How could anyone? It was a horrible sounding ending. The Federation has essentially pushed the Klingons to the brink of extinction and are patting themselves on the back for it.
Michael Burnham and the Klingon War
- Thread starter Ro_Laren
- Start date
How could anyone? It was a horrible sounding ending. The Federation has essentially pushed the Klingons to the brink of extinction and are patting themselves on the back for it.
That was the case with the Vulcans. They thought they could bully the Vulcans no matter what, and soon as they stood up to them, it caught them by surprise. They weren't hungry for war with the Vulcans and they probably found someone else to go bother, afterwards. Or they thought, "Hey. You're all right. You aren't wusses after all."
They already knew the Federation could stand up to them. They wanted to really test their mettle against them. It's a battle they can sink their teeth into. T'Kuvma wanted the Klingons to have a common enemy for them to unite behind. If the Shenzou fired first, T'Kuvma would use that to say the Federation does nothing but lie when they say they want peace. In the Court of Public Opinion, the Klingons could say to the rest of the Quadrant, "See? They fired first! The Federation isn't as peaceful as they say!"
If Starfleet fired first, they would've retaliated. If they didn't fire first, well, we saw what happened. They fired anyway because T'Kuvma said the Federation's claim that they came in peace was a lie.
If they fire first, T'Kumva's a debris field before anyone shows up. There's no one to unite the houses, there isn't even a martyr because no one knows who he is.
Maybe. But, if he survived, he'd have bragging rights. That's probably what was going on his head. "Yeah! That's right! I'm bad-ass! I'm T'Kuvma bitches!"
Then you still have a war with lots of dead people. Not seeing a downside to firing first.
Starfleet doesn't like the idea of firing first, regardless of consequences. So they wouldn't have fired first anyway. Which is why Burnham felt she'd have to mutiny.
The Federation doesn't want the image of being the ones who fired first. When the Klingons had conquered 20% of their space and looked like they'd advance further, they became desperate and were more willing to consider things they wouldn't have before. On the outset, they wouldn't have wanted to fire first.
That is 24th century Trek talking. They are trying to jam the 24th century setup into the 23rd century.
Bullshit.
The writers had the choice not to make up a war storyline so arbitrary and senseless, with so little observation or respect for their audience, that they could simply jerk the fortunes of the two sides in whatever direction worked for the plot point of the week.
There was never a war to justify anything - only plot points improvised from week to week by writers who couldn't be bothered to construct a real story.
So in the final episode you've got a Klingon armada hanging literally in sight of an apparently defenseless Earth, and the writers figure that the audience is dumb enough to accept the assertion that the enemy will just shrivel up or something in the immediate aftermath of the genocidal murder of a few billion people and the destruction of their world? You know, like instead of going ahead and blowing the bejesus out of their enemy's world?
That's not even worthy of comic book storytelling...if you want to make up excuses and apologies for that crap it's your look out.
It was also Georgiou.
But, are there any episodes of TOS where they fire first? I'll concede that point if there are.
You mean Jean-Luc Georgiou? It seriously sounded like they were trying to write for Patrick Stewart.
Kirk was going to murder an entire Gorn crew without really understanding why they attacked Cestus III in "Arena". Then the Metrons stepped in.
"Arena". I'm five minutes in. So far...
01:30 -- Kirk: “Kirk to Enterprise. Red Alert. Cestus III has been destroyed.”
04:16 – Kirk and crew take cover as bombs go off.
04:10 – Red Shirt: “Captain, I see something!” Then he gets vaporized.
04:23 – Kirk: “Kirk to Enterprise! Lock on transporters. Beam us up.”
04:28 – Sulu: “Captain, we’re coming under attack. Unidentified ship cornering in. We can’t beam you up. We just put up defensive screens.”
04:34 – Kirk: “Keep those screens up. Fire all phasers.”
Okay. I’m going to stop here for a moment. Sulu says they’re coming under attack before Kirk says “Fire all phasers.” Continuing on.
04:40 – Sulu: “Firing phasers, Captain.” The Enterprise fires phasers. Then Sulu says, “The alien has screens up too.”
04:45 – Kirk: “Take all action necessary to protect the ship.”
So, the Gorn fired first and Kirk only ordered to Sulu to take actions necessary to protect the ship. The Enterprise didn’t make the first move and they're on defense.
01:30 -- Kirk: “Kirk to Enterprise. Red Alert. Cestus III has been destroyed.”
04:16 – Kirk and crew take cover as bombs go off.
04:10 – Red Shirt: “Captain, I see something!” Then he gets vaporized.
04:23 – Kirk: “Kirk to Enterprise! Lock on transporters. Beam us up.”
04:28 – Sulu: “Captain, we’re coming under attack. Unidentified ship cornering in. We can’t beam you up. We just put up defensive screens.”
04:34 – Kirk: “Keep those screens up. Fire all phasers.”
Okay. I’m going to stop here for a moment. Sulu says they’re coming under attack before Kirk says “Fire all phasers.” Continuing on.
04:40 – Sulu: “Firing phasers, Captain.” The Enterprise fires phasers. Then Sulu says, “The alien has screens up too.”
04:45 – Kirk: “Take all action necessary to protect the ship.”
So, the Gorn fired first and Kirk only ordered to Sulu to take actions necessary to protect the ship. The Enterprise didn’t make the first move and they're on defense.
Wow, I feel really nerdy right now. :/
Thematically, it was absolutely horrible however that in order to make Burnham look good, they had to make everyone else - even characters they built up as "good" like Sarek and Cornwell - look like amoral bastards. The lesson drawn here is basically that Starfleet is not only totally incompetent at waging war, but that all of the checks and balances within Starfleet - the Federation charter - none of it means shit unless The One is there to remind everyone.
Yes, Starfleet has had many evil admirals before. And yes, Section 31 attempted to genocide the founders with some assistance from within Starfleet. But this was on a different level - this was essentially saying the whole system was rotten from top to bottom, but all it takes is a speech from Burnham to make it right.
Consequences for what?
As has been posted previously, from a tactical standpoint, giving the Klingons the Vulcan Hello could be viewed as the right thing to do -- from a purely tactical standpoint.
From a purely tactical standpoint, destroying Qu'nos could also be viewed as the "right" decision, given that the Fed was losing the war.
However,from a moral standpoint, from the standpoint of Starfleet's principles and ideals, neither the Vulcan Hello, firing on a ship without provocation, or genocide, are acceptable tactics.
Tactics versus ethics. You get the difference, right?
They had absolutely no way of knowing the destruction of Qonos would cause the Klingon fleet to withdraw. Knowing what I do about Klingon psychology, I would think the honorable thing for a Klingon warrior to do at that point was enact vengeance on Earth, not return home to assist with relief efforts.
And yes, presumably there would be no direct evidence at first that the Federation did it. But if you are about to assault a major city, and get word your home city just blew up, what will you think? What would a Klingon think?
Do you know they aren't real?
It's too bad you weren't on the show to give your expert opinion on the matter. How has Starfleet survived this long without you?
There will be no repercussions from the rottenness of leadership, either. No consequences. Amnesiac storytelling. These people are worthy because the writer tells you they are.
Do you know they aren't real?
It's too bad you weren't on the show to give your expert opinion on the matter. How has Starfleet survived this long without you?
Why are you being so unpleasant in this thread? It's perfectly reasonable to discuss fictional characters' motivations and, yes, psychology. Otherwise none of us would be here.
Similar threads
