View Single Post
Old February 19 2013, 05:16 AM   #323
UFO's Avatar
Re: I hope for more traditional space battles

My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
It's hysterical that people think it's worthwhile to nitpick and critique a movie made four years ago that's completely reinvigorated a dead franchise like Star Trek.
Well speaking solely for myself I cannot tell you how much your kind words of encouragement light up my heart. Of course I wouldn't tell you if I could. But that confirms it. "Nitpick" had definitely been redefined while I wasn't looking.

junxon wrote: View Post
i'm sure when trek is rebooted again in 25 years by someone else they'll bitch about it and squeal that it's not proper star trek without lens flares
True, but I couldn't wait 25 years for an issue of that magnitude to become fashionable again.

BillJ wrote: View Post
UFO wrote: View Post

I am not saying Kirk couldn’t make mistakes, but I am not aware of him doing anything reasonably comparable to what nuKirk did.
Neither Kirk or Sulu offered Chang a chance to surrender. They continued to bombard his ship with photon torpedoes until it was destroyed.

I'd say that was comparable.
You almost make me doubt that my previous answer to this very question was adequate. No, its about right. I would only reiterate that the torpedo appeared to do more damage that anyone in-universe probably realised.

In any event, Chang didn't surrender (he was probable dead of course) and the good guy's couldn't risk secondary power systems reinstating the cloak at any moment or the BOP getting in a luck shot etc so they reacted quickly. Granted that would have made it necessary for Chang to surrender even more rapidly if he could have. But lets face it, he was never going to and everyone knew that so making sure he was out of action ASAP was imperative. Nothing wrong with that I can see. Not the same situation either given the unknowns and timing.

Nor is such behaviour uncommon in navy tradition. Enemy ships are often pounded into submission, if they don't surrender. Besides in Chang's case it was only about four to six shots and barely lasted eight seconds. As I said, not a lot of time for chit chat.

yousirname wrote: View Post
Their guilt isn't really a factor in my thinking. Obviously if Nero is prepared to accept their assistance, then they're obliged to provide it. But he isn't:

Nero wrote:
I would rather suffer the end of Romulus a thousand times. I would rather die in agony than accept assistance from you.
Given Nero's situation, his death is inevitable without outside assistance. Assuming that his co-operation is required for that assistance to be provided, there is no helping him so long as he feels the way his lines there indicate. Since assisting him will almost certainly mean at least dropping the shields, and since it's reasonable to assume that at least some of his weapons remain both online and operable by him, there is no reasonable path open to Kirk that ends with rescuing Nero. Hence the deaths of Nero and his crew are inevitable and hence my indifference to the firing.
You perhaps recall the phrase" "Fire everything"? Nero's previous sucessful missile attack had punched right through the Enterprise's shields. Had Nero had anything left to hurt Kirk with, however feeble, I'm sure he would have used it. So we are left with a completely defenceless Narada. But you say, perhaps he was playing possum. That turned out not to be the case, though Kirk, despite sensors, may not have known that. But then why offer help in the first place if he wasn't confident of his safety? You seem to be saying he wouldn’t or shouldn’t take that risk.

If the ship were crewed by a posse of fanatically suicidal innocents who are willing and able to prevent their own rescue, I still see no significant ethical distinction to draw between watching it happen and hurrying it along. It all hinges on the feasibility of forced rescue. If you can persuade me that they could have forced Nero or some of his crew to be rescued without exposing the Enterprise to grave risk, I'll have to change my mind. On the other hand, if you accept that their death was inevitable, you have some work to do to justify distinguishing between watching and firing (IMO at least).
Do I? So you are saying that, as a principle, if someone's death is inevitable, it should be ethically OK to kill them, irrespective of that person's ethical status? I would caution you to think about that before answering.
UFO is offline   Reply With Quote