rather abundantly clear.
6. There are less than 20 Iconians left, so far as we know, all of whom are female (as stated by zeroniusrex), and all of whom have been involved in what M'Tara described in "Time in a Bottle" as a "campaign." Therefore, for the purposes of the Geneva Conference, they are all military personnel of an enemy power, making war on the species of the Alpha, Beta, and Delta Quadrants, without regard for civilians, mothers, children, etc. They don't care who or what the people they kill are. If we wipe out their species completely, that is in an etymologically literal sense genocide, and it's entirely ethically justifiable. Principles are not laws. Principles do not shift with the sand, but they do not consider actions alone when contemplating what is the ethical course. On the contrary, legalism asserts that an act in itself is either goo or bad, and then gets itself into Catch 22 situations in which no matter what an adherent of the ethic does, he/she does "wrong" by that ethical standard. Principles are about attitudes and intentions and motivations, and contexts, and sometimes even consequences, and those are the things which a principlistic ethic considers when contemplating what is the ethical course. So yes, I can shoot you in the face in self defense and not be guilty of murder, although the act itself, divorced from any question of intentions, attitudes, motivations, and context, is identical with murder, from a purely legalistic perspective. The fact that we don't really have distinct terms for genocide and justifiable genocide is irrelevant; we haven't ever encountered a situation on this planet which would call for the latter. But in this situation in STO, we're facing the last survivors of a race who are all hellbent on wiping us out or enslaving us; they don't have any civilians. They're all that are left of their entire species, and every damned one of them wants us dead or enslaved. Hell yeah, I fully intend to eradicate them like I would any other threat to my life and/or freedom, and the lives and freedom of my daughters.
7. You are attributing to us the attitude which is properly attributed to the Iconians.
Stop ignoring the evidence. It's been presented in-game since "Sphere of Influence." Go back and play all those missions again and take the time to read this time around. I'll even give you a list to make it easy for you:
Sphere of Influence: Inside the Solanae Dyson Sphere, we run around activating consoles and reading the intelligence the Iconians have gathered on peoples in all four quadrants of the Milky Way, and their intentions for those peoples are clearly stated.
Surface Tension: M'Tara vaporizes several Klingon warriors and members of the Klingon High Council, and then warns us to avoid attracting their attention again, after we have successfully repelled an attack on ESD and Qo'noS by Undine forces, which have been being used by the Iconians as pawns.
Blood of Ancients: T'Ket attacks a patrol or platoon of Romulan soldiers near the Underground Ruins, who are celebrating after repelling an attack by Heralds, and then M'Tara kills the Preservers on Laenas.
House Pegh: T'Ket fails to engage in honorable combat with Kahless' clone after he cuts off part of one of her arms and part of one of her "horns," instead teleporting behind him and stabbing him in the back.
Time in a Bottle: Iconian Council Meeting, during which T'Ket rages about wanting to rend our worlds asunder and spill our blood until it fills the oceans.
Broken Circle: M'Tara tries to pull the same trick on us that she used in the Klingon High Council Chambers, but is unable to do so, then, full of hubris ("You cannot kill a god!"), continues trying to kill us herself or send servitors to do so, but we manage to kill both her and all of the servitors she sent against us, and with the last of her strengh, summons T'Ket and L'Mirien, who swear vengeance against us in no uncertain terms.
Either you haven't been paying attention to the dialogues in the missions, or you don't want to admit that we aren't the villains of the story based on some kind of cultural cringe which is your own issue, and of no concern to us.
My hope? This turns into another self contained "time got borked" story, like Yesterday's Enterprise. I can't see them logically using the retcon gun to do anything other than TRIBBLE up. The guy who ingeniously invented it couldn't even figure out how to get the desired results. I suspect this will wind up with the player ship getting some kind of temporal shielding, and the krenim ship being stolen by sela, and used to do something like erasing Hobus (and thus preventing the supernova). She is absolutely consumed with making the Romulan Empire "strong" again. When she was belittling Taris for turning to the Iconians, I got less of a sense of "that's a terrible plan" and more a sense of "I thought of that already, and ruled it out because of this...". So Sela jacks the retcon gun, possibly even turns out to have manipulated this conflict so it gets built in the first place (as a plan to undo the hobus supernova), and for an episode, some weird alternate present exists. The player ship, having been shielded somehow from the effects of the retcon gun, retains its state as per the original timeline, and works through the mission trying to undo whatever sela did. Perhaps this ends like year of hell, and the retcon gun commits retcon suicide. In the new version of events, the Krenim never tried to get everyone to make the stupid thing, and instead the obvious, smarter technology of the temporal sidestepping is their tide-turning contribution to the war.
