@meimeitoo: That example actually proves my point if you go deeper than the headline. The Russian Air Force had made a habit of violating Turkish airspace (while operating in support of the Assad regime) previous to that, but unlike the Klingons in "The Vulcan Hello", they hadn't fired on any Turkish targets. The Turks had already repeatedly warned them off and they weren't listening, so the Turks escalated by shooting down the next pilot to think he could fly anywhere he pleased because Russiaball stronk. At which point the Russians got the message and stopped.
That example actually proves my point if you go deeper than the headline. Because the Russians actually *did* retaliate: just not with outright war. For one, iirc, they withdraw/stopped a major building project in Turkey, for a nuclear plant, and levied other economical sanctions (much like the UN is currently imposing on North-Korea).
No, seriously, I'm with Bones on this one: "War is never imperative, Mister Spock."
To make things clear, though, I agree with all things being said about needing to take a stand sometimes. At times it really *is* unavoidable. But when 2 major Quadrant powers are facing each other off, you simply don't let the local Burnhams of this world decide what's best for all. The 'chain of command' really isn't some mean, punative invention: it's there for very good reasons.
All true. But still not Burnham's call. Imagine a soldier on the South-Korean border deciding that's she fed-up with the North's provocations and, all of her own, resolves "to make them regret it." Do you really want scenarios like that?!
Firing on the Klingons would have shown them the Federation was not weak. That was the goal, not to destroy them. She only did what she thought was right to save her Captain and fellow crew.
To make this clear as well, I think her motivations were honorable. And she may not even have been wrong in her assessment of how to deal with the Klingons (this actually reminds me of a TNG episode where Whesley, at the Academy, learns that you need to approach different species differently; like that Bolian he had to bully right back to earn his respect). But I think the 'correct' sensible military thing for her to do, would have been to have waited for the Fleet Admiral (was that his rank?) to arrive, and let the brass decide how to deal with such a highly volatile situation. After all, at that point, no one was firing at anyone yet. In fact, the Klink were specifically waiting for Star Fleet to arrive (although Burnham didn't know that, to be fair).
Another point here is that Fleet Admiral Whatshisname would more than likely have done nothing different than what Captain Georgiou did: hail the Klingons and offer them peace. Heck, the Admiral's first act upon entering an active warzone was to use Archer-level naivety and immediately leave his forces defenceless on the absurd assumption that the Klingons, a culture which considers fighting to the death, win or lose, a moral imperative, would accept and stick to a ceasefire because every other species the Federation encountered would. The second T'Kuvma agreed to that ceasefire, alarm bells should have been ringing.
To make this clear as well, I think her motivations were honorable. And she may not even have been wrong in her assessment of how to deal with the Klingons (this actually reminds me of a TNG episode where Whesley, at the Academy, learns that you need to approach different species differently; like that Bolian he had to bully right back to earn his respect). But I think the 'correct' sensible military thing for her to do, would have been to have waited for the Fleet Admiral (was that his rank?) to arrive, and let the brass decide how to deal with such a highly volatile situation. After all, at that point, no one was firing at anyone yet. In fact, the Klink were specifically waiting for Star Fleet to arrive (although Burnham didn't know that, to be fair).
I understand what you're saying. My question is why are we holding Burnham to a different standard than anyone before her? There are many, many times throughout Star Trek history that a main character bent/broke/pushed the limits of the rules only to have us cheer for them. Why treat Burnham differently?
An interesting question. And one I was answering for myself, last night, too. I think it has to do with not knowing her yet. Kirk, Spock, all these ppl are established characters we all know; so I think we tend to accept a lot more from them. Had it happened 6 months into the show, who knows!?
Also, I think ppl don't mind seeing someone break the rules a bit (it's, on a possibly deeper psychological level, even empowering for ppl to see they do have some control over their own lives, and the decisions made therein, after all). But outright mutiny, so unwarrantly and sprang on us almost immediately, and see her come back from that (next ep?), speaking for myself, it makes me feel they undercut the credibility of the whole show a bit. But, truth be told, I should probably withhold judgement until I see how they're actually handling that.
Defending yourself and making sure the other side doesn't bully you anymore is noble, but you have to be careful not to go too far, for you will become the bully and you'll be the one who needs to be taken down.
In your example, you manage to make the situation go from a one to one feud to a "team deathmatch". Is this really better to drag more people in a fight that is now featuring weapons and is susceptible to bring more severe injuries to more people?
