Starfleet's sole purpose is to fight Klingons?

[Baxten]

At least according to this dialogue from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country:

MILITARY AIDE: Bill, are we talking about mothballing the Starfleet?
C in C: I'm sure that our exploration and scientific programs would be unaffected, Captain, but...
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 defenceless 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.
. . .
KIRK: The Klingons have never been trustworthy. I'm forced to agree with Admiral Cartwright. This is a terrifying idea.​

According to the C-in-C (Commander-in-Chief), dismantling Starfleet would not affect the Federation's "exploration and scientific programs".

Ironically, it was the Federation that broke the Khitomer Accords signed at the end of the events depicted in the film, as seen in VOY: "The Voyager Conspiracy":

SEVEN: The Captain ordered Commander Tuvok to destroy the array. He fired two tricobalt devices. Are those weapons normally carried on Federation Starships?
CHAKOTAY: No.
SEVEN: Yet they were part of Voyager's arsenal. Why?
CHAKOTAY: I can't explain that.
SEVEN: I can. Neither phasers nor torpedoes are capable of creating a tear in subspace. A tricobalt device is. . . .​

According to Star Trek: Insurrection, subspace weapons were banned by the Accords:

DANIELS: They've detonated an isolytic burst. A subspace tear is forming.
RIKER: On screen.
PERIM: I thought subspace weapons were banned by the Khitomer Accord.
RIKER: Remind me to lodge a protest.​

Additionally, Starfleet vessels come equipped with spatial charges, which act as subspatial charges when fired into subspace.

What do you think?

 

[The Wormhole]

I'll admit, I recently had the idea to use that line from TUC in the next "is Starfleet military?" debate.

 

[Vger23]

It's another thing that makes no sense about TUC. Suddenly, the brass at Starfleet feel their very existence is threatened because the Klingons are about to sue for peace? Never made any sense to me. Never mind that there are still Romulans, Gorn, Tholians etc to worry about (not to mention any "undiscovered" threats like V'Ger)...but what about the other 95% of their mission? Exploration, scientific study, mapping, diplomatic missions, first contact, colony aid, etc?

 

[Mojochi]

It was probably done just to hype the believability of the "saboteur among us" aspect of this plot. The whole movie kind of falls flat on its face, if we never think it's possible for there to be people in Starfleet who feel there's a vested interest in keeping up the hostility between the two bodies. That said... Yeah, kind of a weak concept to toss into the established Star Trek universe. Then again, as much as I like Nicholas Meyer Star Trek, it's clear he never gave a crap about the existing universe when putting his films together

 

[wayoung]

I love TUC but it has a lot of dialogue that make little to no sense in the context of the franchise. Like many other incidents in the franchise over 50 years I think they just have to be ignored.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Not an in-universe thing, but I've long maintained that what TUC is really about is TOS being replaced by TNG. View it in that light and the whole attitude of the film makes perfect sense.

 

[Baxten]

Something that people may want to be aware of is that the film was released on December 6, 1991—just twenty days before the USSR was dissolved.

The explosion of Praxis was an allusion to Chernobyl, while Rura Penthe was referred to as "gulag" in the dialogue. According to MA: Depicting Klignons, Leonard Nimoy has stated, ". . . the Klingons have been the constant foe of the Federation, much like the Russians and Communists were to democracy [. . .] the Klingons for us have always been the Communist Block, the Evil Empire" in relation to the film (The Making of the Trek Films, UK 3rd ed., p. 100). This would make Starfleet an allusion to the U.S. military, and the Federation an allusion to NATO (mostly USA) in space.

In fact, there's further evidence to support that the franchise has never moved on from The Original Series' propaganda.

Memory Alpha: Rurik the Damned

Rurik the Damned was a great Klingon warrior, who conquered the Zora Fel and liberated Vrax. A monumental statue of him stands in the Hall of Warriors on Ty'Gokor. (DS9: "Apocalypse Rising")​

Encyclopedia Britannica: Rurik Dynasty

Rurik Dynasty, princes of Kievan Rus and, later, Muscovy who, according to tradition, were descendants of the Varangian prince Rurik, who had been invited by the people of Novgorod to rule that city (c. 862); the Rurik princes maintained their control over Kievan Rus and, later, Muscovy until 1598.​

This particular episode (DS9: "Apocalypse Rising") has aired five years (1996) after the end of the Cold War (1991). Moreover, Rurik has nothing to do with communism. It's medieval Russia time period.

