Just throwing in this tidbit, but there are many examples of naval battles during wartime where a single ship engages, or is engaged by just one ship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_single-ship_actions#World_War_I Broadening it a bit, in WWII Bismarck put to sea with a single escort (Prinz Eugen) on a mission to sink Allied shipping, and was quickly separated from that cruiser when the action started. I feel that even in wartime, Starfleet can and will send single ships out on particular missions of destruction, just like the examples linked above. Sure, in real life support was more than likely a few hundred miles away at any given time, but given the length of typical Trek engagements a few hours or days away at warp means nothing in the typical vastness of space... Mark
In terms of single ship engagements, those tend to either be cruiser sized ships, or ships from a blockaded force being forced to leave a harbor. Once capital ships (battleships) became so expensive that their numbers were measured in one or two dozen rather than the scores like they were pre-armored ship era, the frequency of sorties without a substantial fleet escort basically fell to zero. Based on the episode, though, it seemed pretty clear that Enterprise was relatively isolated. If reinforcements were close enough that they could arrive in time to help defend the Enterprise-C we certainly didn't get that impression. The Bismarck's sortie was essentially one of desperation from a navy that had ceded maritime superiority from the start. The Kriegsmarine was outnumbered pretty substantially in battleship tonnage, with only 4 capital ships (Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Bismarck and Tirpitz) opposed to the Royal Navy which had 9 battleships in the Atlantic and 7 fleet carriers. That is to say, if Starfleet's putting Enterprise out there like the Kriegsmarine was using Bismarck, it was in a LOT of trouble.
Starfleet wouldn't, and doesn't. As far as we've seen in the 23rd century, ALL of their ships are fully equipped for scientific missions. And still you lack any evidence for your assertion that a significant part of the fleet was NOT involved in those scientific programs. Whether they are a military or not doesn't matter; the question is, how much of Starfleet was PURELY military? In her question, yes. It doesn't change the fact that her question is irrelevant to the actual negotiations. Correct. She therefore has NO BASIS to ask that question other than simple alarmism. It's a strawman, nothing more. No. The answer was that certain programs would NOT be effected. Bill doesn't even confirm that your putative "pure military" programs WOULD be affected. Even the filming script doesn't bear that out. Begging the question: IS there a separate military program? No such distinction has ever been made in Star Trek, especially in TUC. So again: what part of Starfleet ISN'T involved in scientific research and exploration?
Except for the Defiant, which needed the Runabout Rubicon to do the science work. ("One Little Ship"). And you still lack any evidence that a significant part of the fleet was NOT involved in those military programs. The percentage of military or scientific doesn't matter; the answer is that Starfleet was called "The Military" in TWOK and identified with Military Forces in "Errand of Mercy". It's perfectly relevant since she wanted to know if Starfleet was affected, beyond just the stations. You're the one with the strawman. Her question is perfectly valid even if you don't like the answer. By answering that CERTAIN programs would not be affected it tells us that the REMAINING programs will be affected. Since Starfleet was The Military back then, it makes it easy to point to that being affected. Colonel West is wearing a Starfleet uniform and he's rather military. As you've pointed out in previous posts, the MACO's, aka military of the Enterprise-era were military and sported ground-based ranks. Kirk has called himself a soldier in TOS and in TWOK, Starfleet was called "The Military". Like I said, you're the one who lacks evidence here. That's an odd question given that the military leverages scientific research and exploration for tactical and strategic goals (see "One Little Ship".) To answer you, it's the part that isn't necessary to be always available to wage war against the Klingons. It's the part that is no longer needed that leads to Picard in TNG's time to claim that Starfleet is not a military
Irrelevant: even if all of them were involved in a military program, only the ones who were not also involved in the scientific and exploration programs would have to stand down. So according to you, how many had to stand down? No she didn't. No more than Cartwright was protesting the idea of offering Klingons "safe haven within Federation space." That, too, was a strawman argument. The answer was "no". I therefore like it just fine. It doesn't tell us that at all. Only that certain programs won't be affected. He doesn't say -- and at this point, cannot really know -- if anything else will. Unless Colonel West is a separate military program, this does not answer the question. You're just being contrary now. Again. Welcome to the ignore list.
