RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,229
Posts: 5,438,253
Members: 24,957
Currently online: 585
Newest member: zanejc

TrekToday headlines

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > The Next Generation

The Next Generation All Good Things come to an end...but not here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 26 2014, 03:42 PM   #31
Vandervecken
Commander
 
Vandervecken's Avatar
 
Location: Kobold
Re: The Pegasus

This wasn't a rogue operation as some have suggested. This was fully Starfleet sanctioned.
__________________
"Mu hah hah ha! And when they give me Battlestar Galactica that'll be the trifecta! My red matter and action movie scripts are unstoppable!"--JJ "Destroyer of Worlds" Abrams
Vandervecken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2014, 03:44 PM   #32
Vandervecken
Commander
 
Vandervecken's Avatar
 
Location: Kobold
Re: The Pegasus

PhoenixClass wrote: View Post
Vandervecken wrote: View Post
Decision made by that renowned jurist and Federation legal scholar, Jen-Luc Picard. Uh huh.


I notice it, I just don't see his authority to do it, in addition to not recognizing his qualifications to interpret the treaty. Who the hell is Picard to interpret the legality of Federation treaties, especially as regards his superiors? This was for the Federation Council--the civilian government--to decide.

Picard must have been watching TOS, he was mavericking like Kirk.


If memory serves me correctly, Pressman conceded that treaty did apply to the phasing technology. He went on a tirade about how the treaty was putting the Federation at a disadvantage. If the treaty did not apply, he would not have mentioned it all.
I concede that Starfleet agreed it applied, but it still seems odd to me that they did. The cloaking is really a secondary effect, it's the phasing that really matters.
__________________
"Mu hah hah ha! And when they give me Battlestar Galactica that'll be the trifecta! My red matter and action movie scripts are unstoppable!"--JJ "Destroyer of Worlds" Abrams
Vandervecken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2014, 03:51 PM   #33
Vandervecken
Commander
 
Vandervecken's Avatar
 
Location: Kobold
Re: The Pegasus

This general idea that illegal=immoral is also wrong. it simply isn't so. In Nazi Germany, it was illegal to shelter Jews. Was it immoral to do so?

If a treaty/law with an aggressive dictatorship/police state hampers your ability to combat that dictatorship, then it could be the law that's immoral. In some hypothetical future war with the Romulans, that phasing tech on every main ship could save millions of lives, on ships and planets.
__________________
"Mu hah hah ha! And when they give me Battlestar Galactica that'll be the trifecta! My red matter and action movie scripts are unstoppable!"--JJ "Destroyer of Worlds" Abrams
Vandervecken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2014, 04:53 PM   #34
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: The Pegasus

Adhering to the terms of the treaty could prevent the war from occurring in the first place.
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2014, 05:29 PM   #35
Vandervecken
Commander
 
Vandervecken's Avatar
 
Location: Kobold
Re: The Pegasus

DonIago wrote: View Post
Adhering to the terms of the treaty could prevent the war from occurring in the first place.

Maybe, maybe not. I was just pointing out that the assumption that legal=moral and illegal=immoral is not valid.
__________________
"Mu hah hah ha! And when they give me Battlestar Galactica that'll be the trifecta! My red matter and action movie scripts are unstoppable!"--JJ "Destroyer of Worlds" Abrams

Last edited by Vandervecken; February 26 2014 at 06:07 PM.
Vandervecken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2014, 05:54 PM   #36
PhoenixClass
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: The Pegasus

Vandervecken wrote: View Post

I concede that Starfleet agreed it applied, but it still seems odd to me that they did. The cloaking is really a secondary effect, it's the phasing that really matters.
It does not make sense to argue that the treaty wasn't broken simply because Starfleet developed a better cloak. If the device simply phased a vessel physically, but was still detectable, then you could make a reasonable argument that the cloaking ban did not apply. But the device cloaked and phased. The treaty forbids cloaking, therefore the device violated the treaty.
PhoenixClass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2014, 06:11 PM   #37
Vandervecken
Commander
 
Vandervecken's Avatar
 
Location: Kobold
Re: The Pegasus

PhoenixClass wrote: View Post
Vandervecken wrote: View Post

I concede that Starfleet agreed it applied, but it still seems odd to me that they did. The cloaking is really a secondary effect, it's the phasing that really matters.
It does not make sense to argue that the treaty wasn't broken simply because Starfleet developed a better cloak. If the device simply phased a vessel physically, but was still detectable, then you could make a reasonable argument that the cloaking ban did not apply. But the device cloaked and phased. The treaty forbids cloaking, therefore the device violated the treaty.

Soooooooo....if Starfleet developed a better warp drive, one that had a secondary effect that caused a ship to be "cloaked," that would be covered under the treaty as well? Or shields or even ship-building materials better than duranium that were much more effective at absorbing enemy fire, or much better at protecting a crew generally, but as a side effect rendered the ship invisible to the eye and sensors, that would be covered under the treaty too?