Defending yourself and making sure the other side doesn't bully you anymore is noble, but you have to be careful not to go too far, for you will become the bully and you'll be the one who needs to be taken down.
In your example, you manage to make the situation go from a one to one feud to a "team deathmatch". Is this really better to drag more people in a fight that is now featuring weapons and is susceptible to bring more severe injuries to more people?
That outcome is undesirable, but... the other option is worse.
As for how far is acceptable, well that depends on how far the other side goes. Let's go back to B5 for an example.
A race called the Streib sent a fleet into Alliance space and captured several hundred people that they then took back to Streib space. Deleen, Sheridan and a small fleet of Alliance warships pursued them and when they caught up Delenn issued an ultimatum, release their prisoners or die. The Streib responded by venting the prisoners into space. IIRC Sheridan asked if that had happened when the Streib attacked the Minbari in a similar way. Delenn replied that it had and that she'd expected the Streib to have learned the consequences of such a poor decision. What consequence was that? Delenn didn't elaborate on what the Minbari did, but she told the Alliance fleet to obliterate the Streib fleet.
The Streib were not seen doing that again in the series.
One thing that seems to have escaped everyone is the political ramifications inside Federation space if Burham had succeeded in launching her attack on the Klingon ship. The war was inevitable, but the peace lobby would not have known that an would have been outraged and the Feds would be going into this war divided. Being the "good guy" isn't easy.
All true. But still not Burnham's call. Imagine a soldier on the South-Korean border deciding that's she fed-up with the North's provocations and, all of her own, resolves "to make them regret it." Do you really want scenarios like that?!
that's a terrible example. A better example would be for the leader of a border defense outpost to attack a group of North Koreans who were south of the border and attacking a town. Would anyone in the US or South Korean military allow such a thing? No. They'd kill the North Korean force for breaking the truce. Would that start a war? Not likely. Then again, pretty much everyone in the North Korean military knows such an attack would be suicide. They'd not attack unless ordered by their government.
But T'Kuvma had no such scruples. He didn't mind if his actions started a war. The only thing he actually feared was the idea the Feds might kill him.
All true. But still not Burnham's call. Imagine a soldier on the South-Korean border deciding that's she fed-up with the North's provocations and, all of her own, resolves "to make them regret it." Do you really want scenarios like that?!
that's a terrible example. A better example would be for the leader of a border defense outpost to attack a group of North Koreans who were south of the border and attacking a town. Would anyone in the US or South Korean military allow such a thing? No. They'd kill the North Korean force for breaking the truce. Would that start a war? Not likely. Then again, pretty much everyone in the North Korean military knows such an attack would be suicide. They'd not attack unless ordered by their government.
But T'Kuvma had no such scruples. He didn't mind if his actions started a war. The only thing he actually feared was the idea the Feds might kill him.
"Attacking a town" is too far. The Klingons made an aggressive move, but the correct response is a warning shot. Maybe I missed it, but the only options I saw were run away, beg for peace, or shoot to kill. Even Picard would have sent a torpedo past their bald, deformed chins.
A real face-off with a Klingon would not have gone anything remotely close to this....
Define "real."
Klingon decloaks behind you, fires some torps and disruptors. You blow up and the Klingons toast their epic victory with made up battle stories.
But a Klingon ship sitting there doing nothing and waiting for reinforcements before attacking ONE ship?!?! Yeah, that's a 'real' Klingon.
But who is the arbiter for determining what a "real" Klingon attack is? Truth be told, both episodes were fantastic. They're definitely on the right track here.
Well if you think they were fantastic, then that leaves you out of judging anything!
To borrow an overused phrase, they are literally Making Star Trek Great Again. This is by far the best first two episodes of any Star Trek series ever.
All true. But still not Burnham's call. Imagine a soldier on the South-Korean border deciding that's she fed-up with the North's provocations and, all of her own, resolves "to make them regret it." Do you really want scenarios like that?!
that's a terrible example. A better example would be for the leader of a border defense outpost to attack a group of North Koreans who were south of the border and attacking a town. Would anyone in the US or South Korean military allow such a thing? No. They'd kill the North Korean force for breaking the truce. Would that start a war? Not likely. Then again, pretty much everyone in the North Korean military knows such an attack would be suicide. They'd not attack unless ordered by their government.
But T'Kuvma had no such scruples. He didn't mind if his actions started a war. The only thing he actually feared was the idea the Feds might kill him.