Memory Alpha: Depicting Klingons

The Klingons of ENT: "Sleeping Dogs" were based on the crew of the Russian submarine Kursk.​

The episode has aired eleven years (2002) after the end of the Cold War. Again, it is post-USSR and has nothing to do with communism, yet the allusion is still there.

What does that tell you about Star Trek's true intentions?

 

[Smoked Salmon]

I always took the line to mean that tension with the Klingons had lead Starfleet to become heavily weaponised, in spite of it's exploration mantra, and that without the Klingons as the main adversary they would wonder what purpose such might would then serve, which was extremely relevant at the time in terms of US/Soviet relations - a time when nobody really knew what purpose the heavy might of US weaponry would serve, not least Americans. I think it's all pretty clear myself.

 

[Vger23]

Something that people may want to be aware of is that the film was released on December 6, 1991—just twenty days before the USSR was dissolved.

The explosion of Praxis was an allusion to Chernobyl, while Rura Penthe was referred to as "gulag" in the dialogue. According to MA: Depicting Klignons, Leonard Nimoy has stated, ". . . the Klingons have been the constant foe of the Federation, much like the Russians and Communists were to democracy [. . .] the Klingons for us have always been the Communist Block, the Evil Empire" in relation to the film (The Making of the Trek Films, UK 3rd ed., p. 100). This would make Starfleet an allusion to the U.S. military, and the Federation an allusion to NATO (mostly USA) in space.

In fact, there's further evidence to support that the franchise has never moved on from The Original Series' propaganda.

Memory Alpha: Rurik the Damned

Rurik the Damned was a great Klingon warrior, who conquered the Zora Fel and liberated Vrax. A monumental statue of him stands in the Hall of Warriors on Ty'Gokor. (DS9: "Apocalypse Rising")​

Encyclopedia Britannica: Rurik Dynasty

Rurik Dynasty, princes of Kievan Rus and, later, Muscovy who, according to tradition, were descendants of the Varangian prince Rurik, who had been invited by the people of Novgorod to rule that city (c. 862); the Rurik princes maintained their control over Kievan Rus and, later, Muscovy until 1598.​

This particular episode (DS9: "Apocalypse Rising") has aired five years (1996) after the end of the Cold War (1991). Moreover, Rurik has nothing to do with communism. It's medieval Russia time period.

Memory Alpha: Depicting Klingons

The Klingons of ENT: "Sleeping Dogs" were based on the crew of the Russian submarine Kursk.​

The episode has aired eleven years (2002) after the end of the Cold War. Again, it is post-USSR and has nothing to do with communism, yet the allusion is still there.

What does that tell you about Star Trek's true intentions?

How is this relevant to what is being discussed?

 

[Vger23]

I always took the line to mean that tension with the Klingons had lead Starfleet to become heavily weaponised, in spite of it's exploration mantra, and that without the Klingons as the main adversary they would wonder what purpose such might would then serve, which was extremely relevant at the time in terms of US/Soviet relations - a time when nobody really knew what purpose the heavy might of US weaponry would serve, not least Americans. I think it's all pretty clear myself.

It's not at all relevant given that Starfleet had far greater purpose than just a defense force against the Klingon Empire.

I think some of you are missing the point. We all get that the story of TUC was meant to be an allegory for the end of the Cold War and the fall of Soviet Russia. It's so heavy-handed and obvious, I'm sure any grade schooler could figure it out. What I'm saying is that it made no sense for Starfleet to react the way they did. Starfleet wasn't anywhere near analogous to the US military. They had a much more diverse charter that didn't include JUST defending the Federation.

That's actually the whole point of the discussion.

 

[Tosk]

What I'm saying is that it made no sense for Starfleet to react the way they did. Starfleet wasn't anywhere near analogous to the US military. They had a much more diverse charter that didn't include JUST defending the Federation.

"Starfleet" didn't react that way. A select few individuals within Starfleet expressed opinions. And no one ever stated that the Star Fleet would indeed be mothballed. One person asked the question, that is all. Spock clearly says that they planned to dismantle the space stations and starbases along the Neutral Zone.

 

[Vger23]

"Starfleet" didn't react that way. A select few individuals within Starfleet expressed opinions. And no one ever stated that the Star Fleet would indeed be mothballed. One person asked the question, that is all. Spock clearly says that they planned to dismantle the space stations and starbases along the Neutral Zone.

It was certainly enough people in high enough positions to create a conspiracy. You generally define an organization by the behaviors and actions of its leadership.

I did say in my first post that it was "Starfleet Brass". I wasn't saying the the entirety of Starfleet felt this way. But extremely high-ranking (and some not-so-high-ranking) officials in the organization certainly felt threatened.

