Does it violate the PD? Or does the PD have built in the practical consideration that the federation realistically needs resources? During Kirk's time the PD apparently is applied in a sensible manner.
Kirk v Trump
- Thread starter Pauln6
- Start date
- Status
Has to be somewhat similar, or else they wouldn't have been stuffing their people in suicide chambers for 500 years.
That's the assumption that Kirk makes but does it have to be true? The computerised warfare was the compromise agreed, but the Ventikans might have been quite far on the other side of that fence. They might have infrastructure more suited to withstanding a real war. They might be willing to gamble that large parts of the population will side with them, like Russia and the Crimea or that refugees will flock to them. They might have internal political issues that a real war might solve. Kirk is gambling with no up to date information. Even Anan 7 has no modern data to extrapolate.
Even in the real world, it's dangerous to project your own assumptions onto the motivations of others when you have limited understanding of the local politics. We've seen many examples where western interventions have thrown up lots of new and sometimes far worse problems.
One of the reasons Errand of Mercy is such fun is because the assumptions of powerful nations willing to conduct proxy wars over strategic territories are completely destroyed by local politics.
Last edited:
To me this parallels America's self interest in their political dealings with other countries. If it is in America's self-interest they will help another country. Not because its the "right" thing to do. I hope there are exceptions to this rule.
Not saying thats necessarily a bad thing but its hardly as "noble" as they like to make out.
I don't know what to make of Trump's stance with Jerusalem? .Is he in fact being noble? (I laugh).
Anyway while Kirk says he'll die before he breaks the PD in "Bread and Circuses" his team is firing phasers in front of pre-Warp natives in "Friday's child". No doubt ordered onto said pre-Warp planet by some Admiral order by his Commander-in-Chief? Does the PD in TOS have some clause in it that said it can be waived in the best interest of the Federation or economic interest of a friend of the Admiral/President?.
Just watch the episode. The entire context of the exchange indicates Kirk did not make up General Order 24 on the spot. Scotty knew what Kirk meant. For the bridge crew to react how you described means they knew what the order was. Furthermore, for the bridge crew to react like you described that means they believed the order to be real and not an elaborate bluff. The cities were actually targeted.
For General Order 24 to be a hoax, we have to assume the bluff was worked up sometime in advance prior to the episode. Scotty would have to know it was a possible ruse. That requires more elaboration than the story indicates.
Also America helps people when there's no "self-interest."
No he didn't.
Scott: "Aye, sir. Queen to queen's level three."
It wouldn't of had to of been made up on the spot, but rather something prearranged.
But as suggested, the look on the crew's faces is one of shock rather than puzzlement.
It is entirely possible that Starfleet has a series of protocols in place for security purposes and the crew's shock was that invoking this one meant the landing party was in grave danger. I missed the episode recently so I can't recall what Scotty discussed about it after the order was given.
Can't bluff that often though or you get a reputation!
That is what I suggested. A bluff worked out in advance. Kirk had a history of using prearranged signals with his senior staff such as the ones with Spock in "Dagger of the Mind" and "Day of the Dove".
Offering them a way out of their perpetual war was also a solution good for the people of Eminiar and Vendikar.
I'm not suggesting there was anything onscreen to indicate it was a prearranged bluff. Just that it was a possibility.
HAVE! HAAAAAAAAAAAAVVVVEEE! AAAAAARRRGGGHH!
And I covered that in my comment.
Context of Bread and Circuses makes it clear the chess code was prearranged. No such indication exists in Taste of Armageddon.
Just because a lot of people do it doesn't make it right. Even news readers on the BBC have started splitting their infinitives. It's like a dagger to my heart every time. :-P
I think this is one of the weaker things about the story. Why would a computerised war between two nearby systems create an interstellar hazard? Space is huuuuuuuuge. People could and should just navigate around and anybody who didn't, including for that matter, uninvited Starfleet vessels, would be fair game as trespassers. It's not as if they are that technologically advanced. They don't even have a defence against suicide booth malfunction.
Ships in trouble might occasionally need a port nearby to make emergency repairs. That was Kirk's mission, to secure a port in the area. It's never stated that all of the Federation lives lost in that quadrant [sic] were simply because of the war. Space in Star Trek's universe is filled with natural dangers such as ion storms, magnetic storms, discharging nebulae, etc.
As for how advanced their technology is, they posed a danger to Constitution-class starships without shields, and they'd destroyed the older USS Valiant. Not all Federation ships are top-of-the-line. It's quite easy to imagine that freighters would be extremely vulnerable to their technology.
Why shouldn't it be a thesis on interplanetary relations, if there is enough information given in the episode to support it?
As for Trek's solutions not being solution to real world problems, I think it's fair to say that Trek's solutions can inspire solutions to real world problems.
Why? What would Rand have added that Tamura didn't? Tamura was presumed to be a competent member of the crew, and I certainly didn't see her whimpering about being "frightened" (my only complaint about TOS-Uhura). The "look at my legs" line Rand had in "Miri" was equally cringeworthy.
But how do we know that's what the people of Vendikar were doing? Yes, the computer would have registered the requisite number of deaths, but how do we know that's what was really happening? Someone on Vendikar could have reprogrammed their computers to make it look like people were dying when they weren't.
Or for that matter, there could be no one left alive at all on Vendikar - just a computer, carrying out its programming.
its not of, its the 've part of contracting "Have"
Oh, please. "Wouldn't've" is short for "would not have".
Your version and the correct version sound very similar, but the fact is that "wouldn't of" is grammatically incorrect. What "real people" say is irrelevant.
- Status