"Attacking a town" is too far. The Klingons made an aggressive move, but the correct response is a warning shot. Maybe I missed it, but the only options I saw were run away, beg for peace, or shoot to kill. Even Picard would have sent a torpedo past their bald, deformed chins.
A warning shot doesn't have to miss. It's simply not meant to kill. The point is to demonstrate that lethal force is an option. It's not much of a demonstration if there's no punch to it.
All true. But still not Burnham's call. Imagine a soldier on the South-Korean border deciding that's she fed-up with the North's provocations and, all of her own, resolves "to make them regret it." Do you really want scenarios like that?!
that's a terrible example. A better example would be for the leader of a border defense outpost to attack a group of North Koreans who were south of the border and attacking a town. Would anyone in the US or South Korean military allow such a thing? No. They'd kill the North Korean force for breaking the truce. Would that start a war? Not likely. Then again, pretty much everyone in the North Korean military knows such an attack would be suicide. They'd not attack unless ordered by their government.
But T'Kuvma had no such scruples. He didn't mind if his actions started a war. The only thing he actually feared was the idea the Feds might kill him.
"Attacking a town" is too far. The Klingons made an aggressive move, but the correct response is a warning shot. Maybe I missed it, but the only options I saw were run away, beg for peace, or shoot to kill. Even Picard would have sent a torpedo past their bald, deformed chins.
A warning shot doesn't have to miss. It's simply not meant to kill. The point is to demonstrate that lethal force is an option. It's not much of a demonstration if there's no punch to it.
Of course it has to miss! A warning shot that hits the target is just an attack, but worse because you are giving up the advantage of a first strike by deliberately not inflicting damage.
So, something I read in another forum was about Harry Mudd.
A fan was saying "How would Mudd fit into this dark and dystopian Trek?". It's been hinted that Mudd is a thief and a smuggler, so the idea was put forth that Mudd steals a Klingon cloaking device, which becomes a major plot point. The cloak is then "lost" only to be recovered by the Romulans years later. Thus, continuity is mostly preserved. All thanks to Harry Mudd.
So, something I read in another forum was about Harry Mudd.
A fan was saying "How would Mudd fit into this dark and dystopian Trek?". It's been hinted that Mudd is a thief and a smuggler, so the idea was put forth that Mudd steals a Klingon cloaking device, which becomes a major plot point. The cloak is then "lost" only to be recovered by the Romulans years later. Thus, continuity is mostly preserved. All thanks to Harry Mudd.
Ugh. I've never been a fan of Klingons having a cloak at all, it's way too dishonorable for them to be sneaking around, but it fits perfectly within the context of all of the Klingon behavior we've seen from TNG on -- boast about honor, act like Romulans. But the idea that it's not a Romulan invention at all? That would also be standard procedure, unfortunately -- develop something cool for the Romulans, then take it away at the last minute and declare it Klingon (like the "Klingon" Bird of Prey).
It's excellent, was not expecting it to be the prologue. That said I'll be watching episode 3
"The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory."
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
A warning shot doesn't have to miss. It's simply not meant to kill. The point is to demonstrate that lethal force is an option. It's not much of a demonstration if there's no punch to it.
A "warning shot" that connects isn't a "warning shot", it's an attack. And firing an alpha strike into a ship at point blank range is an attempt to destroy the Klingon ship. Capt Giourgio was right to reject Burnham's insane suggestion out of hand....her only mistake was not in relieving her of her duties right then and there for making it and avoiding the necessity of having to Court-Martial Burnham later.
I ask folks so eager to attack this...do you think Kirk (the real one...not the spoiled man-child from the JJverse....would have taken a shot like that at the Klingons over a knocked out satellite? The truth is, he wouldn't.....because the situation had not escalated to the point lethal force was justified. Someone quoted Spock in "Balance of Terror"....but for some reason they failed to mention the context in which he made that statement, a context in which the Romulans had deliberately violated Treaties to cross the Neutral Zone and destroy several manned observation posts without any provocation, killing dozens, if not more Starfleet personnel. Just a bit different than putting a disruptor bolt through a automated com buoy. In the TNG Episode "the Neutral Zone" they encountered the Romulans for the first time since TOS while investigating the disappearance of a colony....he didn't assume anything them, which was good as the Romulans had nothing to do with what had happened. If Picard had pulled a Burnham, they'd have war with the Romulans while the Borg sat back and ate popcorn and waited until both sides were too weak to resist them.