I just don't buy it as a motivator. I think it feels artificial and tacked-on to serve the needs of the story.

 

[FormerLurker]

And if we dismantle the fleet, we'd be defenceless before an aggressive species with a foothold on our territory."

Everyone seems to make this mistake anymore. It's "Aggressor species".

 

[Tosk]

I just don't buy it as a motivator.

That some higher-ups conspired because they didn't like the way the wind was blowing? Personally, I find that very easy to believe.

 

[Vger23]

That some higher-ups conspired because they didn't like the way the wind was blowing? Personally, I find that very easy to believe.

You find it easy to believe. I find it sloppy and contrived. No biggie.

 

[David cgc]

Memory Alpha: Depicting Klingons

The Klingons of ENT: "Sleeping Dogs" were based on the crew of the Russian submarine Kursk.​

The episode has aired eleven years (2002) after the end of the Cold War. Again, it is post-USSR and has nothing to do with communism, yet the allusion is still there.

What does that tell you about Star Trek's true intentions?

You should brush up on your extremely-late-second-millenium history. It was a pretty big deal when the Kursk sank, about a year and a half before "Sleeping Dogs" was made. I remember it was a major news story as rescue attempts were being made. I don't have access to the original article the paragraph is citing, but reading between the lines, it sounds like the premise of a ship sinking into a gas giant was inspired by the then-recent news story, and while the episode's writer generally preferred using new aliens-of-the-week, he rationalized someone else's decision to use the Klingons as apropos since the Klingons had, in the past, been analogues to the USSR and Russia to the Federation's USA.

I'm inclined to take the Rurik thing as a simple coincidence. There are only so many phonemes to arrange into "klingon-sounding" names, which are typically pretty heavy on "k" and "r" sounds. That strikes me as far more likely than someone in the DS9 writer's room was either a Russian history buff or was looking up random names to make a subliminal point about Russians and Klingons that a vanishingly small part of the audience would have a chance of picking up on.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, since you seem to have replaced your thesis statement with a rhetorical question, but I have a feeling you're in danger of over-fitting your model and finding patterns in the noise that aren't there.

 

[Baxten]

Everyone seems to make this mistake anymore. It's "Aggressor species".

How do you know it was a mistake? By saying "aggressive species", they are demonizing them not on an ideological but on a genetic level: something to think about.

I always took the line to mean that tension with the Klingons had lead Starfleet to become heavily weaponised, in spite of it's exploration mantra, and that without the Klingons as the main adversary they would wonder what purpose such might would then serve, which was extremely relevant at the time in terms of US/Soviet relations - a time when nobody really knew what purpose the heavy might of US weaponry would serve, not least Americans. I think it's all pretty clear myself.

No, they clearly state "mothballing" (Starfleet)—a term for a reserve naval fleet—and "dismantle the fleet", which is different from the level of weaponization. Furthermore, if it was purely about the US/Soviet relations, then Picard's statement in TNG: "Peak Performance" about Starfleet not being a military organization is a lie. That, in turn, means that the Federation and Starfleet have ulterior motives: think NATO expansion eastward, despite the verbal agreement with the USSR/Russia not to expand; not to mention with the USSR "threat" rhetoric no longer relevant.

How is this relevant to what is being discussed?

It's not at all relevant given that Starfleet had far greater purpose than just a defense force against the Klingon Empire. . . .

In your original reply you have stated, "It's another thing that makes no sense about TUC. Suddenly, the brass at Starfleet feel their very existence is threatened because the Klingons are about to sue for peace? Never made any sense to me."

The film's propaganda-based allusion to the US/Soviet relations and the end of the Cold War helps explain why the Federation would consider mothballing and dismantling Starfleet. In fact, it has a striking resemblance to the real-world issue of disbanding NATO in the post-USSR period. This is how it is relevant.

Come to think of it, that would actually make TUC's Starfleet an allusion to NATO and the Federation an allusion to USA. NATO is mostly USA too.

What I'm saying is that it made no sense for Starfleet to react the way they did. Starfleet wasn't anywhere near analogous to the US military. They had a much more diverse charter that didn't include JUST defending the Federation.

Or so they claim. Yet the TUC shows different. I would also like to remind you of this dialogue from TNG: "Time's Arrow, part 2":

CLEMENS: Well, I know what you say, that this is a vessel of exploration and that your mission is to discover new worlds.
CLEMENS: That's what the Spanish said [. . .] and the Dutch and the Portuguese. It's what all conquerors say. . . .​

"Starfleet" didn't react that way. A select few individuals within Starfleet expressed opinions. And no one ever stated that the Star Fleet would indeed be mothballed. One person asked the question, that is all. Spock clearly says that they planned to dismantle the space stations and starbases along the Neutral Zone.

Yet the military aide has used the phrase "mothballing Starfleet". Mothballing is a term for a reserve naval fleet. Admiral Cartwright used the phrase "dismantle the fleet". Starfleet isn't just space stations and starbases, it's the ships too, hence the word "fleet". Dismantling the bases is just a major part of it. In fact, the "bases" sounds like an allusion to NATO military bases in the real world.

You should brush up on your extremely-late-second-millenium history. It was a pretty big deal when the Kursk sank, about a year and a half before "Sleeping Dogs" was made. I remember it was a major news story as rescue attempts were being made. I don't have access to the original article the paragraph is citing, but reading between the lines, it sounds like the premise of a ship sinking into a gas giant was inspired by the then-recent news story, and while the episode's writer generally preferred using new aliens-of-the-week, he rationalized someone else's decision to use the Klingons as apropos since the Klingons had, in the past, been analogues to the USSR and Russia to the Federation's USA.

Uh-huh, a "premise" for a franchise that has been using propaganda-based Klingons as Russian stand-ins from at least 1966 to 1991 (25 years) by its own admission. Here's the exact quote by Dekker (Star Trek Special Edition 2016 USA, p. 33):

Of the three, ‘Sleeping Dogs’ was my favorite, and that’s because I thought the premise was really cool. It was focused on ‘our’ people, trapped on an alien vessel that is slowly being sucked into another planet’s gravitational pull. It was actually based on the true story of a Russian nuclear submarine called the Kursk, which sunk in the Barents Sea in 2000. An explosion onboard killed all but 23 of the crew, who were trapped at the bottom of the ocean. They survived for six hours whilst, back on land, a rescue mission was being considered. It was, unfortunately, a mission which, at that depth would probably have been impossible anyway, so it was a real tragedy. That scenario was fresh in my memory when I wrote ‘Sleeping Dogs’, and the combination of claustrophobia, politics, and human drama was tough to resist.​

And here is an excerpt from how one review describes the episode:

The Klingons come off here as stupid ingrates and clueless thugs, which — I don't know — might be the point. I'm honestly not sure what the point is.​

The real incident was a real tragedy but the episode, which is based on it, portrayed Klingons as "stupid ingrates and clueless thugs". I wonder how American viewers would react if the episode were based on the sunken USS Scorpion (SSN-589) submarine instead. Anyone care to take a guess?

I'm inclined to take the Rurik thing as a simple coincidence. There are only so many phonemes to arrange into "klingon-sounding" names, which are typically pretty heavy on "k" and "r" sounds. That strikes me as far more likely than someone in the DS9 writer's room was either a Russian history buff or was looking up random names to make a subliminal point about Russians and Klingons that a vanishingly small part of the audience would have a chance of picking up on.

Actually, if you conduct research, you'll find that it's a well-known figure in Russian history (learned in school), and it's a specific spelling for how it is pronounced in Russia. Most likely, majority of people in Russia would easily pick up on it.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, since you seem to have replaced your thesis statement with a rhetorical question, but I have a feeling you're in danger of over-fitting your model and finding patterns in the noise that aren't there.

What about this "pattern in the noise", as seen in the ENT: "Breaking the Ice"?

Why would a fourth grade student from Ireland send this drawing to the USS Enterprise? Note "USA" patch on the space suit.

Memory Alpha: Haley (student)

Haley was a Human child from Kenmare, County Kerry, Ireland on Earth. She attended Miss Malvin's fourth grade class at the Worley Elementary School in 2151.

That year, Haley sent a drawing to the crew of Enterprise NX-01, which was dubbed as "First Contact". (ENT: "Breaking the Ice")​

Isn't Star Trek supposed to be about humanity and not exclusively USA?

 

[Vger23]

How do you know it was a mistake? By saying "aggressive species", they are demonizing them not on an ideological but on a genetic level: something to think about.



No, they clearly state "mothballing" (Starfleet)—a term for a reserve naval fleet—and "dismantle the fleet", which is different from the level of weaponization. Furthermore, if it was purely about the US/Soviet relations, then Picard's statement in TNG: "Peak Performance" about Starfleet not being a military organization is a lie. That, in turn, means that the Federation and Starfleet have ulterior motives: think NATO expansion eastward, despite the verbal agreement with the USSR/Russia not to expand; not to mention with the USSR "threat" rhetoric no longer relevant.