In all these cases this is an unreasonable extension of the treaty to simply suppress new tech that has zero to do with cloaking. This is what I mean about Picard being no legal scholar. He didn't even consider these points (and I'm no legal scholar).
__________________
"Mu hah hah ha! And when they give me Battlestar Galactica that'll be the trifecta! My red matter and action movie scripts are unstoppable!"--JJ "Destroyer of Worlds" Abrams
Vandervecken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2014, 06:21 PM   #38
PhoenixClass
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: The Pegasus

Yes, those technologies would fall under the treaty. We don't know the text of the actual article so this is a little awkward to debate, but it is said repeatedly that the treaty bans cloaking devices.

You cannot argue that your examples have nothing to do with cloaking when they cloak the ship that fields them.
PhoenixClass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2014, 08:00 PM   #39
Vandervecken
Commander
 
Vandervecken's Avatar
 
Location: Kobold
Re: The Pegasus

PhoenixClass wrote: View Post
Yes, those technologies would fall under the treaty. We don't know the text of the actual article so this is a little awkward to debate, but it is said repeatedly that the treaty bans cloaking devices.

You cannot argue that your examples have nothing to do with cloaking when they cloak the ship that fields them.
I absolutely can argue that they having nothing to do with cloaking when their primary purpose is other. That is precisely what I argue, and I not only argue it, I assert it.

I don't believe for one second Starfleet/The Federation would suppress those techs just because a side effect of the tech is to cause invisibility to sensors. An advanced warp drive that, say, allowed them to travel at warp 10 and higher, safely? New materials that, say, resulted in a 10-fold reduction in cancer among ship crews because of reduced radiation/particle exposure? And they'd abandon those things just because of this treaty? Not a chance. And neither should they have abandoned phasing.

This is exactly the kind of factual and legal nuance that needs to be considered before casually assuming a technology is subject to this treaty. This overbroad interpretation of applying it to techs that have even a secondary effect of cloaking gives the Romulans an automatic veto over the Feds creating any new NON-cloaking tech that by accident creates a cloaking effect. The Treaty was not created for that purpose and both Federation jurists and legislators would likely and appropriately reject this interpretation. When considering what to do in odd situations under the law, it is not at all strange for jurists to consider the purpose of a statute or, in this case, a treaty.
__________________
"Mu hah hah ha! And when they give me Battlestar Galactica that'll be the trifecta! My red matter and action movie scripts are unstoppable!"--JJ "Destroyer of Worlds" Abrams

Last edited by Vandervecken; February 26 2014 at 08:15 PM.
Vandervecken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2014, 08:16 PM   #40
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: The Pegasus

Well, that would really depend on the terms of the treaty and how willing Starfleet and/or the Federation government is to violate it.
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2014, 08:17 PM   #41
Vandervecken
Commander
 
Vandervecken's Avatar
 
Location: Kobold
Re: The Pegasus

DonIago wrote: View Post
Well, that would really depend on the terms of the treaty and how willing Starfleet and/or the Federation government is to violate it.
They wouldn't BE violating the treaty in those instances, unless the Treaty had some specific provision that DID read "any new technologies that have even a secondary effect of cloaking are also banned from Federation use."
__________________
"Mu hah hah ha! And when they give me Battlestar Galactica that'll be the trifecta! My red matter and action movie scripts are unstoppable!"--JJ "Destroyer of Worlds" Abrams
Vandervecken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2014, 08:29 PM   #42
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: The Pegasus

Since you haven't read the treaty, how can you rule that out?

Hell, we already speculated that it had terms that mandated Picard immediately communicate with the Romulans as he did.
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2014, 09:52 PM   #43
PhoenixClass
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: The Pegasus

Vandervecken wrote: View Post
PhoenixClass wrote: View Post
Yes, those technologies would fall under the treaty. We don't know the text of the actual article so this is a little awkward to debate, but it is said repeatedly that the treaty bans cloaking devices.

You cannot argue that your examples have nothing to do with cloaking when they cloak the ship that fields them.
I absolutely can argue that they having nothing to do with cloaking when their primary purpose is other. That is precisely what I argue, and I not only argue it, I assert it.

I don't believe for one second Starfleet/The Federation would suppress those techs just because a side effect of the tech is to cause invisibility to sensors. An advanced warp drive that, say, allowed them to travel at warp 10 and higher, safely? New materials that, say, resulted in a 10-fold reduction in cancer among ship crews because of reduced radiation/particle exposure? And they'd abandon those things just because of this treaty? Not a chance. And neither should they have abandoned phasing.

This is exactly the kind of factual and legal nuance that needs to be considered before casually assuming a technology is subject to this treaty. This overbroad interpretation of applying it to techs that have even a secondary effect of cloaking gives the Romulans an automatic veto over the Feds creating any new NON-cloaking tech that by accident creates a cloaking effect. The Treaty was not created for that purpose and both Federation jurists and legislators would likely and appropriately reject this interpretation. When considering what to do in odd situations under the law, it is not at all strange for jurists to consider the purpose of a statute or, in this case, a treaty.
You're right: you can argue and assert anything you want. That does not mean it makes sense. A technology that does more than one thing, and one of those things is cloaking, can not, by definition, have nothing to do with cloaking.

