Does General Order 24 exist in TNG?

In the TOS episode, "A Taste of Armageddon", Kirk orders Scotty to execute Star Fleet General Order 24 (which is to destroy all life on a planet) against Eminiar VII unless the ruling council releases their hostages (which was the whole landing party).

This always struck me as an extreme response but it was also one of the things I loved about TOS's take no prisoners approach to diplomacy.

Do you think this General Order survived to the 24th century or did it remain in the past as part of Kirk-era cowboy diplomacy?

I imagine Picard would be aghast that an order like this even existed - let alone as a General Order. I wonder what situation in Star Fleet history necessitated the creation of such an order?

Memory Alpha says -

 

Personally, I think GO-24 was a pre-arranged bluff between Kirk and his senior officers.

 

I do wish Starfleet had a more militaristic approach in the 24th century that included glassing planets. Though it still may be part of their general orders in that the Prime Directive seemed to evolve into an order to let everyone die because it is their "cosmic fate."

 

Maybe by the 24th century General Order 24 only applies to pre-Warp planets who have accidentally seen 24th century technology. Better off dead according to Picard's philosophy.

But seriously General Order 24 seemed a bit of overkill so to speak in "A Taste of Armageddon". Wiping out a city or two would have got the message across. I tend to think of it as a sort of bluff as TGirl said. I think Kirk/Scotty would have had to speak to Starfleet first and Spock would have to verify before it would actually happen.

However in the TOS days, sometimes the Enterprise was the only sherrif in town and she had to keep order...

I think General Order 24 might always exist for those rare cases like Talos and Deneva no matter what century you're in.

 

No way to ever know. The 24th century is gone...

 

For whatever it's worth, the novel A Time to Kill established that the Eminiar Amendment to the Federation Charter had banned the destruction of a planet (and by default rescinded General Order 24) by the time of TNG.

 

I don't know what this means.

 

I'm pretty sure it's a dig at JJ-Trek.

 

And one that makes no sense. Alternate histories don't vanish. They exist in parallel alongside the new continuity. But I digress...

 

...is this a good time for a lens flare?

 

I find this very likely. IMHO, there is no way in hell that Starfleet would ever actually destroy a planet like that. They simply don't stoop that low. That's genocide, and the Federation is above that.

 

What it means is that the 24th century's yesterday. You can care all you want. Everybody does - yeah, that's okay.

 

They also live in a universe with mad energy beings, ancient psycho androids, and other dangerous stuff that they don't always come to an understanding with.

So having a general order to cover their asses in a possible situation where they have to fry an entire planet to keep all life in the galaxy safe from horrible death doesn't seem so far fetched.

 

Not all of the Federation, my friend.

 

I read about a deleted scene on the bridge where McCoy presses Scotty over whether or not he will actually follow through with GO-24 if the Eminians don't release the landing party. If I recall correctly, Scotty wasn't exactly happy about the prospect of wiping out Eminiar Seven, but he was prepared to carry out Kirk's order nonetheless.

 

Section 31 doesn't count.

 

Because they work behind the scenes or because they don't live by traditional Federation values?

 

^ Because they're a rogue bunch of criminal terrorists, that's why. They don't even work for the Federation - they just do whatever they want. They're accountable to NO ONE.

 

Debateably they don't work for the Federation's governing body, however they do work for the Federation itself, unofficial protectors.

I've never heard of this scene. Was it filmed and then discarded, or was it from a preliminary script?

 

No, actually, they don't, because - like I said - Section 31 don't answer to the Federation. Section 31 does, quite literally, whatever it wants to. That's not "working for" anybody, by any definition of the phrase.