Was Picard wrong in I,Borg?

[USS KG5]

RobertScorpio wrote:

---

Agreed...

And someone just said we didn't really know if it would have worked or not anyway...so? What if it had? You are right; the blood of everyone who died due to the borg COULD INDEED..be rested at picard's feet.

Rob

Given the length of his career it is likely that Picard already had the blood of thousands on his hands, everything that happens under his command is on his hands.

The blood of millions of Germans is on the hands of the allies, that does not mean fighting WW2 to a conclusion was wrong. The blood of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis is on the hands of those who launched those respective wars, again it does not inherently mean the decision was wrong.

THere are thousands of examples where all choices are bad. That is why you NEED people of intelligence and moral character like Picard in charge of the Enterprise rather than letting the computer run it. He has to weigh these choices and make a decision.

I for one think he was probably right - as others have pointed out the Borg would likely respond badly to attempted genocide, and if it worked he would kill billions of Borg - hardly a very "starfleet" thing to do.

[RegFan]

I think they should have used the virus. The Borg are not individuals so it wouldn't be genocide.

[Timo]

I think this should be divided in two arguments. One, was Picard's choice the correct one for the time of its making? Two, was it the correct one in retrospect?

Back in "I, Borg", Picard did not yet know that the genocide plan had no realistic chance of working against the Borg, so this shortcoming should not affect the evaluation of his decisionmaking. He probably believed that the weapon would work - unless he had some inside information from being Locutus.

OTOH, back then, Picard did not know that the Borg might be a threat to the galaxy, either. As far as he knew, the Borg were only a local threat, one with a particular interest toward the UFP. He couldn't tell himself that he was doing some messianic deed for the good of quadrillions. Again unless his Locutus days had provided him with contrary data he wasn't sharing with the audience or, it seems, with Starfleet.

The blood of millions of Germans is on the hands of the allies, that does not mean fighting WW2 to a conclusion was wrong. The blood of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis is on the hands of those who launched those respective wars, again it does not inherently mean the decision was wrong.

Why not? A different set of murderous goons is in power (local or global) now than would have been if the wars had been cut short. Who cares? The amount of blood spilled still exists, still can be quantified, still can be solely blamed on those who pulled the triggers or dropped the bombs.

In general, more blood is shed by the victor than by the loser. That's how one wins wars, after all. OTOH, the victor defines good and evil for the following few decades. All the more reason, then, to ignore his pious definitions and stick to that which universally works: the amount of suffering directly generated. By that definition, all total victories are undesirable, because a limited victory causes less suffering. This would most certainly have been true of WWII, where Germany was explicitly prevented from surrendering until all of Europe had been lost to the horrors of the war.

Timo Saloniemi

[Anwar]

And what about those former individuals who were forcibly turned into Borg? Did they all deserve to die (before the Collective stopped the virus)?

[GeorgeKirk]

One of the key tenets of Star Trek (especially TNG) is that 24th century man has learned how to get out of difficult situations without sacrificing their moral values. Granted, they kind of threw this out the window when they made the TNG films, so I can understand how someone who's too young to have watched the show when it first aired might have missed it.

If you want stories about morally ambiguous "heroes" who have no problem committing crimes and atrocities as long as it serves a "greater good", then Star Trek really isn't for you. Go watch 24 or BSG or the Dick Cheney Komedy Hour.

[MikeS]

It is perhaps useful to remember that there are no civilians within the Borg collective when discussing this. I'm not sure that it is genocide. Would Picard hesitate to use an antibiotic to kill a virus? Probably not, and just because Borgs were once-upon-a-time individuals and happen to be mainly humanoid in form, does not mean we should see them as anything other than a multi-cellular virus.

[GalaxyClass1701]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

There is never justification for genocide.

Picard did the right thing.

I disagree if the entire Federation is at stake which is billions of lives this shoulc and could have been justified. The borg where hell bent on assimilating the Federation. Picard made the wrong choice.

[BillJ]

The episode that pretty much turned me off to TNG.

[GalaxyClass1701]

BillJ wrote:

---

The episode that pretty much turned me off to TNG.