Managing First Contacts and border incidents is part of the job for a starship captain.....if this had been a test Burnam would have flunked it. Remember the Minbari-Earth war in B5 and how it started from just this sort of misunderstanding? In this case the Federation was getting a war whether it wanted one or not....you'd think folks would think it a good thing that Burnham was prevented from getting the Federation into the war as the putative aggressor, but I think some people have taken the Starfleet = "The Resistance" Klingons = GOP meme the writers are pushing and are running with it.
A warning shot doesn't have to miss. It's simply not meant to kill. The point is to demonstrate that lethal force is an option. It's not much of a demonstration if there's no punch to it.
A "warning shot" that connects isn't a "warning shot", it's an attack. And firing an alpha strike into a ship at point blank range is an attempt to destroy the Klingon ship. Capt Giourgio was right to reject Burnham's insane suggestion out of hand....her only mistake was not in relieving her of her duties right then and there for making it and avoiding the necessity of having to Court-Martial Burnham later.
I ask folks so eager to attack this...do you think Kirk (the real one...not the spoiled man-child from the JJverse....would have taken a shot like that at the Klingons over a knocked out satellite? The truth is, he wouldn't.....because the situation had not escalated to the point lethal force was justified. Someone quoted Spock in "Balance of Terror"....but for some reason they failed to mention the context in which he made that statement, a context in which the Romulans had deliberately violated Treaties to cross the Neutral Zone and destroy several manned observation posts without any provocation, killing dozens, if not more Starfleet personnel. Just a bit different than putting a disruptor bolt through a automated com buoy. In the TNG Episode "the Neutral Zone" they encountered the Romulans for the first time since TOS while investigating the disappearance of a colony....he didn't assume anything them, which was good as the Romulans had nothing to do with what had happened. If Picard had pulled a Burnham, they'd have war with the Romulans while the Borg sat back and ate popcorn and waited until both sides were too weak to resist them.
Managing First Contacts and border incidents is part of the job for a starship captain.....if this had been a test Burnam would have flunked it. Remember the Minbari-Earth war in B5 and how it started from just this sort of misunderstanding? In this case the Federation was getting a war whether it wanted one or not....you'd think folks would think it a good thing that Burnham was prevented from getting the Federation into the war as the putative aggressor, but I think some people have taken the Starfleet = "The Resistance" Klingons = GOP meme the writers are pushing and are running with it.
And you're again missing the point: There is no misunderstanding of cultural cues in the episode. Not by Burnham at least; Fleet Admiral Frellwit is a different story.
This isn't a "first contact gone wrong": the Klingons and the Federation have been in contact for a full century (since ENT), and several of its member species a long time before that (the Vulcans are confirmed so on-screen, I'd wager the Andorians are in that category, too). Burnham read the Klingons' intentions correctly: the Klingons explicitly came to start a war. It's what she did with that reading of their intentions that is the problem.
"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"
Ugh. I've never been a fan of Klingons having a cloak at all, it's way too dishonorable for them to be sneaking around...
Tell that to Captain Kor in "Errand of Mercy". Or Arne Darvin in "The Trouble With Tribbles". Or Kras in "Friday's Child". Or... let's just say Worf in TNG was reading his people's equivalent of the Arthurian tales and trying to be Sir Percival, while Klingon society as a whole is... not that.
Ugh. I've never been a fan of Klingons having a cloak at all, it's way too dishonorable for them to be sneaking around...
Tell that to Captain Kor in "Errand of Mercy". Or Arne Darvin in "The Trouble With Tribbles". Or Kras in "Friday's Child". Or... let's just say Worf in TNG was reading his people's equivalent of the Arthurian tales and trying to be Sir Percival, while Klingon society as a whole is... not that.
Exactly. That's why what I wrote went further than the part you clipped. I mean... you had to purposefully take out the part where I said that in order to respond as if I hadn't. Weird.
Anyway, that's one of the things I love most about Worf. I really wonder how much of it was intentional, or whether they just stumbled into it. He has the fervor of a convert, always disappointed that no other Klingon really believes in their ideals.
A warning shot doesn't have to miss. It's simply not meant to kill. The point is to demonstrate that lethal force is an option. It's not much of a demonstration if there's no punch to it.
A "warning shot" that connects isn't a "warning shot", it's an attack. And firing an alpha strike into a ship at point blank range is an attempt to destroy the Klingon ship. Capt Giourgio was right to reject Burnham's insane suggestion out of hand....her only mistake was not in relieving her of her duties right then and there for making it and avoiding the necessity of having to Court-Martial Burnham later.