In your original reply you have stated, "It's another thing that makes no sense about TUC. Suddenly, the brass at Starfleet feel their very existence is threatened because the Klingons are about to sue for peace? Never made any sense to me."

The film's propaganda-based allusion to the US/Soviet relations and the end of the Cold War helps explain why the Federation would consider mothballing and dismantling Starfleet. In fact, it has a striking resemblance to the real-world issue of disbanding NATO in the post-USSR period. This is how it is relevant.

Come to think of it, that would actually make TUC's Starfleet an allusion to NATO and the Federation an allusion to USA. NATO is mostly USA too.



Or so they claim. Yet the TUC shows different. I would also like to remind you of this dialogue from TNG: "Time's Arrow, part 2":

CLEMENS: Well, I know what you say, that this is a vessel of exploration and that your mission is to discover new worlds.
CLEMENS: That's what the Spanish said [. . .] and the Dutch and the Portuguese. It's what all conquerors say. . . .​

Yet the military aide has used the phrase "mothballing Starfleet". Mothballing is a term for a reserve naval fleet. Admiral Cartwright used the phrase "dismantle the fleet". Starfleet isn't just space stations and starbases, it's the ships too, hence the word "fleet". Dismantling the bases is just a major part of it. In fact, the "bases" sounds like an allusion to NATO military bases in the real world.



Uh-huh, a "premise" for a franchise that has been using propaganda-based Klingons as Russian stand-ins from at least 1966 to 1991 (25 years) by its own admission. Here's the exact quote by Dekker (Star Trek Special Edition 2016 USA, p. 33):

Of the three, ‘Sleeping Dogs’ was my favorite, and that’s because I thought the premise was really cool. It was focused on ‘our’ people, trapped on an alien vessel that is slowly being sucked into another planet’s gravitational pull. It was actually based on the true story of a Russian nuclear submarine called the Kursk, which sunk in the Barents Sea in 2000. An explosion onboard killed all but 23 of the crew, who were trapped at the bottom of the ocean. They survived for six hours whilst, back on land, a rescue mission was being considered. It was, unfortunately, a mission which, at that depth would probably have been impossible anyway, so it was a real tragedy. That scenario was fresh in my memory when I wrote ‘Sleeping Dogs’, and the combination of claustrophobia, politics, and human drama was tough to resist.​

And here is an excerpt from how one review describes the episode:

The Klingons come off here as stupid ingrates and clueless thugs, which — I don't know — might be the point. I'm honestly not sure what the point is.​

The real incident was a real tragedy but the episode, which is based on it, portrayed Klingons as "stupid ingrates and clueless thugs". I wonder how American viewers would react if the episode were based on the sunken USS Scorpion (SSN-589) submarine instead. Anyone care to take a guess?



Actually, if you conduct research, you'll find that it's a well-known figure in Russian history (learned in school), and it's a specific spelling for how it is pronounced in Russia. Most likely, majority of people in Russia would easily pick up on it.



What about this "pattern in the noise", as seen in the ENT: "Breaking the Ice"?

Why would a fourth grade student from Ireland send this drawing to the USS Enterprise? Note "USA" patch on the space suit.

Memory Alpha: Haley (student)

Haley was a Human child from Kenmare, County Kerry, Ireland on Earth. She attended Miss Malvin's fourth grade class at the Worley Elementary School in 2151.

That year, Haley sent a drawing to the crew of Enterprise NX-01, which was dubbed as "First Contact". (ENT: "Breaking the Ice")​

Isn't Star Trek supposed to be about humanity and not exclusively USA?

 

[The Old Mixer]

It's not evidence of any greater intent on the part of the franchise, but rather a failing of this particular film, that they hit hard with the "end of the Cold War" allegory without putting much thought into making it jibe with the setting...or with the general mood at the ending of the Cold War, which was generally positive, not glum and fearful.

 

[Paradise City]

Yeah, they got too pulled into the Cold War narrative, the dialogue is a quite loose to serve the overriding message they are trying to convey with the film. It's no wonder Roddenberry got cranky over it.

In-universe, it's probably just a phase of Federation history were they are menaced by the Klingons to such a degree it requires a huge demand on Federation resources and it dominates their attention. The result being Starfleet top dogs are in an overwhelmingly militaristic frame of mind and respond with hyberbole at the prospect of all that ending. I think the Klingons militaristic ways also appall Starfleet types in some fundamental ways.

Starfleet at this point in history is probably half way between what "normal" Starfleet is in TNG/TOS and Starfleet is in Yeserdays Enterprise. We may say Kirk and co helped Starfleet get back on the right track by tackling their own demons about Klingons.