My hope? This turns into another self contained "time got borked" story, like Yesterday's Enterprise. I can't see them logically using the retcon gun to do anything other than TRIBBLE up. The guy who ingeniously invented it couldn't even figure out how to get the desired results. I suspect this will wind up with the player ship getting some kind of temporal shielding, and the krenim ship being stolen by sela, and used to do something like erasing Hobus (and thus preventing the supernova). She is absolutely consumed with making the Romulan Empire "strong" again. When she was belittling Taris for turning to the Iconians, I got less of a sense of "that's a terrible plan" and more a sense of "I thought of that already, and ruled it out because of this...". So Sela jacks the retcon gun, possibly even turns out to have manipulated this conflict so it gets built in the first place (as a plan to undo the hobus supernova), and for an episode, some weird alternate present exists. The player ship, having been shielded somehow from the effects of the retcon gun, retains its state as per the original timeline, and works through the mission trying to undo whatever sela did. Perhaps this ends like year of hell, and the retcon gun commits retcon suicide. In the new version of events, the Krenim never tried to get everyone to make the stupid thing, and instead the obvious, smarter technology of the temporal sidestepping is their tide-turning contribution to the war.
I've had a sinking feeling for some time that Sela is going to come riding back from wherever she went, bringing "The Other" along with her, and trying to pass herself off as the savior of the galaxy, and then Cryptic will postpone my shooting her in the face even further because of the masses being duped into believing that she's actually a good person ...
But I'll bide my time and keep my weapons ready, because I fully intend to end her.
Very simply, the Preservers never developed their first children. Who says they still want to develop children?
But that's wrong. It's not that the Preservers would have chosen not to develop children, just that the alteration of the timeline would somehow prevent them from creating the Iconians. Something humanoid could easily take their place in an altered timeline.
From what I recall of Year of Hell, when the Timeship targets a planet, it just removes all traces of any intelligent civilization. I assume from that that it basically reverts the planet to a state before the first intelligent life existed there by some means.
This probably wouldn't have any effect on the Preservers' actions, since they apparently seeded Earth some 4 billion years ago. Unless the Iconians are older than that, which I doubt. Being the first could simply mean that intelligent life developed on Iconia 500 million years ago, giving them 400 million years on the Voth.
I suspect you'd get a bigger effect by targeting Hobus. No Hobus, no supernova, no supernova, no fall of Romulus, no war between the Federation and Klingons. Nobody acting as the Iconians' reps in the AQ.
But they were real. To the people in the ship they saw a planet full of people, and hit a button that made them all go away. Other people might never know you did it, but you willfully removed an entire civilization.
It's called a temporal paradox for a reason Druk....
Anyways intentionally eradicating an entire race is genocide, regardless of how you do it. It's a matter of motive. Deciding "I want to kill every Zahl who has ever lived." THAT is what is wrong. The end result of your actions is irrelevant.
You've asked a question that just parses out to nonsense, and can't be answered using words that make sense.
If I didn't exist, I couldn't have any wants or desires. And if I never existed, there was no point in time where I ever could have had any wants or desires.
It comes down to wanting to have it both ways. To claim somone existed and also never existed. Both can't be true, one or the other has to be a mistake. If somone never existed, then there was never any point in time when he did exist.
I know you quoted my post, but you couldn't possibly have read it, since it spoke directly to this.
If we are to take the words used seriously, as opposed to flippantly or ironically, we have to conclude it is impossible for it to be wrong to cause someone never to exist. Since it can't be wrong to "do something" to somone who isn't real.
You're ignoring the fact that you already existed because you were erased at some point. Entire civilizations did exist before Annorax wiped them out.
