There is reason to doubt its truth. If we're looking for reliable evidence that this is a genuine standing Starfleet policy, this episode doesn't provide it. But you're certainly correct that in itself it does not provide conclusive evidence that it is not, either. (And even if it wasn't at that time, it could have become a policy later.)
I do see what you're getting at overall, but actually Travis did question it when they got too close, insisting they had no choice but to abort, as if he didn't think the actual intent was to go through with it. I would have thought that if it were the genuine intent, he would have been let in on it (and if it were a general policy, would likely be aware of that too, as a member of the bridge crew in the direct chain of command). Now, T'Pol did continue to order him to maintain his course until Archer confirmed the Takret had gone, true, and I suppose it's possible that Archer might have kept T'Pol in the loop but not Travis. (I tend to doubt it, though, because Travis wasn't an undisciplined or inexperienced officer by any stretch—quite the opposite, in fact—and if he had known that was a duty he was expected to carry out, I think he would have been entirely willing. As would any of them.)
Well, that doesn't really give us any insight into Starfleet's perspective on the matter. (If anything, it might even be taken as counter-indication against such a policy of "destroy rather than be taken" being a definite Starfleet tenet at this time, because he'd been diligently doing his homework on them, and obviously found no indication of it!
)My point was, even if we go ahead and assume for the sake of argument that Archer actually was under orders calling for the destruction of his ship to prevent it from falling into enemy hands, it wouldn't necessarily follow from this that similar orders would extend to any ship, even under the same circumstances, let alone different ones, such as the ship in question being already mortally wounded, there being no hostile force currently engaged in exploiting her, etc. Those would each be additional assumptions we'd have to make on top of the initial one. (Not that I'm suggesting any of them would be a huge stretch, mind you. Just following along with you in "taking the stance of a researcher studying evidence and valid points."
)BTW, I already mentioned it earlier, but a better example might seem be found in "11001001" (TNG):
PICARD: Captain's log, supplemental...we now know who has commandeered the Enterprise: the Bynars. We can't communicate with the bridge. Commander Riker and I will now try to regain control of our ship.
[...]
PICARD: This way.
RIKER: That's toward Engineering.
PICARD: That's our first step. Verify containment and initiate auto-destruct.
RIKER: Initiate auto-destruct?
PICARD: Our ship has been commandeered by a force of unknown size and intent. We're here alone. We must assume the worst.
[...]
PICARD: If we don't regain control, then no one else must have it either. Now, this is the one decision involving the operation of this vessel which requires you and I to be in total agreement.
RIKER: It's the time allotted that concerns me.
PICARD: As to that, there's no option.
RIKER: I know. It's a five minute countdown.
PICARD: That's sufficient to get to the bridge. Once there, either we'll get control of the vessel, shut off the auto-destruct, or we won't. But this vessel must not fall into hostile hands.
RIKER: Then let's set it and get going.
But of course, there it is not specified whether this is a standing Starfleet order, or merely a judgment call on Picard's part. Riker ultimately concurs with Picard's conclusion, but doesn't seem to have assumed it as the prescribed course of action until Picard explains his reasoning. As Riker is a command officer himself, and one whose participation in such an action is explicitly required, we would expect him to be as familiar with such regulations and standing orders as Picard is. Still, I suppose we could interpret that he just needed a little reminder, as anyone occasionally might, or that he simply expected they'd attempt some other action(s) first before jumping straight to auto-destruct, etc.
Yet we also have basically the same caveats as before (minus the doubt as to the speakers' truthfulness)—namely, that what applies to this vessel as the brand new, top-of-the-line, fully operational Federation flagship, already being actively occupied and exploited, might not necessarily apply if any or all of those conditions were not met. (Which again, is not to exclude the possibility that it indeed would. But this would still be assuming something not directly in evidence.) And moreover, here we have an additional one: this is more than a century after DSC. For all we know, if this be in fact the policy, it could have arisen due to past incidents as portrayed there!
Whether we're talking about destroying the wreck as a purely prophylactic measure on abandoning it, or coming back to salvage it later, my argument has never been that they shouldn't, but rather that they wouldn't and couldn't, respectively.
But on the former subject, the question you pose also remains open:
The episode does not give us an answer. However, we do know from both "Basics" (VGR) and Nemesis that damage to the ship could, in theory, preclude this. So it's at least possible that this might be pushed into the "couldn't" category as well.
I see no reason why it couldn't have continued during the commercial break, but we already saw further Starfleet ships being ambushed and destroyed before the commercial break (I posted the screenshots above), and only two besides the Shenzhou after, apparently drifting in much the same disabled condition, at the point when the Klingon forces except the sarcophagus ship depart. There are then intervening scenes aboard the Shenzhou where T'Kuvma broadcasts his "get off my lawn, and don't come back!" message to any and all remaining within communications range, and Michael talks her way out of the brig, before we return to the sarcophagus ship where L'Rell tells us that the Federation vessels are all either "hiding or scattered in pieces" (or as I paraphrased it "having either withdrawn or been destroyed/disabled") and that "the fight is won."
What are you saying, that this explicit in-dialogue summary in combination with the exterior shots that we did see isn't good enough, and that we needed to be given a blow-by-blow of exactly what happened to every individual ship? What would lead you to expect that? Did you find that most previous depictions of space battles in Trek went into such complete detail as opposed to merely suggesting the broad strokes? I don't particularly recall that. Heck, some have even taken place almost entirely off-screen or during a commercial break! (Wolf 359 comes to mind.)
The cleave ship was the one that rammed the Europa and was destroyed when she self-destructed. Yes, it was another vessel of T'Kuvma's besides the sarcophagus ship, which he had been holding in reserve up to that point:
T'KUVMA: Lest anyone doubt that I can render my own vessels invisible...
I completely understand that it all goes by pretty fast, and there's a lot to absorb, but...you say you watched this three times?
-MMoM
Last edited:
