United Earth? New Horizons & Nationalism
- Thread starter Horizons96
- Start date
The only membership the Federation might insist of a member dropping is a active enemy nation's membership. A world wanting to join the Federation that is allied with the Klingon Empire in the mid-23rd century might not go over all that well as the two powers try to go for exclusiveness, or baring that, who will gain the world via competition (Sherman's Planet).
I just figured it was because they would have FTL travel technology as well as the ability to research FTL communication (since they know how to generate sunspace fields) and the ability to research FTL detection systems, which means the odds of them bumping into aliens as well as detecting them and hearing their communications go up pretty high so the federation figures why don't they be the first new species they encounter instead of a possibly aggressive one that makes them go xenophobic and probably attack them later down the line.
A species that had strong relations with the Klingons or the Romulans likely wouldn't be considered for membership. However, a species that possessed light weight connections to either the Klingons or Romulan could be an asset to the Federation and a possible diplomatic bridge.
If the Federation were to become contentious with the "Equal In Size Republic," and there were a Federation Member with connections to the "EISR" (trade and security agreements) this would force the Federation Member to decide where they stand, and with who.
There could also be a situation where member world Bolian goes to war with the Moropa, but doesn't feel the need to ask for the assistance of Starfleet (countries don't alway invoke their defense treaties), but member world Bootylicious Five have multi-century old trade relations with the Moropa people. Would it be kosher for the Bootylicious (through the Federation Council) to push the Bolians to form a truce with the Moropa, while outside the Council pushing the Moropa to do the same thing? Or would there be a expectation to solely back the Bolians?
And what if two Members started moving toward war?
If the Federation were to become contentious with the "Equal In Size Republic," and there were a Federation Member with connections to the "EISR" (trade and security agreements) this would force the Federation Member to decide where they stand, and with who.
There could also be a situation where member world Bolian goes to war with the Moropa, but doesn't feel the need to ask for the assistance of Starfleet (countries don't alway invoke their defense treaties), but member world Bootylicious Five have multi-century old trade relations with the Moropa people. Would it be kosher for the Bootylicious (through the Federation Council) to push the Bolians to form a truce with the Moropa, while outside the Council pushing the Moropa to do the same thing? Or would there be a expectation to solely back the Bolians?
And what if two Members started moving toward war?
No, that's a bad idea. An alien invasion would wreck most of the planet's meager and primitive (to an advanced alien culture) defensive capability. Most people think of Independence Day, but my mind's wandering towards Battlefield Earth, where the Psychlos invade the planet and beat us in nine minutes, and then enslave us for about 1,000 years.
I think that we can overcome our problems and set up a world government better than wishing for an alien invasion.
Australia is a country, not a continent.
Well, I guess in order to have this United Earth we'll need a new kind of leader. A new breed if you will. Stronger and more intelligent than your standard Earthling in order to manage his duties more effectively. They will have to seize power simultaneously; about forty nations should be the tipping mass. A benign ruler over a quarter of the inhabited globe or so should be able to claim to represent the planet as a whole.
I would imagine that this sort of thing would be exactly what pre-membership talks and negotiations would be all about. 'As long standing members of the XXXX, what would you do in a conflict between the XXXX and the Federation?', etc. The final agreements reached may be very different for different species with different backgrounds, etc.
And two members of an organization like the Federation going to war is pretty much the biggest possible no-no there is. 'You're not allowed to go to war with other Federation members' is pretty much guaranteed to be an integral part of every membership treaty, if not the federation charter itself.
The sole advantage of a one world government, they would bring order, no massacres (and as little freedom).
If Latvia (NATO treaty member) ever attacked Guatemala (RIO treaty member) this would place America in a bit of a pickle, being a party to both treaties. Both treaties contain the language "an attack on one is an attack on all."
It might be a case of who attacked first. But wars aren't always that simple, since an initial attack might be a response to a series of provocations.
The Triple Alliance was a defensive alliance formed in May of 1882. In August 1914 Germany and Austria–Hungary went to war with the Triple Entente, however because the alliance was supposed to be a defensive alliance (not offensive) Italy refused to participate. Later Italy entered the conflict on the side of the Entente.