It is abundantly clear from the episode - poorly written as it may or may not have been- that the Krenim ship is a weapon of mass destruction and it was being used to commit genocide by a madman.
^This.
If you disagree with me you are wrong, that's all. Sorry. It's murder whether you want to try to define it that way or not.
♪ I'm going around not in circles but in spirographs.
It's pretty much this hard to keep just one timeline intact. ♪
Very simply, the Preservers never developed their first children. Who says they still want to develop children?
But that's wrong. It's not that the Preservers would have chosen not to develop children, just that the alteration of the timeline would somehow prevent them from creating the Iconians. Something humanoid could easily take their place in an altered timeline.
From what I recall of Year of Hell, when the Timeship targets a planet, it just removes all traces of any intelligent civilization. I assume from that that it basically reverts the planet to a state before the first intelligent life existed there by some means.
This probably wouldn't have any effect on the Preservers' actions, since they apparently seeded Earth some 4 billion years ago. Unless the Iconians are older than that, which I doubt. Being the first could simply mean that intelligent life developed on Iconia 500 million years ago, giving them 400 million years on the Voth.
I suspect you'd get a bigger effect by targeting Hobus. No Hobus, no supernova, no supernova, no fall of Romulus, no war between the Federation and Klingons. Nobody acting as the Iconians' reps in the AQ.
And really this is indicative of larger logical flaws with how the weapon operates. If you target a star (or supernova remnant) how does the weapon erase just that specific formation so that star never formed, instead of all the of atoms that actually make it up? And if you target the atoms that make it up, then you're removing not just that star, but all the stars, planets, and potentially intelligent life that star used to be billions of years ago.
It's kind of weird that you can just target a species with it, really. I suppose you would have to somehow target something that would immediately prevent their evolution in the first place.
To me it seems like the weapon isn't surgically erasing thing from time as Annorax would have you believe but actually physically pushing (battering?) something out of the timeline.
♪ I'm going around not in circles but in spirographs.
It's pretty much this hard to keep just one timeline intact. ♪
The Iconians were nearly eradicated by conventional means 200.000 years ago .
I don't understand your supposition that "we might have done that too" .
The time weapon does not work like that .
The Iconians didn't know they could bleed or die until recently.
Either they became immortal and changed later...
OR
No Iconians were killed in the bombardment and destroying the planet under their feet wouldn't have killed them, just annoyed them. Like hurting somebody's pet or torching their house when they're not home.
Presumably, the bombardment posed no mortal threat to them however or that would mean they knew they could be injured and die.
In any case, canon insurance can come into this as well (as canon has in writing other FEs). Don't we have some kind of war against the Sphere Builders yet to happen in the 31st century? With the Enterprise-J and the Xindi leading the way?
But 'Enterprise' was nothing more than a dramatized, work of holofiction that took huge creative licence with historical events to make it more entertaining for the 'reader'.
Didn't you see the last episode?
Why would anyone assume that anything aside from that last episode was a holoprogram?
1. The weapon, in Voyager, could target anything. If it has limits as to what kind of objects can be erased, they were not explained.
2. That thing will have never existed and any event affected by it will have never happened, or happened as it would without the effect of the erased thing.
3. Annorax did not target planets with the weapon to remove species, but some critical point in the evolution of the species in question. If he had targeted the planet (assuming the weapon could target something that large), the entire planet wouldn't exist.
4. It is entirely possible to erase things other than species. The weapon itself was erased in the end.
5. At least as far as STO is concerned, when erasing inanimate objects such as the weapon ship, it simply means the object was never built. It doesn't mean the builder loses the capability to build it, or the resources that would have been used for building it. Which is how the Krenim are now building the weapon ship again. Annorax's research remained, even though he never used it.
That #5 is the critical piece. Because while it would be possible to, for example, negate the current Iconian attack by erasing the Herald Sphere, if the Iconians had never built the Herald Sphere they would simply have built something else instead. And the war is on again.
