What Constitutes and Act of War in Star Trek?

[valkyrie013]

Reading a few things today, and the question just came to mind. In the years of Star Trek, there have been instances of the Klingons, Romulans, and others Destroying ships, Starbases/planet side bases, and other stuff, yet it leads to "Nothing"
Take the Enterprise C, they probably knew the romulans done it, destroyed what was probably the "Flagship" of the fleet, yet we didn't go to war with the Romulans.
Plenty of other times where other spieces attacked the Federation.
I guess like real life, they can be at "War" and it be no more than a "Police Action" like Korea or Vietnam , or the Ktzinthi, or Cardasian "Wars" and not a total war like the Romulan War.
So, my question, what does it take? Where is the line?
Would also like to talk about those "Police Actions" like the Cardasian war, was it just a "Border Problem"? Fighting over a few planets??

 

[DonIago]

Calling something "an act of war" doesn't mean war automatically occurs, or even "a war in everything but name". For the UFP, at least, it would take a vote of the Federation Council to declare something a war.

The destruction of the E-C is likely a case in point.

 

[johnnybear]

Kang claimed that Kirk 'destroying' the Klingon colony at Beta XII-A constitutes an act of war in Day of The Dove!
JB

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

As tragic as losing a ship and crew is, declaring war over one ship seems a little excessive. Seeing as how the Romulan attack was directed at the Klingons and the E-C got caught in the middle by responding to a distress call, it would be more likely that the two empires would go to war over the incident, it could be the sacrifice of the Starfleet crew and a Federation push to decrease the tensions through diplomacy that saw the Klingons (probably reluctantly) agreeing not to.

Wars are very costly, in currency, personnel, equipment, etc. and to do so with no real objective other than revenge would be illogical, if a negotiated settlement could be reached.

The Cardassian Wars seem to have been major conflicts, unlike the Talarian border skirmishes, that didn't achieve much of anything other than escalate tensions between the Federation and Cardassia. It would be safe to assume that the Union started them, seeking more territory and resources along the border and pushed further and further until the UFP had had enough, Earth history alone would show how ineffective appeasement is. I suspect this is partly what forced Starfleets hand with the Dominion, aiming to strike before their forces were sufficient to overwhelm the Alpha Quadrant--though it still led to two years of hard fighting.

 

[Spot261]

Reading a few things today, and the question just came to mind. In the years of Star Trek, there have been instances of the Klingons, Romulans, and others Destroying ships, Starbases/planet side bases, and other stuff, yet it leads to "Nothing"
Take the Enterprise C, they probably knew the romulans done it, destroyed what was probably the "Flagship" of the fleet, yet we didn't go to war with the Romulans.
Plenty of other times where other spieces attacked the Federation.
I guess like real life, they can be at "War" and it be no more than a "Police Action" like Korea or Vietnam , or the Ktzinthi, or Cardasian "Wars" and not a total war like the Romulan War.
So, my question, what does it take? Where is the line?
Would also like to talk about those "Police Actions" like the Cardasian war, was it just a "Border Problem"? Fighting over a few planets??

"Police action", like Vietnam?

 

[JirinPanthosa]

“We will consider this an ACT OF WAR” is used mostly on Trek as a gesture of posturing or a threat.

 

[Admiral2]

As tragic as losing a ship and crew is, declaring war over one ship seems a little excessive.

"Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain!"

"Lusitania Sunk!"

Excessive? Yeah, but it's not like there isn't historical precedent...

 

[SpyOne]

As others have said, and act of war is only an act of war if you want it to be.
And that isn't just because the Federation would rather talk things out. Imagine a scenario where a minor power attacks a Romulan ship and fail spectacularly. Still, the Romulans would be in a position to say "Either this was a mistake, and you are about to go to great lengths to convince us you are very sorry, or this was a declaration of war and we will crush your fleets and exterminate all life on your homeworld. You have five minutes to decide."