I ask folks so eager to attack this...do you think Kirk (the real one...not the spoiled man-child from the JJverse....would have taken a shot like that at the Klingons over a knocked out satellite? The truth is, he wouldn't.....because the situation had not escalated to the point lethal force was justified. Someone quoted Spock in "Balance of Terror"....but for some reason they failed to mention the context in which he made that statement, a context in which the Romulans had deliberately violated Treaties to cross the Neutral Zone and destroy several manned observation posts without any provocation, killing dozens, if not more Starfleet personnel. Just a bit different than putting a disruptor bolt through a automated com buoy. In the TNG Episode "the Neutral Zone" they encountered the Romulans for the first time since TOS while investigating the disappearance of a colony....he didn't assume anything them, which was good as the Romulans had nothing to do with what had happened. If Picard had pulled a Burnham, they'd have war with the Romulans while the Borg sat back and ate popcorn and waited until both sides were too weak to resist them.
Managing First Contacts and border incidents is part of the job for a starship captain.....if this had been a test Burnam would have flunked it. Remember the Minbari-Earth war in B5 and how it started from just this sort of misunderstanding? In this case the Federation was getting a war whether it wanted one or not....you'd think folks would think it a good thing that Burnham was prevented from getting the Federation into the war as the putative aggressor, but I think some people have taken the Starfleet = "The Resistance" Klingons = GOP meme the writers are pushing and are running with it.
And you're again missing the point: There is no misunderstanding of cultural cues in the episode. Not by Burnham at least; Fleet Admiral Frellwit is a different story.
This isn't a "first contact gone wrong": the Klingons and the Federation have been in contact for a full century (since ENT), and several of its member species a long time before that (the Vulcans are confirmed so on-screen, I'd wager the Andorians are in that category, too). Burnham read the Klingons' intentions correctly: the Klingons explicitly came to start a war. It's what she did with that reading of their intentions that is the problem.
Challenging the Captain in front of the crew was not a good move on Burnham's point
"The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory."
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
Comments
That example actually proves my point if you go deeper than the headline.
No, seriously, I'm with Bones on this one: "War is never imperative, Mister Spock."
To make things clear, though, I agree with all things being said about needing to take a stand sometimes. At times it really *is* unavoidable. But when 2 major Quadrant powers are facing each other off, you simply don't let the local Burnhams of this world decide what's best for all. The 'chain of command' really isn't some mean, punative invention: it's there for very good reasons.
To make this clear as well, I think her motivations were honorable. And she may not even have been wrong in her assessment of how to deal with the Klingons (this actually reminds me of a TNG episode where Whesley, at the Academy, learns that you need to approach different species differently; like that Bolian he had to bully right back to earn his respect). But I think the 'correct' sensible military thing for her to do, would have been to have waited for the Fleet Admiral (was that his rank?) to arrive, and let the brass decide how to deal with such a highly volatile situation. After all, at that point, no one was firing at anyone yet. In fact, the Klink were specifically waiting for Star Fleet to arrive (although Burnham didn't know that, to be fair).
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
An interesting question.
Also, I think ppl don't mind seeing someone break the rules a bit (it's, on a possibly deeper psychological level, even empowering for ppl to see they do have some control over their own lives, and the decisions made therein, after all). But outright mutiny, so unwarrantly and sprang on us almost immediately, and see her come back from that (next ep?), speaking for myself, it makes me feel they undercut the credibility of the whole show a bit. But, truth be told, I should probably withhold judgement until I see how they're actually handling that.
Defending yourself and making sure the other side doesn't bully you anymore is noble, but you have to be careful not to go too far, for you will become the bully and you'll be the one who needs to be taken down.
In your example, you manage to make the situation go from a one to one feud to a "team deathmatch". Is this really better to drag more people in a fight that is now featuring weapons and is susceptible to bring more severe injuries to more people?
As for how far is acceptable, well that depends on how far the other side goes. Let's go back to B5 for an example.
A race called the Streib sent a fleet into Alliance space and captured several hundred people that they then took back to Streib space. Deleen, Sheridan and a small fleet of Alliance warships pursued them and when they caught up Delenn issued an ultimatum, release their prisoners or die. The Streib responded by venting the prisoners into space. IIRC Sheridan asked if that had happened when the Streib attacked the Minbari in a similar way. Delenn replied that it had and that she'd expected the Streib to have learned the consequences of such a poor decision. What consequence was that? Delenn didn't elaborate on what the Minbari did, but she told the Alliance fleet to obliterate the Streib fleet.