Which, likely, is why Annorax was erasing entire species in the first place.
you all forgot M'TARA IS DEAD the Iconians don't have a leader now and remember the reason we won the dominion war is because of the founders illness Dukat going crazy and lost 2800 dominion ships
I don't think that is a particularly good thing. I got the impression that M'Tara was holding everyone else back from simply destroying the universe. Now T'Ket has been let off her leash and L'Miren, the Iconian who was urging caution, now agrees with T'Ket and wants revenge just as much.
There are other Iconians that appeared during Time in a Bottle. Up to now they have been faceless extras, maybe new characters will be introduced - maybe even a few Iconians who know about The Other and are willing to negotiate due to circumstances we're not aware of.
Logically there must be someone who'd rather they lived than get erased from spacetime. Unless the research station is also hidden in a temporal bubble they must know it exists.
Comments
Second, have a little faith that the weapon ship won't actually be the end all of this entire thing. There are too many other plot threads left open to just resolve it THAT way. Like the "Other", whatever it is. And what's this "The Whole must be as One" thing? What are the Iconians after there? Or Sela could show up with a Dominion fleet and play the (anti)hero. And then of course there's the temporal shields of the Krenim to hide whole freakin' planets.
Having said all that, if the devs choose to take the route of the weapon ship, I really hope they give the option NOT to pull the trigger to the player. Something on this scale, considering the temporal repercussions of wiping out a 200,000 year old race, if that's the route, doesn't seem Trek without a reset button or an option to choose it.
In any case, canon insurance can come into this as well (as canon has in writing other FEs). Don't we have some kind of war against the Sphere Builders yet to happen in the 31st century? With the Enterprise-J and the Xindi leading the way?
1. Plenty of metaphysical Realists/Idealists and ontological Essentialists still populate the Philosophy departments of a number of colleges and universities.
2. I dared you to define it.
3. Noah Webster died in 1843. George Merriam died in 1880 and his brother Charles died in 1887.
Back on topic:
In "Time in a Bottle," M'Tara seemed to be acting as the Ego between the Id that was T'Ket and the Superego that was L'Mirien. She was calm and collected. She made statements such as "We cannot risk further losses." Then we get "Broken Circle," and she's gone full-on God complex intent on risking the loss of her own life. So perhaps not merely capricious, but also afflicted with a few psychoses as well. But it did seem rather out-of-character for her until we remember that she was the Iconian who obliterated Klingons in the Great Hall for mere dissent and wiped out a patrol or platoon (can't say which for sure without going back and taking a headcount, and the desolation on ch'Mol'Rihan is not something I enjoyed playing through the first time on a single character, let alone the other times necessary to collect all the rewards for every character I wanted to have them at that time) of RRF personnel after they won the battle in the defense of the Hwael Ruins. So pointing to her "You are forgiven" after one of the Heralds begged mercy from her as some sort of evidence that she's a nice person is a little forgetful, or just plain ... imperceptive.
Everybody's all bent out of shape over the mere possibility that the Krenim weapon is going to be used to totally eradicate a species, but we have to face the fact that the Iconians are not nice people, they're too afflicted with hubris to sit down and talk, and we are not the ones who started this war. So yeah, no, we're not shooting first and asking questions later. They shot first, initially back in the VOY era by use of the Undine as pawns against the Borg, and subsequently by using other pawns, graduating to the use of servitors, and finally brought themselves along to "punish" Klingons and Romulans for celebrating victories (in the first case, for celebrating a victory over Undine pawns, and in the second case, for celebrating a victory over servitors). This is a war which will not be won by appeasement or negotiation. This is a war which will be won by total annihilation of the threat (that means "Kill 'em all" -- which, whether done in defense or not, is still genocide, thus laying bare the stupidity of legalistic views of ethics such as insist that an act in itself is good or evil, without any regard to consequences, attitudes, intentions, motivations, contexts, etc), or their removal from the field of battle by some other means.
But 'Enterprise' was nothing more than a dramatized, work of holofiction that took huge creative licence with historical events to make it more entertaining for the 'reader'.
Didn't you see the last episode?
arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline/#/discussion/1203368/pve-content-a-list-of-gamewide-polishing-pass-suggestions
1. i don't give a TRIBBLE about nonsense like that
2. no, you didn't; you dared anacharas
3. again, i don't give a TRIBBLE; you asked for a definition, i answered, and had i known i was going to get a TRIBBLE lecture, i wouldn't have said a single god damn thing!