It might come down to how badly the Federation wants the new member, how much of a asset they would be. Also, how badly the sovereign applicant want to include the Federation in it's repertoire of connections.
If the Federation doesn't anticipate a future conflict with the Shambala, then the applicants relationship with them could be of small concern.
All Federation members likely entered under (at least sightly) different agreements and obligations. If Starfleet is composed of member's own starships, and a member has a relatively small fleet, then their obligations would acknowledge and reflect this. Ardana had a responsibility to priority supply zenite to another member during a time of emergency, this particular obligation was likely unique.
Oh I would agree, keeping a existing Federation member away from you might be a excellent reason to join in of itself. But even the best of families occasionally have a fist fight now and then.
I wonder what a 24th century map of Earth looks like.
1a) Did they raise an eighth continent in the Atlantis project?
1b) Did they choose the middle of the Atlantic for the new continent (instead of, say, the massive open space of the Pacific) because - gasp! - it's also the [future discovered] location of the mythical Atlantis?
2) Have other massive engineering projects changed the look of the planet? E.g. the damming up of Mediterranean?
3a) Are the coastlines anywhere near where they are today? Or had global warming long-since altered the look of Earth even before WWIII and the uniting of Earth, let alone by the 23rd or 24th centuries by when no one would care to alter them to look like ours?
3b) Were the coastlines decimated by war?
3c) What does California look like after The Big One hit, Janeway mentioned did eventually hit?
4) What are the political subdivisions of the United Earth government? I doubt a political map of he world will look like ours today in 100 years in the real world, let alone in the Trek one ravaged by Eugenics Wars, and a Third World War.
When they were uniting all the planet's nations into a United Earth, did, say, Hawaii still belong to a "United States"?
Did Austria exist as a separate sovereign state or had it long since unified with Germany?
Had all Europe become one nation?
Did Pakistan exist at all post-atomic horror?
5) Had nations that are to us powerful, distinct, and robust, cease to be nearly so? Data said something about the French language not being around as much, and Picard does speak with a British accent. Even though France is still around, how French has it remained?
The Eastern Coalition in First Contact Cochrane thought was attaking his Montana missile silo, is that an multi-national union from the Eastern hemisphere, or what's left of the Eastern seaboard US, post Boswash nuking?
When the United Earth parilament/congress/what? meet to govern, are the esteemed members from Eastern and Western Colatitions of the Former United States? Are there a many senators from the dozen nations of what were once China?
1a) Did they raise an eighth continent in the Atlantis project?
1b) Did they choose the middle of the Atlantic for the new continent (instead of, say, the massive open space of the Pacific) because - gasp! - it's also the [future discovered] location of the mythical Atlantis?
2) Have other massive engineering projects changed the look of the planet? E.g. the damming up of Mediterranean?
3a) Are the coastlines anywhere near where they are today? Or had global warming long-since altered the look of Earth even before WWIII and the uniting of Earth, let alone by the 23rd or 24th centuries by when no one would care to alter them to look like ours?
3b) Were the coastlines decimated by war?
3c) What does California look like after The Big One hit, Janeway mentioned did eventually hit?
4) What are the political subdivisions of the United Earth government? I doubt a political map of he world will look like ours today in 100 years in the real world, let alone in the Trek one ravaged by Eugenics Wars, and a Third World War.
When they were uniting all the planet's nations into a United Earth, did, say, Hawaii still belong to a "United States"?
Did Austria exist as a separate sovereign state or had it long since unified with Germany?
Had all Europe become one nation?
Did Pakistan exist at all post-atomic horror?
5) Had nations that are to us powerful, distinct, and robust, cease to be nearly so? Data said something about the French language not being around as much, and Picard does speak with a British accent. Even though France is still around, how French has it remained?
The Eastern Coalition in First Contact Cochrane thought was attaking his Montana missile silo, is that an multi-national union from the Eastern hemisphere, or what's left of the Eastern seaboard US, post Boswash nuking?
When the United Earth parilament/congress/what? meet to govern, are the esteemed members from Eastern and Western Colatitions of the Former United States? Are there a many senators from the dozen nations of what were once China?