Sure. Supposedly Crazie Eddie has added me to his ignore list, but this isn't the first time he's said that so we'll see. The ones that couldn't convert easily from soldier to explorer. Some ships that were primarily built for warfighting, such as dreadnoughts and ships that were kept around more for fighting in wars but were inefficient for hauling cargo and supporting expansion efforts. I like how you completely ignore her dialogue. MILITARY AIDE: Bill, are we talking about mothballing the Starfleet? How is that a strawman argument? What is he misrepresenting? 1. Offer a safe haven for Klingons in Federation space. 2. Klingons would become the alien trash of the galaxy. 3. Strawman Fallacy ???? or Racism/Specism ???? 1. Dismantle the fleet 2. We'd be defenseless 3. With an aggressive species with a foothold on our territory 4. Strawman Fallacy ???? CARTWRIGHT: I must protest. To offer the Klingons a safe haven within Federation space is suicide. Klingons would become the alien trash of the galaxy. And if we dismantle the fleet, we'd be defenseless before an aggressive species with a foothold on our territory. The opportunity here is to bring them to their knees. Then we'll be in a far better position to dictate terms. Sure it does. She asked him if the Starfleet is affected and he says only a part of it will not be. So you think that Colonel West is not in a separate military program in Starfleet? And again, there's TWOK that said Starfleet was The Military and "Errand of Mercy"'s military forces. I'm just answering your question with the evidence we have. You've said something like that before.
I agree it's probably time for this to move on. RL is sometimes hectic so I apologize if perhaps I should have made such a suggestion sooner. Eddie, if you feel exasperated and the need to ignore someone, sometimes that's the best option. But under most circumstances this would be considered a flame. I'm giving you a friendly this time, but please don't do it again. Same goes for everyone else.
I think one of the strengths of "Yesterday's Enterprise" is just how well sketched the alternative universe seems to be, without it actually going into too great detail. It just does it all with broad strokes. But that's what makes it so compelling, because it seems real enough to convince us that it was a valid alternative path to the 24th century we 'know'. To the broader question posed by the OP, I can't imagine that the Federation changed so radically all at once. I imagine that following the Narendra III incident, tensions escalated out of control, but people like Ambassador Spock maybe still tried to negotiate and maintain the Khitomer accords. I can only imagine that the Klingons made some major attack that caught the Federation with their pants down, and therefore the Feds had trouble regaining ground. One thing that needs to be remembered (but often isn't) in these discussions is that even canonically, in our own 'real' TNG universe, the episode "Aquiel" stated that the last Klingon raid on Federation territory was in 2362, only two years before the Enterprise-D was launched. That's not an alternative universe, that's a solid fact that happened in the 'real' version of Star Trek history. So, it is apparent from this incident, and from events in DS9, that the Federation/Klingon treaty remains fragile even in the supposedly peaceful 'prime' universe. All I can imagine is that the tipping point that turned everything into a war zone was that one straw incident that didn't happen in 'our' Star Trek universe. "Yesterday's Enterprise" itself evidently implies it was as simple as the Enterprise-C not being where it was supposed to be, but I reckon there was probably in 'reality' more than that. It was an escalation of events.
I tend to view that as a case of over a century of hostilities between the Klingons and the Federation not disappearing overnight. Some Klingon factions couldn't have cared less about the Khitomer Accords and did continue aggression towards the Federation on their own (without being sanctioned by the Empire). Some of these factions may even have been supported by a few members of the Klingon High Council who may have let them off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
There were also Korris and Konmel in "Heart of Glory" who disagreed with the alliance and viewed peaceful relations with a former enemy as a "living death."
Ultimately I think it comes down to the fact that the Federation and Klingons essentially have completely opposite philosophies. The fact that they were ever able to reach a peace whatsoever is remarkable to me.
I always liked to imagine that Klingons were simply stronger. Two powers clashing, and one was stronger.