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Granted it's unlikely, but we might find a way to end the conflict without wiping out the Iconians completely. Maybe it's enough to fiddle with the parameters to change the outcome.
Any which way, the dialogue has repeatedly warned of unintended consequences for using the weapon so it's pretty safe to say that there will be some bad result. We might wipe out the Iconians only to find we have to undo that.
sorry, not you personally, you as in any player character lol
Now we're painted into a corner and it's going to be very hard to get out in a way which isn't going to cause major major issues and require even WORSE writing to justify a solution.
"He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
1. Plenty of other people do.
2. Either way, I didn't "ask" for "a definition." I dared someone to define it on their own, not to go grab a link to a general dictionary; it was fairly obviously an example of Socratic dialectic intended to solicit a philosophical definition, and not a request for someone to provide a link to a layperson's definition. A link to, say, an article on metaphysics in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy I might have regarded as a more appropriate response.
3. If you think that was a lecture, I pity you trying to read one of my actual lectures.
Exactly. As I noted elsewhere about Hasty Generalization and Racism, and allusion to Annorax's grief as a motivation for his actions.
That's almost certainly going to be the case, if the option chosen is "erasing them from ever having existed." It's probably going to be the case even if we choose to erase something else instead. Time can be changed, but how much change results from even a butterfly flapping its wings on the other side of the planet? We may well wind up causing too much change for the altered situation to be tolerable, and then have to go back and undo that.
Murder? No. Genocide? Yes. But just as the law recognizes the reality of "justifiable homicide," in this case, I would argue, there is such a thing as "justifiable genocide." We're in a situation where the only outcomes we have been presented as options are "us or them." I would feel entirely justified in wiping them out completely, whether it be by totally erasing them from history (this isn't likely to happen, for multiple reasons, and if it should happen, it will be quickly undone, because the timeline would be altered far too much) or by shooting every one of them in the face repeatedly until they are all dead. And, yes, make no mistake about it, that latter would be as much genocide as the former, possibly even more definitely genocide than the former. Yes, it's war. That doesn't make it any less genocide, but it does at least suggest justification. Again, the act itself is genocide, from Greek genos (race, species, kind) + Latin caedere "to strike down, chop, beat, hew, fell, slay." And again, focusing on the act alone as good or evil is legalism. We must also consider consequences, intentions, motivations, and circumstances/context, and not merely the act alone, if we hope to judge the ethicality of the thing.
Edit:
Had to edit again because the first edit resulted in circumventing the language filter in the quote.
Granted, I'm hoping the story doesn't go that way but...
My character Tsin'xing
1. The temporal weapon isn't necessarily a "genocide gun". It could very easily be nothing more than a "reset button", which could easily be a whole bag of issues in it's own right, toying with the timeline and all that. Other than basic information concerning it, we really have no idea how it actually works against the enemy.
2. Morals, ethics, and ideals are nice and all. But there are two things that can kill them rather quickly: famine and imminent extinction.
3. Starfleet has always had a regulation on the books that allows starship commanders to destroy a civilization/culture/species if they pose an extraordinary threat to the Federation. It's called General Order 24. The Iconians and their actions fit the bill to a tee.
4. The Iconians arrogantly pursue a war of pure conquest and destruction against civilizations that had nothing to do with their downfall. They (judging by their dialogue) expect the current powers to be a bunch of cowards, and can't understand why we just don't bow down to their sheer awesomeness to save our skins, all the while doing whatever the hell they want like they own the place. And they get all pissy when we actually fight back to defend what is ours, and kill off their leaders in legitimate military operations against their assets. You can't reason with a collection of psychos and nutjobs like the Iconians.
5. They started it. And it's up to Team Good Guy to finish it. The the Iconians want to play hardball, and that is a game that you have to play to win. There is no room for half-assed efforts and the indecisive.