Last edited:
In Metamorphosis, Assistant Commissioner Hedford was sent to Epsilon Canaris Three to prevent a war. Epsilon Canaris Three is shown in the (non-canon) Star Trek Maps as a Federation Member. So who were they in a road to war with?
The possibilities I see are.
1) Two (or more) factions on the planet itself.
2) Between Epsilon Canaris and a non-Federation world/body.
3) Or the problem might have been between two ajacent Federation Members. As seen in Journey to Babel, being part of the Federation doesn't automatically mean the Members like each other.
So someone asked for a mediator.
The Azores Plateau (aka The Dolphin Plateau) of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge would seem to be what the episode said was going to be the site of the Atlantis Project. Parts of this plateau are over a kilometre down, but the tallest bit is over 2 kilometres above the ocean surface, in the Azores Islands.
If the sea level rises 20 or 30 metres then yes, but if (far more likely) it rises another 20 or 30 centimetres then no.
Thousands of fully sovereign countries.
Yes, although I don't see them as being "senators," more delegates or undersecretaries of their home governments.
Last edited:
My point is that when the Earth unifies, many of the former sovereign countries that do so won't be recognizable to us. Maybe at the time of unification, the planet will look like this.
I imagine redistricting over time after unification will also change the map of Earth as fewer administrative districts are needed to govern.
PS: going back to my coastlines-being-decimated-by-war comment above, here's a better version of the map from the show. It's not a stylized map; in the series (by the crappy, even farther in the future-jumping third season), some kind of nautical weapons of mass destruction were used by the "Macronesian Alliance" to obliterate port cities and coastlines, visibly changing the shapes of continents.
I imagine redistricting over time after unification will also change the map of Earth as fewer administrative districts are needed to govern.
PS: going back to my coastlines-being-decimated-by-war comment above, here's a better version of the map from the show. It's not a stylized map; in the series (by the crappy, even farther in the future-jumping third season), some kind of nautical weapons of mass destruction were used by the "Macronesian Alliance" to obliterate port cities and coastlines, visibly changing the shapes of continents.
Last edited:
The reason I wrote "thousands of fully sovereign countries" is I can see the couple of hundred countries of today dividing into thousands. Countries the size of modern day Lechtenstein, Singapore and Andorra would be the average.
Why? That sounds like a nightmare world where small-town crooks are supreme leaders. Tri-county mayors gettin' together for the weekly poker game to hash out business deals and national agendas.
I think the larger in scope you're forced to think, the more tolerant and honest you're forced to be. Large diverse nations can't be run as well if they're run like homogenous local fiefdoms.
Homogeneity as well wouldn't be addressed by shrunk geography. We have more in common with our families of choice online than we do those of arbitrary local geography. If we're to radically change the look of national borders, maybe they should be influenced more by our online presences.
I'll tell you now, I spend little time in the suburb I live in, spending much more time in others to the west and the city to the east. My neighbors and I are friendly, but I doubt some of them would have voted for my civil rights in a different time. Local by itself does not mean friendly.
I don't know if Star Trek's Federation, diverse as it conceivably is is realistic in this way, but it seams much more peaceful and cooperative and Pleasantville than the local town in Pleasantville was. Is it a conceit of storytelling that such a thing is possible in the real world?
I think the larger in scope you're forced to think, the more tolerant and honest you're forced to be. Large diverse nations can't be run as well if they're run like homogenous local fiefdoms.
Homogeneity as well wouldn't be addressed by shrunk geography. We have more in common with our families of choice online than we do those of arbitrary local geography. If we're to radically change the look of national borders, maybe they should be influenced more by our online presences.
I'll tell you now, I spend little time in the suburb I live in, spending much more time in others to the west and the city to the east. My neighbors and I are friendly, but I doubt some of them would have voted for my civil rights in a different time. Local by itself does not mean friendly.
I don't know if Star Trek's Federation, diverse as it conceivably is is realistic in this way, but it seams much more peaceful and cooperative and Pleasantville than the local town in Pleasantville was. Is it a conceit of storytelling that such a thing is possible in the real world?
Last edited:
Similar threads
