View Single Post
Old February 22 2013, 09:45 PM   #51
Merry Christmas
Vice Admiral
 
Merry Christmas's Avatar
 
Location: tantalizing t'girl's techno temenos
Re: Star Trek: INS- Son'a/Dominion Question

Robert Maxwell wrote: View Post
they aren't Federation citizens, and the Federation has no right to force them to move
If the Federation simply left them there (strictly speaking, they didn't NEED to move them), the Baku would have killed a few hours after the collect process began.

How would that have been better?

sonak wrote: View Post
That's why the question becomes, "Does the Federation have the right to do what they please with the Ba'ku planet ...
With a Baku planet, no. With a Federation planet that has Baku living on it, yes.

Homesteading is a pretty old legal concept, one that the Federation (presumably) understands and respects.
This isn't a given.

they can uproot the Ba'ku and take the planet's radiation without so much as a "by your leave" doesn't strike me as the action of a benevolent, democratic government.
But should not the Federation's benevolence be aim first and foremost towards the peoples of the Federation? And no, before you say it, I'm not suggesting "anything goes." But should there not not be a list of priorities?

Whether the Ba'ku are from that planet or not doesn't mean much.
It means a great deal whether of not the Baku originated on the ring planet.

The Federation has no business aiding and abetting the Son'a in this ...
And they weren't. The Federation was there solely to harvest the particles. The issues between the Baku and their offspring had nothing to do with Federation decision, presence or actions. They had to do with the Sona's actions yes, but not the Federations.

sonak wrote: View Post
If they say "no," they look like selfish douchebags and the audience stops rooting for the supposed heroes.)
Of course the problem there is, the Baku had an opportunity to say yes at one point in the movie. After Picard sent the Enterprise away, and he was briefing the Baku leaders.

At this point, the Baku leaders could have said "Wait, the radiation will help many billions? Of course we leave, no one explained it to us. Remove us immediately."

But the Baku did not say this. Instead it was. "Let use ourselves and our children as "Human" shields to prevent the billion of people in the Federation from obtaining the same benefits we enjoy."

selfish douchebags
Exactly.

Robert Maxwell wrote: View Post
It was explicitly stated in the film that harvesting the radiation using the Son'a collector would render the planet uninhabitable.
Not quite, it would render the planet uninhabitable for generations, but not permanently.

We had a volcanic eruption near here in May of 1980. The area north of the mountain was laid waste and was uninhabitable for years. But in time the land recovered.

It would have been the same with the planet.

Timo wrote: View Post
Sure - as long as the definition of "smooth" includes all the Ba'ku dying horribly.
No. Smooth as in the Baku are safely removed to the holoship and it leaves. Then the particles are harvest. Then the Federation and the Sona divide the particles. Then they go their separate ways.

The idea that the Son'a would let the Ba'ku live is so out of the left field that I can't fathom how you could get it from watching this movie.
What I saw in the movie was that the Sona were actually going out of their way to avoid harming the Baku. From dialog, even after the collection process began, there would have been multiple hours of time to remove anyone still on the planet's surface.

HaventGotALife wrote: View Post
It was released in December of 1998.
It was released between "Covenant" and "It's Only a Paper Moon."
So, you're saying that the TOS movie The Final Frontier (release on June 9, 1989) was set in-between the TNG episode Up The Long Ladder (May 22, 1989) and the TNG episode Manhunt (June 19, 1989)?

Merry Christmas is offline   Reply With Quote