 

[valkyrie013]

Not to downplay Korea and Vietnam, but the US never declared "War" through congress. That what I was meaning. Apologies.
Reading about the "Cardassian war" and the "Tzenkethi war" were border disputes. Basically, the Federation settled some worlds close by, and they thought those were there's, and they fought over border planets, not any full scale shooting war.
Guessing like a lot of the wars in Europe, like the War of the Roses, or Napolian, Certain countries trying to gain territory, and other countries saying, nope, thats ours. I guess Space is infinite, but if your surrounded by people, and trying to expand, your going to but heads.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

"Lusitania Sunk!"

As a non-combatant ship then this was an atrocity, but war had already been waged for 10 months by that time. The sinking of the Lusitania swung public opinion in countries not involved in the fighting against Germany.

Its really the accumulation of events in the decades before 1914 that made Europe a powder keg that erupted into global conflict, with countries involved ultimately declaring war for a variety of reasons (i.e. the UK did so to defend the neutrality of Belgium in accordance with the 1839 Treaty of London).

 

[Tallguy]

Bases destroyed, military and civilians killed, borders crossed openly and in secret with intent to either cause chaos or (in at least one instance) to outright conquer a Federation world.

I think the answer is "Almost nothing."

Makes you wonder what the heck happened before Errand of Mercy! The Klingons must have been especially egregious.

 

[Nyotarules]

When the Romulans stop smuggling their ale, all bets are off!

 

[Jedi Marso]

Probably repeated, overt attacks by a peer power that present a clear and present danger to Federation lives and property, or an existential threat to the Federation itself.

In the big scheme, everything else is small potatoes- the Federation is about making friends and being inclusive, not the other way around, and they are experienced enough with first contacts to understand the myriad ways misunderstandings can happen. That said, they are likely to let a lot pass until communications are firmly established, the cultures have learned about each other, and THEN you have the scenario in the top paragraph.

 

[1001001]

Any attempt to rescue Kirk and McCoy from Rura Penthe.

 

[J.T.B.]

"Police action", like Vietnam?

That was Korea.

As others have said, and act of war is only an act of war if you want it to be.

Exactly. Just talking about a few US ships:

• USS Panay sunk by Japanese forces in 1937, no war.
• USS Kearney torpedoed by German forces in 1941, 11 killed, no war.
• USS Reuben James sunk by German forces in 1941, 100 killed, no war.
• USS Maddox and Tuner Joy (supposedly) attacked with no damage or injuries in 1964, led to a major buildup of US forces fighting in Vietnam.
• USS Liberty attacked by Israeli forces in 1967, 34 killed, no war.
• USS Pueblo captured by North Korean forces and crew imprisoned for 11 months in 1968, no war.
• USS Stark attacked by Iraqi forces in 1987, 37 killed, no war and the US blamed Iran rather than Iraq.

As a non-combatant ship then this was an atrocity, but war had already been waged for 10 months by that time. The sinking of the Lusitania swung public opinion in countries not involved in the fighting against Germany.

I think he was referring to the motivation for the US declaring war in 1917.

 

[Spot261]

That was Korea.

No, the OP said "Korea or Vietnam", which to me seems a very odd statement indeed.

 

[J.T.B.]

No, the OP said "Korea or Vietnam", which to me seems a very odd statement indeed.

OK. The Truman administration used "police action" for Korea in reference to the UN resolution calling North Korea's invasion a "breach of the peace," but that term was not used officially for Vietnam.

 

[Spot261]

OK. The Truman administration used "police action" for Korea in reference to the UN resolution calling North Korea's invasion a "breach of the peace," but that term was not used officially for Vietnam.

Hence my questioning of it by the OP, it was neither officially nor unofficially a police action by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[J.T.B.]

^ I see I misunderstood, sorry.

 

[Admiral2]

I think he was referring to the motivation for the US declaring war in 1917

I was, but Bry's point was valid as well, so I didn't argue about it.