From a purely etymological perspective, it is still genocide. All murder is homicide, but not all homicide is murder. Again, homicide is from the Latin word for human (which I probably cannot post here without it being censored) + caedere (to strike down, chop, beat, hew, fell, slay). In practical usage, "homicide" means simply "the taking of a human life," and that's essentially the etymological meaning as well. From an etymological perspective, "genocide" is merely "the killing of a race/species," an act, without any consideration of the context. It is not ordinarily used that way (and even extends to eradication of culture), but that's what the etymology means literally.
Fighting someone to the last on the field of battle is regrettable, but I don't think either side really loses much face. I'm actually pretty sure that is how the Klingons want to go out if it ever comes to that. On the other hand if you killed the last half dozen klingons with the time eraser, you not only kill those 6, but you erase the honor and glory of every klingon ever born. Even without the moral issues that the federation should be having, a klingon should see this for the honorless weapon it is. Unfortunately we seem fresh out of K'Valks
I agree with you on all but point 2, but I will concede that at least a fair percentage will violate their legalistic ethic when those situations arise. Fortunately, not everyone subscribes to a legalistic ethic.
As reference for those who have their doubts about point 3:
General Order 24: An order to destroy all life on an entire planet. This order has been given by Captain Garth (Antos IV) and Captain Kirk (Eminiar VII). On neither occasion was the order actually fulfilled. (TOS: "Whom Gods Destroy", "A Taste of Armageddon")
Garth may have explained the spirit of the order when he suggested he gave the order because, "I could say they were actively hostile towards the Federation".
http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Starfleet_General_Orders_and_Regulations#General_Orders
So claiming that "it goes against everything we stand for" is a dubious contention, at best.
Be kind of difficult, as the moment you would have to stop is the point where the Iconians put themselves in charge. This also causes the ripple issues of two hundred thousand years of changes. The unintended side effects are always going to be the issue.
We might be able to steal the Iconians that would have survived the bombing of their homeworld and put them in the field that protects the people inside the time ship from paradoxes. It would directly keep them from becoming the demons of air and darkness that we have, along with not directly causing all of the time ripples that saving all of them would. Then the issue comes down to what changes on the galaxy have the iconians done post destruction of iconia. Destruction of romulus, the Undine attacks, the Vaadwaur. We still have some real issues to deal with, but nothing time related is simple.
Given how many other good reasons we have already discussed to HELL NO NEVER TOUCH THIS,
I don't think that even matters.
"He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
a) wipe ourselves out, with the iconians, who you believe want us all dead.
b) wipe ourselves out, when there may be an alternative option, that doesn't require that weapon.
we cannot make such a massive decision, one which could effect every sentient being in the galaxy, through fear, ignorance and pride. do the "people" not have the right to make an informed decision about something this monumental? and by informed i mean with all the facts and all the options? does our leadership really have the right to potentially condemn us, or an entire civilisation in our names, if they haven't explored every possibility yet?
i remember watching the film 'bulletproof monk' with my 15yr old daughter, there is a scene in the museum, next to this photograph of an aggressor with a assault rifle pointed at a the head of civilian mother holding a child, the question is asked, who would you rather be, the one holding the gun, or the one about to be shot? my daughter asked me the same question.. "well babes, i can't see me ever being in that situation, but i know i'd never be that TRIBBLE holding that gun, i would rather be shot dead, for not shooting that woman"
when it comes to the taking of life, i would genuinely rather be shot dead for refusing to do something i felt was wrong, than owe my own life to taking part in something i knew was wrong. that simple principle was the deciding factor in deciding i had spent enough time as a serviceman.
sorry if this post has come over too confrontational.. trying to put emphasise on it but my tinitus is likely making it much shaper than intended.. i'll check it and correct it in the morning though.
1. It's not an assumption. When they explicitly refer to us as "worms," when they show up and warn us not to attract their attention again after we fought off an attack by a group of their pawns (not even their actual servitors, but their pawns) whom they set against us and then they annihilate a whole room full of Klingon warriors for merely objecting, when they make plain that they intend to rule the galaxy, when their own database states explicitly what their intentions are for Earth, Qo'noS, and New Romulus and their inhabitants, continuing to assert that we're making assumptions is tantamount to sticking your head up your rear end so as to mute the voices of others who are only stating what is not mere speculation, but actual evidence.