Why?

[Anwar]

I guess he likes protagonists who go around destroying entire species and killing Billions of innocents in the "crossfire" because they aren't willing to do things in less malicious ways.

[GalaxyClass1701]

Anwar wrote:

---

I guess he likes protagonists who go around destroying entire species and killing Billions of innocents in the "crossfire" because they aren't willing to do things in less malicious ways.

I don't know but there is no reasoning with the borg they will not negotiate peace I still would have sent the virus.

[DontFeedPhil]

Anwar wrote:

---

And what about those former individuals who were forcibly turned into Borg? Did they all deserve to die (before the Collective stopped the virus)?

They're called a "casualty of war"...

Why dont we think about this as if Star Trek is a real version of our future. So now that it affects you...do you think he made the right decision? I dont. We need to take every opportunity to whipe them out...Its us or them...

[USS KG5]

Timo wrote:

---

Why not? A different set of murderous goons is in power (local or global) now than would have been if the wars had been cut short. Who cares? The amount of blood spilled still exists, still can be quantified, still can be solely blamed on those who pulled the triggers or dropped the bombs.

If your essential point here is "it did not matter who won World War Two" I am not going to bother debating the point, clearly we are coming from completely different points of view.

Defeating the brutal, evil, genocidal dictatorship that was running Germany and creating as a result the peaceful coalition of nations that now comprises Europe (eventually) seems to me in every way worth the blood spilled, on both sides.

In general, more blood is shed by the victor than by the loser. That's how one wins wars, after all.

Except in WW2, where the allied powers as a whole lost vastly more lives.

OTOH, the victor defines good and evil for the following few decades. All the more reason, then, to ignore his pious definitions and stick to that which universally works: the amount of suffering directly generated.

Pseudo-philosophical horse-poop. While a direct exact definition of good and evil is difficult to judge the Nazis were evil, plain and simple. That is not to say the allies did not do bad things in achieving victory, and war itself is a brutal abomination, but to just let the Nazis win would have been horrific. Apart from anything else they would have set about racially pirifying a continent. All untermensch would have been exterminated.

I just hope I got the wrong end of your post Timo normally I have a lot of time for your opinions but this one baffles me.

Germany was explicitly prevented from surrendering until all of Europe had been lost to the horrors of the war.

No German would have surrendered before the end of 1943 or so, by which point much damage was done. The war could have ended in 1944 had the Nazi leadership been removed, but the damage would have been almost as bad.

[Rush Limborg]

Hindsight is 20-20. Looking back, the death of Hugh's branch of the Borg would have been better for the UFP than what happened--the Borg force following Lore, and attacking the Federation and...

Bottom line: There are no easy answers in war. Many times, a nation finds itself having to go against "principles" in order to defend itself--or to end the war as quickly as possible. To be morally consistant, in the end, runs the risk of tying your hands...so that they can exploit your barriers.

[Trekker4747]

SchwEnt wrote:

---

Hold on there ^^^

I get your point, but in ST fictional context...
For argument's sake, say the Enterprise had the invasive virus weapon ready to unleash at the last moment of BOBW, with the Earth on the verge of assimilation.

It would literally be...use the invasive program, wipe out the Borg genocidally -OR- the Earth is assimilated, followed by the rest of the UFP.

Riker should have declined, it is wrong to commit genocide.
Enterprise stands aside as the Borg cube begins assimilation.

Is that what you're claiming? THAT would have been the correct course of action?
(All fictional, I know)

Well, see, now (IMHO) you're talking about two different things.

In the case of Picard it was a "less active" war situation. At that point the Federation was pretty much in a "cold war" with the Borg. The Federation had defeated the one ship sent to attack Earth and after that point the Borg had done nothing else to the Federation.

For all intents and purposes they were "even" in the war which had gone cold.

If Picard had implemented the program the war would've gone hot again and, since it's unlikely it would've wiped out all Borg, it would've likely just prompted them to step-up their efforts to assimilate the Federation. The retaliation from the Borg may have been something that couldn't of been stopped.