Or that Sisko didn't do his homework and know with reasonable certainty that the Maquis should be able to evacuate in time provided they chose to do so?
Because he didn't show any knowledge of the planet what so ever seeing as he had to ask Kira to find the closest one. there wasn't a whole lot of research shown or even alluded to there.
Yeah, there's pretty much no chance that Sisko knew much of anything
about the planet. The scene is clearly meant to convey the idea that he just picked the closest colony, at random.
Also am I the only one disturbed by Star Trek fans agreeing with the use of biological weapons against a civilian population based on the logic that just by living in the DMZ a person is a terrorist.
No, you're not the only one.
I've always considered this one of DS9's weaker moments.
If you are going to go down this road, and have your lead character DO something like this, then follow it through. Have some consequences. If you're just going to reset-button things back to normal after the ep, then don't even have this happen in the first place. Isn't this what a bunch of people here (myself included) talk about when we blast VOY? That too often, something really big/serious/holy &%$#/etc would happen, something that WOULD have consequences, and it's all just brushed aside by the end of the ep, with plenty of time to hit that big reset button for the next ep? Why should DS9 not be held accountable when it does the exact same thing?
Yes, it's true that no one on the bridge "protested" (beyond clearly being shocked/uncomfortable with the order), which could also make them "just as guilty", as some have suggested. My answer to that is: quite possibly, that's correct, and the fact that - again - there were no consequences, is just bad writing. Someone SHOULD have spoken out, Worf SHOULD have refused to fire... SOMETHING like that absolutely needed to happen, else there should have been serious consequences not just for Sisko, but for other characters as well. The fact that none of this
happened at all is what makes it a bad ending to an otherwise interesting episode.
In the end I think this comes down to us simply not having enough information.You ask why we should assume the colony is small, I ask why we should assume it's large. Neither of us has compelling evidence.
I'd be a lot more disturbed by what Sisko did if it didn't essentially "balance the scales", and I'll admit I grow increasingly less disturbed by it the more I see forum posters in general accusing Sisko of "poisoning a planet" while glossing over the particulars.
"They did it first"? Seriously? Why does that matter at ALL? Poisoning the atmosphere of a planet in the DMZ with people living on it in order to catch one terrorist either IS OK or IS NOT OK. That the Maquis did the same thing to the Cardassians first is irrelevant. Of course
they did. They're fucking TERRORISTS! That's why we're trying to catch them! That doesn't make it ok for Starfleet to do it.
Plus, another aspect of the resolution of the ep that plain stinks: it undercuts the entire reason for the Maquis and all related storylines to even exist. It completely shoots all of it in the face.
The WHOLE POINT of the Maquis coming to exist was the idea that these people had had their homes, their lands, ripped out from under them by a Federation that signed these planets away in a treaty. Rather than accept this and leave, they stayed, knowing what the consequences could be, and when these consequences came (disgruntled Cardassian extremists, who may or may not have any support from their government, attacking them because they just plain don't want them around), they fought back, defending their homes, and eventually forming the Maquis.
Yet at the end of this ep, the Maquis poison at least one Cardassian colony. Then Sisko poisons the Maquis colony. Then they just... switch. "Welp, good thing the poison used by the Maquis isn't dangerous to Humans, and vice versa for the poison Sisko used (HOT DAMN that's convenient, by the way!), because now we can just swap planets!"
I thought that no one wanting to give up their home was the WHOLE REASON FOR THIS ENTIRE STORY ARC TO EXIST?!
The entire thing is just a mess.
That said, we're of course talking about an episode of a television show rather than something that actually happened.
Of course we are. Everyone knows it's all fiction. No one here is a complete idiot. Why even point this out?
That limits my threshold of investment.
That's a copout. "Well, it's not that important, I mean geez, don't get so worked up." You're here, in this thread, you're arguing, and your "threshold" is apparently high enough to allow six
posts by you to show up in the "Topic Review" column while I write this post. Your level of investment in this thread is rather high.
Yes, Sisko claims to Dax that he didn't receive approval for his specific plan. That by no means precludes the notion that he didn't receive some sort of approval.
It's ITPM all over again, where Starfleet may apparently approve of a plan in general terms without necessarily approving of the specifics.
Your own example defeats your argument. In ITPM, the writers went out of their way to tell us that Sisko DOES have approval for the deception plan. In FTY, they similarly went out of their way to tell us that he didn't
get approval for this
plan. In addition, we already knew that he wasn't even supposed to be on the case. Starfleet had booted him because they were worried that the personal aspect of what happened between him and Eddington would affect his judgement. And they were right
The intent of the writers/producers of the ep is clrear: Starfleet didn't sanction ANYTHING Sisko did after taking him off the case.