2. We don't yet know what the option is that we're considering. Here's where the real assumption comes into play: because Federation President Ra-ghoratreii -- sorry; Annorax -- used the ship in "Year of Hell" to erase species from existence, people are assuming we are considering doing likewise to the Iconians. In reality, the ship was also used to erase events, and that may be what is being considered. WE DON'T KNOW, and the only evidence of it being used o erase entire species is in VOY, with a tantalizing clue in the description of the first special project for the new Research Lab holding. But nowhere in-game, apart from Nog's overenthusiastic dialogue in "Time in a Bottle," is there even so much as a hint that such a thing is on the table.
3. Fear and ignorance are not the issues here. I'll go to my death fighting them and trying to kill every last one of them in the process, not because I fear them, but because I value freedom and will do whatever I can to ensure that my daughters are not slaves to a group of rulers who were ousted from power 200,000 years ago and have demonstrated only capriciousness and possible symptoms of various psychoses. Stop saying we don't know their intentions. We do. Those intentions have been made plain since at least "Sphere of Influence," with more and more evidence mounting up since then. Pride? Pride is fine. Conceit is another matter, and the Iconians are full of it.
4. Some things the average citizen does not have a need to know, because they don't have the education, the experience, or the context to form any opinion on the matter. Thus, they obviously should not be entrusted with a referendum on the question.
5. Your movie reference has nothing to do with this situation; none of the Iconians are innocent civilians; they are would-be conquerors, and have made the fact that they are a threat to life and freedom rather abundantly clear.
6. There are less than 20 Iconians left, so far as we know, all of whom are female (as stated by zeroniusrex), and all of whom have been involved in what M'Tara described in "Time in a Bottle" as a "campaign." Therefore, for the purposes of the Geneva Conference, they are all military personnel of an enemy power, making war on the species of the Alpha, Beta, and Delta Quadrants, without regard for civilians, mothers, children, etc. They don't care who or what the people they kill are. If we wipe out their species completely, that is in an etymologically literal sense genocide, and it's entirely ethically justifiable. Principles are not laws. Principles do not shift with the sand, but they do not consider actions alone when contemplating what is the ethical course. On the contrary, legalism asserts that an act in itself is either goo or bad, and then gets itself into Catch 22 situations in which no matter what an adherent of the ethic does, he/she does "wrong" by that ethical standard. Principles are about attitudes and intentions and motivations, and contexts, and sometimes even consequences, and those are the things which a principlistic ethic considers when contemplating what is the ethical course. So yes, I can shoot you in the face in self defense and not be guilty of murder, although the act itself, divorced from any question of intentions, attitudes, motivations, and context, is identical with murder, from a purely legalistic perspective. The fact that we don't really have distinct terms for genocide and justifiable genocide is irrelevant; we haven't ever encountered a situation on this planet which would call for the latter. But in this situation in STO, we're facing the last survivors of a race who are all hellbent on wiping us out or enslaving us; they don't have any civilians. They're all that are left of their entire species, and every damned one of them wants us dead or enslaved. Hell yeah, I fully intend to eradicate them like I would any other threat to my life and/or freedom, and the lives and freedom of my daughters.
7. You are attributing to us the attitude which is properly attributed to the Iconians.
Stop ignoring the evidence. It's been presented in-game since "Sphere of Influence." Go back and play all those missions again and take the time to read this time around. I'll even give you a list to make it easy for you:
Sphere of Influence: Inside the Solanae Dyson Sphere, we run around activating consoles and reading the intelligence the Iconians have gathered on peoples in all four quadrants of the Milky Way, and their intentions for those peoples are clearly stated.
Surface Tension: M'Tara vaporizes several Klingon warriors and members of the Klingon High Council, and then warns us to avoid attracting their attention again, after we have successfully repelled an attack on ESD and Qo'noS by Undine forces, which have been being used by the Iconians as pawns.
Blood of Ancients: T'Ket attacks a patrol or platoon of Romulan soldiers near the Underground Ruins, who are celebrating after repelling an attack by Heralds, and then M'Tara kills the Preservers on Laenas.
