USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[Jadeb]

Absolutely but it's nice to see a bit of reality every now and then.

Makes it a little bit more believable as a living breathing fictional reality.

I would agree with that. But I don't think it's a binary choice between "optimism" and "reality." Fundamentally, our heroes can face hard choices -- and even make the wrong ones -- while still *trying* to make the right ones.

As Dr. McCoy notes, evil tends to win unless good is very, very careful. There's plenty of quality drama there. It just might not end with a "rah, rah Starfleet" victory speech.

 

[lawman]

That's a very nice platitude and I'm sure it would work well at the polls, but the reality is different. Did the allies uphold their principles in WWII? No. They did what they had to do to win. They didn't stoop to the same level as the Axis, sure, but they went farther than they would've liked to, because they had to.

Hmm. What did the Allies do in WWIi that would constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity by current standards?

A few examples do spring to mind. They put Japanese-Americans in internment camps. They firebombed Dresden. They dropped atomic bombs on civilian cities.

Were any of these things actually necessary to win the war? Historians make very strong and persuasive arguments that the answer is "no." It's superficial to look back and pretend these things were justified just because we were the "good guys."

I'm not arguing that the Federation doesn't need a military (to the extent that Starfleet serves as one). I am, however, arguing that it emphatically does not need Section 31.

I would further argue that if and when Federation officials or Starfleet officers, at whatever level, do make a decision that some sort of violation of law and principle is necessary in order to defend the UFP from some existential threat, they should subsequently turn themselves over to the justice system to be duly tried for that violation. Because a positive outcome is not a legal excuse. If they're to be exonerated, it should at least be through due process, not by other co-conspirators behind closed doors.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Should we just rename this thread?

Deep Space Nine Eventually on Discovery.
Now that would explode a few heads

 

[fireproof78]

Deep Space Nine Eventually on Discovery.
Now that would explode a few heads

There were originally 8 Deep Space stations. All were destroyed.

 

[BillJ]

You know, I had a thought about DS9 and Longinus' dislike for it.

Star Trek's utopic world was always something of a puzzle, really. How do you build and maintain such a world? Would you not need some measure of violence and deceit to do both? Would the empires around you not see your presence as an existential threat due to the reminder you represent to their own people that there is such a life possible for them? Would they then not seek to eliminate you by any means necessary to preserve their regime? And in that scenario, would you not need to defend against these aggressions, and does this not entail being less than nice or principled about it?

TOS and TNG always had hints that the Federation was defended through more shady means, while the population of the inner planets lived their happy lives, turning a blind eye to that. DS9 was just more open about it, because it was told from the point of view of the very people who provided that security, comfort and obliviousness. Sisko was put in that position because he was the man for the job, and when things got really rough he did what was necessary to safeguard the lives and standards of living of Federation citizens in a way Picard and Kirk never had to because they were usually away from those existential threats.

DS9 is not that different from its predecessors; it just shows us the cost that has to be paid for paradise.

I actually agree with you, yet still find Deep Space Nine the weakest of the pre-Discovery series. It hit it out of the park from time to time, but it was far more often just uninteresting.

 

[Tuskin38]

They new trailer has some new shots of the Enterprise

None of the bridge, but there is a closer look of Spock's quarters.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

What situation? Why, the situation you mocked with regards to the Reliant when sensors were inoperable.

Apologies that my criticism came across as mockery - it was not intended as such.

And I actually discounted the mutara nebula instance as it’s already been discussed here at length and I remain unconvinced that the window would have helped at all in all that purple fog when the reliant would have been a long way away from the Enterprise to be seen easily with the naked eye.

But I don’t recall a starfleet ship that wasn’t a shuttle or runabout that had a bridge window before the reboot by self professed “Star Wars Guy” JJ Abrams.

Kirk and Sulu picking up on a visual distortion by eye with the cloak. Among others. I can imagine more interesting and dramatic situations that could be fun to in a science fiction setting.

Since that distortion was on the viewscreen (not out a porthole) the obvious conclusion is that the ship’s sensors highlighted something that made the ship invisible *to the naked eye*

Didn't they have a scene in STD first episode where they used that telescope to look at the torch beacon because their sensors couldn't lock on?

Yes - and it’s about time they did that on Star Trek. Sincerely.

