View Single Post
Old March 26 2011, 10:19 PM   #480
St. William Of Levittown
Vice Admiral
 
St. William Of Levittown's Avatar
 
Location: Rush Limborg is prepping for Christmas on The EIB Network
Re: Typhon Pact: Rough Beasts Of Empire review thread

Kestrel wrote: View Post
Rush Limborg wrote: View Post
[
Rush Limborg wrote: View Post
But you noted that the Soviets would suspect the US because of the technology needed for nukes. If the rogues were simply blowing up the Soviet's own nukes, it would look like what it probably was: anti-Communist rebels.
Oh, it still could very well be considered a bad thing, I don't contest that it unnecessarily causes civilian deaths.
Could very well be considered a bad thing? No - terrorists running around blowing up nukes near population centers is a bad thing. No "could be" about it.
Would you tell that to the Bajorans?


Nobody knew about it period. And if they did then they're damned even more for keeping it secret.

And hindsight doesn't matter. The chain of events is simple: Changelings replace Martok to nobody's knowledge. 31 infects the Great Link with a genocidal plague. THEN the information about a Changeling high up in the Klingon command becomes known. So that can't be used as a defense.
rfmcdpei wrote: View Post
Actually, no one had any idea that Martok had been replaced by a Changeling who was bringing the Klingon Empire into conflict with first Cardassia then the Federation. Had the Great Link simply executed Odo no one would have known until it was far too late.
I was using it as an example demonstrating that the Changelings were at war with the "solids" when said "solids" were not at war with them.

You can argue that 31 didn't know about pseudo-Martok when they infected the Founders. You cannot argue that they didn't know about the events of "Homefront/Paradise Lost".

Kestrel wrote: View Post
Simple - they wanted to make sure it spread to all the Changelings. And/or give a long enough incubation period to make it harder to trace back to Odo and thus the Federation.
(nods) I could see that.

Rush Limborg wrote: View Post
Kestrel wrote: View Post
Are you really advocating for a Crusader mentality here? You and Bombs Away LeMay woulda been real good buddies.
Frankly, I'd say I'd more likely be in good company with, say, General William T. Sherman.
Yeah - and what he did was despicable. I'm sure he was a fine man individually, but his actions led eventually the to firebombings of Hamburg and Dresden and Curtis LeMay's burning of Tokyo.
By his example, you mean? Because I'm reasonably sure a Civil War general woudn't have much to do with Tokyo....

Honestly, like it or not, Sherman understood exactly what I have been saying. Had it not been for him (and "Unconditional Surrender" Grant, of course), the war would have gone on for a lot longer--and would have caused far more strife for all concerned.

rfmcdpei wrote: View Post
Rush Limborg wrote: View Post
rfmcdpei wrote: View Post

I noted the difference later, after other people agreed that a terrorist campaign involving WMD use by one state against another is a very bad idea. It's a difference that makes no difference.
Oh, it still could very well be considered a bad thing, I don't contest that it unnecessarily causes civilian deaths.

I am simply contesting the idea that the US would be held at fault for it.
If the United States turned out to have a hidden agency sponsoring nuclear terrorism, it would be held accountable. If the balance of evidence suggested that the United States was inclined towards this, it would be held accountable.
Which is why the appearance of a "rogue organization" is essential.

It would be a very, very bad idea for the United States to do so, which is why it never developed a Section 31-style agency. Most countries haven't.
Oh, I don't deny that it's extraordinarly difficult. However, this is the 21st Century. By the time the Federation would be founded, the examples of the past are obviously used by 31. After all, they stayed in place for over 200 years.

The only exceptions I can think of are the Soviet Union under Stalin, which had the NKVD/KGB happily killing and assassinating opponents of the state as far removed as Mexico, and Israel, which was assassinating scientists working on WMD and missile programs in Egypt in in the 1950s and 1960s.
And...did that lead to war?

The Soviets, again, had strong plausible deniability. They were well skilled at "The Game" of diplomacy to excuse themselves of it all.

You don't seem to understand the difference in scale between technology theft and attempted genocide.
That does not change the effectiveness of plausible deniability.

Conquering the Federation, again, is rather different from killing everyone in the Federation. This is a fundamental distinction that you're not picking up on.
If the Founders' agenda is to suppress the "solid" threat, a more efficient means of doing so would be to destroy them--if the Dominion were capable of it. Why would they waste resources on holding onto formerlly free worlds?

As Machiavelli said, there are only two ways to successfully conquer a formerly free society: to go live there to watch everything (which is absurd and impossible for the Founders, for various reasons)--or to destroy the society completely.

Section 31 chose to escalate a cold war to the point of carrying out an act of genocide. The Cold War equivalent would be the American government responding to the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia by putting nerve gas in Moscow's water system.

What Section 31 did is the sort of escalation that leaves absolutely no space for conflict de-escalation: even if the Soviet government didn't hold the United States responsible and start the Third World War, a Soviet government coping with the mass murder of millions of citizens would not be inclined towards moderation in foreign affairs.
Except for this: 31's virus was akin not to "mass muder of citizend", so much as mass muder of the high-ranking officials of the Soviet Union--resulting in complete instability in the Soviet government.

However, there's another factor: Remember in "The Ship", the Jem'Hadar crew commit suicide en masse when the Founder perishes. This would seem to indicate that, were the Founders wiped out, the Jem'Hadar en masse would do so, as well.

There was nothing that the Federation could do to de-escalate the conflict. How could Starfleet offer the Founders a cure without admitting that a Federation body had attempted genocide? Section 31 could have killed everyone.
Not at all. Assuming that Starfleet giving the cure would be the best option (which I doubt; see my comments on the Battle of Cardassia, and the repsonse I just gave):

Starfleet had Odo. The offical story could be that, "We found a cure with the help of Odo's DNA, etc."

Again--plausible deniability. Diplomatic BS.

Besides...perhaps holding the cure for ransom ("You surrender, and we will hand over the cure.") is a good idea, after all.

Kestrel wrote: View Post
There's no reason to assume that. More likely it just had a long incubation period.
One could argue for either scenario, yes. However, your scenario strongly begs for the question of why 31 programmed the virus to take so long to break out. What would be the reason?
Assuming Section 31, or anyone, has perfect knowledge of what the morphogenic virus would do, over what time frame, is implausible. Parsimony; Section 31 isn't made of people of godlike competency, clearly.
Of course not--no one is godlike in competency. Still, if they created the virus, they would surely test it and make sure it would do what they wanted before infecting Odo.

Kestrel wrote: View Post
Are you really advocating for a Crusader mentality here? You and Bombs Away LeMay woulda been real good buddies.
Frankly, I'd say I'd more likely be in good company with, say, General William T. Sherman.
Sherman didn't kill everyone in Georgia as a preemptive measure.
And 31 didn't try to kill off all the Vorta and Jem'Hadar in the Alpha Quadrant.
__________________
"The saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia.... 'Needs and abilities' are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to 'the State shall take, the State shall give'."
--David Mamet
St. William Of Levittown is offline   Reply With Quote