House Pegh: T'Ket fails to engage in honorable combat with Kahless' clone after he cuts off part of one of her arms and part of one of her "horns," instead teleporting behind him and stabbing him in the back.
Time in a Bottle: Iconian Council Meeting, during which T'Ket rages about wanting to rend our worlds asunder and spill our blood until it fills the oceans.
Broken Circle: M'Tara tries to pull the same trick on us that she used in the Klingon High Council Chambers, but is unable to do so, then, full of hubris ("You cannot kill a god!"), continues trying to kill us herself or send servitors to do so, but we manage to kill both her and all of the servitors she sent against us, and with the last of her strengh, summons T'Ket and L'Mirien, who swear vengeance against us in no uncertain terms.
Either you haven't been paying attention to the dialogues in the missions, or you don't want to admit that we aren't the villains of the story based on some kind of cultural cringe which is your own issue, and of no concern to us.
I've had a sinking feeling for some time that Sela is going to come riding back from wherever she went, bringing "The Other" along with her, and trying to pass herself off as the savior of the galaxy, and then Cryptic will postpone my shooting her in the face even further because of the masses being duped into believing that she's actually a good person ...
But I'll bide my time and keep my weapons ready, because I fully intend to end her.
I suspect you'd get a bigger effect by targeting Hobus. No Hobus, no supernova, no supernova, no fall of Romulus, no war between the Federation and Klingons. Nobody acting as the Iconians' reps in the AQ.
^This.
If you disagree with me you are wrong, that's all. Sorry. It's murder whether you want to try to define it that way or not.
It's pretty much this hard to keep just one timeline intact. ♪
And really this is indicative of larger logical flaws with how the weapon operates. If you target a star (or supernova remnant) how does the weapon erase just that specific formation so that star never formed, instead of all the of atoms that actually make it up? And if you target the atoms that make it up, then you're removing not just that star, but all the stars, planets, and potentially intelligent life that star used to be billions of years ago.
It's kind of weird that you can just target a species with it, really. I suppose you would have to somehow target something that would immediately prevent their evolution in the first place.
To me it seems like the weapon isn't surgically erasing thing from time as Annorax would have you believe but actually physically pushing (battering?) something out of the timeline.
It's pretty much this hard to keep just one timeline intact. ♪
The Iconians didn't know they could bleed or die until recently.
Either they became immortal and changed later...
OR
No Iconians were killed in the bombardment and destroying the planet under their feet wouldn't have killed them, just annoyed them. Like hurting somebody's pet or torching their house when they're not home.
Presumably, the bombardment posed no mortal threat to them however or that would mean they knew they could be injured and die.
Why would anyone assume that anything aside from that last episode was a holoprogram?
2. That thing will have never existed and any event affected by it will have never happened, or happened as it would without the effect of the erased thing.
3. Annorax did not target planets with the weapon to remove species, but some critical point in the evolution of the species in question. If he had targeted the planet (assuming the weapon could target something that large), the entire planet wouldn't exist.
4. It is entirely possible to erase things other than species. The weapon itself was erased in the end.
5. At least as far as STO is concerned, when erasing inanimate objects such as the weapon ship, it simply means the object was never built. It doesn't mean the builder loses the capability to build it, or the resources that would have been used for building it. Which is how the Krenim are now building the weapon ship again. Annorax's research remained, even though he never used it.
That #5 is the critical piece. Because while it would be possible to, for example, negate the current Iconian attack by erasing the Herald Sphere, if the Iconians had never built the Herald Sphere they would simply have built something else instead. And the war is on again.
Which, likely, is why Annorax was erasing entire species in the first place.
I don't think that is a particularly good thing. I got the impression that M'Tara was holding everyone else back from simply destroying the universe. Now T'Ket has been let off her leash and L'Miren, the Iconian who was urging caution, now agrees with T'Ket and wants revenge just as much.
There are other Iconians that appeared during Time in a Bottle. Up to now they have been faceless extras, maybe new characters will be introduced - maybe even a few Iconians who know about The Other and are willing to negotiate due to circumstances we're not aware of.
Logically there must be someone who'd rather they lived than get erased from spacetime. Unless the research station is also hidden in a temporal bubble they must know it exists.