The Streib were not seen doing that again in the series.
My character Tsin'xing
But T'Kuvma had no such scruples. He didn't mind if his actions started a war. The only thing he actually feared was the idea the Feds might kill him.
My character Tsin'xing
"Attacking a town" is too far. The Klingons made an aggressive move, but the correct response is a warning shot. Maybe I missed it, but the only options I saw were run away, beg for peace, or shoot to kill. Even Picard would have sent a torpedo past their bald, deformed chins.
That is why we can't have nice things! :P
https://io9.gizmodo.com/we-never-actually-got-to-see-discoverys-coolest-referen-1818780015
Also
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/vgj4vn6qeq7en0uturab.png
However, if look at the date on the bottle, it's from eleven years in the future
My character Tsin'xing
My character Tsin'xing
Of course it has to miss! A warning shot that hits the target is just an attack, but worse because you are giving up the advantage of a first strike by deliberately not inflicting damage.
A fan was saying "How would Mudd fit into this dark and dystopian Trek?". It's been hinted that Mudd is a thief and a smuggler, so the idea was put forth that Mudd steals a Klingon cloaking device, which becomes a major plot point. The cloak is then "lost" only to be recovered by the Romulans years later. Thus, continuity is mostly preserved. All thanks to Harry Mudd.
Ugh. I've never been a fan of Klingons having a cloak at all, it's way too dishonorable for them to be sneaking around, but it fits perfectly within the context of all of the Klingon behavior we've seen from TNG on -- boast about honor, act like Romulans. But the idea that it's not a Romulan invention at all? That would also be standard procedure, unfortunately -- develop something cool for the Romulans, then take it away at the last minute and declare it Klingon (like the "Klingon" Bird of Prey).
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
A "warning shot" that connects isn't a "warning shot", it's an attack. And firing an alpha strike into a ship at point blank range is an attempt to destroy the Klingon ship. Capt Giourgio was right to reject Burnham's insane suggestion out of hand....her only mistake was not in relieving her of her duties right then and there for making it and avoiding the necessity of having to Court-Martial Burnham later.
I ask folks so eager to attack this...do you think Kirk (the real one...not the spoiled man-child from the JJverse....would have taken a shot like that at the Klingons over a knocked out satellite? The truth is, he wouldn't.....because the situation had not escalated to the point lethal force was justified. Someone quoted Spock in "Balance of Terror"....but for some reason they failed to mention the context in which he made that statement, a context in which the Romulans had deliberately violated Treaties to cross the Neutral Zone and destroy several manned observation posts without any provocation, killing dozens, if not more Starfleet personnel. Just a bit different than putting a disruptor bolt through a automated com buoy. In the TNG Episode "the Neutral Zone" they encountered the Romulans for the first time since TOS while investigating the disappearance of a colony....he didn't assume anything them, which was good as the Romulans had nothing to do with what had happened. If Picard had pulled a Burnham, they'd have war with the Romulans while the Borg sat back and ate popcorn and waited until both sides were too weak to resist them.
Managing First Contacts and border incidents is part of the job for a starship captain.....if this had been a test Burnam would have flunked it. Remember the Minbari-Earth war in B5 and how it started from just this sort of misunderstanding? In this case the Federation was getting a war whether it wanted one or not....you'd think folks would think it a good thing that Burnham was prevented from getting the Federation into the war as the putative aggressor, but I think some people have taken the Starfleet = "The Resistance" Klingons = GOP meme the writers are pushing and are running with it.
And you're again missing the point: There is no misunderstanding of cultural cues in the episode. Not by Burnham at least; Fleet Admiral Frellwit is a different story.
This isn't a "first contact gone wrong": the Klingons and the Federation have been in contact for a full century (since ENT), and several of its member species a long time before that (the Vulcans are confirmed so on-screen, I'd wager the Andorians are in that category, too). Burnham read the Klingons' intentions correctly: the Klingons explicitly came to start a war. It's what she did with that reading of their intentions that is the problem.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Exactly. That's why what I wrote went further than the part you clipped. I mean... you had to purposefully take out the part where I said that in order to respond as if I hadn't. Weird.
Anyway, that's one of the things I love most about Worf. I really wonder how much of it was intentional, or whether they just stumbled into it. He has the fervor of a convert, always disappointed that no other Klingon really believes in their ideals.
Challenging the Captain in front of the crew was not a good move on Burnham's point
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
3 hours of morning exercises. It's the Klingon way.
My character Tsin'xing