But - they went to a window (admittedly that was where the telescope was) - there’s no reason that couldn’t have been in the story without having to make the whole front of the bridge transparent aluminium. In fact, why didn’t they bring the telescope onto the bridge? They could have magnified a bit and *then* looked through the scope.

No, I agree - it being a window doesn’t add any value - it’s a post-2009 Star Wars thing. Good for JJ

 

[Belz...]

Hmm. What did the Allies do in WWIi that would constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity by current standards?

A few examples do spring to mind. They put Japanese-Americans in internment camps. They firebombed Dresden. They dropped atomic bombs on civilian cities.

Were any of these things actually necessary to win the war? Historians make very strong and persuasive arguments that the answer is "no."

I don't know which historians you've been reading, but destroying enemy factories is essential to win a modern war. And you know who works in those factories? Civilians.

 

[Tuskin38]

Her bussard's seem to be a different colour from Season 1.

 

[Tuskin38]

Spock's Quarters

 

[ITDUDE]

Bridge window confirmed (again).

And bussard collectors are red compared to yellow ones on Anovos model and pinkish ones compared to end of season 1.

 

[Tuskin38]

 

[BillJ]

Spock's Quarters

The Discovery designers never fail to make me want to gag a little bit with their designs. That's consistency!

 

[Gonzo]

I don't know which historians you've been reading, but destroying enemy factories is essential to win a modern war. And you know who works in those factories? Civilians.

When many of the inmates in the camps saw the bombers flying over towards the factories they wanted the bombers to destroy the camps to put an end to slaughter.

Command refused though, they wouldn't do it, it may have been more merciful if they had.

I am not so sure which would be worse, dying in the death camps or being one of the survivors and having to live with it.

 

[Belz...]

The lighting on the Enterprise is MUCH better than last we saw her. Looks good that way.

 

[CaptainMurdock]

Spock's Quarters

Kinda reminds me of Pike's quarters from the Cage.

 

[lawman]

I don't know which historians you've been reading, but destroying enemy factories is essential to win a modern war. And you know who works in those factories? Civilians.

Bombing civilian factories is illegal in a modern war, so if you find it necessary to win, you're in a bit of a jam. As for Dresden in particular, I don't want to get bogged down in details, but the Wikipedia page on it does a good job of summing up why it remains, to say the least, controversial:

"Several researchers claim not all of the communications infrastructure, such as the bridges, were targeted, nor were the extensive industrial areas outside the city centre.[8] Critics of the bombing have claimed that Dresden was a cultural landmark of little or no strategic significance, and that the attacks were indiscriminate area bombing and not proportionate to the military gains.[9][10][11] ... According to other critics, given the high number of civilian casualties and the relatively few strategic targets, Dresden's destruction was unjustifiable and should be called a war crime. They claim the city could have been spared, like Rome, Paris, and Kyoto, though the British and the American militaries defended the bombing as necessary.[14]"​

 

[TrickyDickie]

They dropped atomic bombs on civilian cities.

Were any of these things actually necessary to win the war? Historians make very strong and persuasive arguments that the answer is "no." It's superficial to look back and pretend these things were justified just because we were the "good guys."

The alternative to dropping the bombs was 'Operation Downfall'....an Allied invasion of Japan. That would likely have been a disaster:

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm

One thing that transcript does not mention is the opinion of a lot of the troops in the Pacific. They strongly objected to the idea of bringing in those who had served in the European Theater. "You won your war, now leave us the hell alone to win ours!" That's what they said. The fact is, the terrain, the climate, and other factors were a lot different. Troops accustomed to conditions in Europe would have been completely out of their element for a considerable amount of time and that would have only compounded the other problems that would have existed.

Historians are largely theorists operating from hindsight and very often they lack pieces of information necessary to fully understand the 'big picture' as it actually existed at the time in question.

Not having been on the ground and in the middle of the action at the time, in real-world conditions as they existed, is a very big handicap that keeps them from painting an accurate picture.

 

[Belz...]

Bombing civilian factories is illegal in a modern war, so if you find it necessary to win, you're in a bit of a jam.

You know, this is so far off of what our conversation was about that it's starting to seem like you're avoiding the actual point; which is that defending a democracy is NOT pretty, and that DS9 at least got that right.

 

[Tuskin38]

The Discovery designers never fail to make me want to gag a little bit with their designs. That's consistency!

There is nothing wrong with that design.