You are changing topics a bit here.

Undoubtedly, the treaty can have unexpected consequences; laws often do. There are differences between law and technology in our time. You are touching on the question of whether the Federation would abide by the treaty. That is a different question.

Maybe you are right, that the benefits would so outweigh the consequences that the Federation would violate the treaty. The legal thing to do would be to renegotiate the treaty, not simply violate it. I agree with you that the provision gives a significan upper hand to the Romulans. But, again, that is a matter for renegotiation.

But that is hypothetical, and everyone in the show, including Pressman, concedes that the phasing cloak (it even has "cloak" in the name) violated the treaty.
PhoenixClass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 28 2014, 04:38 PM   #44
Vandervecken
Commander
 
Vandervecken's Avatar
 
Location: Kobold
Re: The Pegasus

PhoenixClass wrote: View Post
Vandervecken wrote: View Post
PhoenixClass wrote: View Post
Yes, those technologies would fall under the treaty. We don't know the text of the actual article so this is a little awkward to debate, but it is said repeatedly that the treaty bans cloaking devices.

You cannot argue that your examples have nothing to do with cloaking when they cloak the ship that fields them.
I absolutely can argue that they having nothing to do with cloaking when their primary purpose is other. That is precisely what I argue, and I not only argue it, I assert it.

I don't believe for one second Starfleet/The Federation would suppress those techs just because a side effect of the tech is to cause invisibility to sensors. An advanced warp drive that, say, allowed them to travel at warp 10 and higher, safely? New materials that, say, resulted in a 10-fold reduction in cancer among ship crews because of reduced radiation/particle exposure? And they'd abandon those things just because of this treaty? Not a chance. And neither should they have abandoned phasing.

This is exactly the kind of factual and legal nuance that needs to be considered before casually assuming a technology is subject to this treaty. This overbroad interpretation of applying it to techs that have even a secondary effect of cloaking gives the Romulans an automatic veto over the Feds creating any new NON-cloaking tech that by accident creates a cloaking effect. The Treaty was not created for that purpose and both Federation jurists and legislators would likely and appropriately reject this interpretation. When considering what to do in odd situations under the law, it is not at all strange for jurists to consider the purpose of a statute or, in this case, a treaty.
You're right: you can argue and assert anything you want. That does not mean it makes sense. A technology that does more than one thing, and one of those things is cloaking, can not, by definition, have nothing to do with cloaking.

You are changing topics a bit here.

Undoubtedly, the treaty can have unexpected consequences; laws often do. There are differences between law and technology in our time. You are touching on the question of whether the Federation would abide by the treaty. That is a different question.

Maybe you are right, that the benefits would so outweigh the consequences that the Federation would violate the treaty. The legal thing to do would be to renegotiate the treaty, not simply violate it. I agree with you that the provision gives a significan upper hand to the Romulans. But, again, that is a matter for renegotiation.

But that is hypothetical, and everyone in the show, including Pressman, concedes that the phasing cloak (it even has "cloak" in the name) violated the treaty.
Of course this assertion and argument make sense; you're simply putting all the weight of importance on the secondary effect of cloaking. Nor did you effectively answer my hypotheticals.

Yes, Picard made that decision, and Starfleet must have thought that the tech came under the treaty as well else it wouldn't have been developed under the degree of secrecy it was. I don't agree at all with that interpretation.

Phasing technology could have TREMENDOUS value having nothing to do with its cloaking effect. For one thing, the interiors of worlds could now be fully explored. And that should be sacrificed because of a secondary effect? Or in my hypotheticals, 10+ warp or a huge reduction in cancer should be sacrificed because the Romulans can't sense the ship? Doubtful.

The purpose of the treaty was to prevent war with the Romulans, NOT to retard Federation technological growth. While including phasing tech under the treaty may be an unintended consequence of an overbroad interpretation, it would not be a consequence of a common sense interpretation. Not making such an interpretation would not be a violation of the treaty, and not including phasing tech (or any of the other examples I offered) under the treaty would not be illegal in the first place, so renegotiation is required. Laws and treaties are interpreted all the time, by courts, without actual rewriting of the law.
__________________
"Mu hah hah ha! And when they give me Battlestar Galactica that'll be the trifecta! My red matter and action movie scripts are unstoppable!"--JJ "Destroyer of Worlds" Abrams
Vandervecken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 28 2014, 04:54 PM   #45
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: The Pegasus

I don't know how you can make the assertions you do in your final paragraph with such certainty without having access to the text of the treaty.

For all we know the treaty says, "The Federation will not under any circumstances develop technology that may render starships invisible to sensors." Whether it's a primary or secondary effect is irrelevant.
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.