Spoilers Does the Strange New World’s Finale Justify Discovery’s Premiere?

[TrekTrucker]

I’m not sure where this should should be posted exactly, so I’m posting it here.

But the central question I have is this: does “A Quality of Mercy” justify/redeem Michael’s actions (or least the reasoning behind those actions) in “The Vulcan Hello”?

 

[Lord Garth]

Obvious Spoilers here, but the thread title itself is a spoiler. But, anyway...

I think if someone wants to go to war, they'll find a way to do it, no matter what. It's what the Klingons did. The Klingons are just more obvious about it.

The Romulans are more political. They want the Federation to lay the groundwork for them and will find ways to goad them into doing it. Then, once they have you where they want you, they'll attack if they think they can overpower you and won't if they think they can't.

The Romulans played Pike and took advantage of his good nature, twisting it to their maximum advantage.

The Romulans will wait 100 years for their enemy to make the wrong move, and then they'll wait another 100. The Klingons aren't as patient and aren't as calculating for that kind of long-term strategy.

 

[The Wormhole]

I'm sure I'm missing something, but aside from being the start of a war, the situations in the two episodes are otherwise apples and oranges.

 

[Christopher]

I'm sure I'm missing something, but aside from being the start of a war, the situations in the two episodes are otherwise apples and oranges.

On the contrary, I feel they're pretty much the same -- in both cases, the lead character thought they had a handle on how to engage in diplomacy with the other nation, but underestimated how determined a leader in that nation was to begin a war.

What everyone seems to misunderstand about "the Vulcan hello" is that it doesn't mean destroying the other ship, it means making a token show of strength so the Klingons will respect you enough to be willing to listen and negotiate, like when animals bare their fangs at each other on their first meeting. So even though Michael's strategy was to shoot and Pike's strategy was not to, they were both aiming for the same goal of convincing the other side to listen and negotiate. But they were both faced with leaders who'd already made up their mind to go to war.

The main difference is that the Romulans backed down in "Balance of Terror" because the Federation (well, Earth, since the writers hadn't thought of the Federation yet) proved it was strong enough to fight back. To the Klingons, having a strong opponent would've been an incentive to fight, not a deterrent.

 

[TrekTrucker]

I'm sure I'm missing something, but aside from being the start of a war, the situations in the two episodes are otherwise apples and oranges.

They’re not identical no, but I think they’re similar enough to allow some direct comparisons.

Both episodes present us with an old enemy itching for war with the Federation and Starfleet Captaiin trying to prevent that outcome via diplomatic means. In each episode the Captain is opposed by members of their crew recommending a more aggressive approach. And in both episodes the more aggressive approach ie: The Vulcan Hello, is shown to be the correct course of action. Michael got a lot of flack and hate because of how she wanted to deal with the Klingons, and everything else she did because of that.

So now that we’ve seen Pike go through a similar situation and lose taking a Georgiou approach, does that retroactively redeem/justify Michael more Kirk-like stance?

 

[TrekTrucker]

And let me just add, as much as I love Michael I wish she had been in the wrong in that situation. Just like I wish Pike had been right in his.

“Starfleet does not fire first” is the ideal, but both episodes seem to acknowledge that ours is not an ideal universe and sometimes you have to punch the bully in the nose…

 

[Tosk]

So now that we’ve seen Pike go through a similar situation and lose taking a Georgiou approach, does that retroactively redeem/justify Michael more Kirk-like stance?

No, because the circumstances and opponent were different. I'm not even saying Michael was wrong or right, only that it's impossible to take another situation with so many differences and say, "See, I was right all along!"

 

[Christopher]

And in both episodes the more aggressive approach ie: The Vulcan Hello, is shown to be the correct course of action.

I don't agree with equating the two. As I said, the "Vulcan hello" does not mean destroying the enemy, just firing first -- making a token display of aggression and strength to earn the Klingons' respect so they'll be willing to listen. In Burnham's words: "Whenever the Vulcans crossed paths with Klingons, the Vulcans fired first. They said hello in a language the Klingons understood. Violence brought respect. Respect brought peace." So it is not equivalent to destroying the Romulan ship in this case. Rather, it's an overture to negotiation, understanding the other culture's values and engaging with them on their own terms.

Also, in DSC, there's no reason to think the tactic would've worked in that case. The Klingon fleet was already on its way, moments away from arriving when Burnham gave the order to fire and Georgiou countermanded it. It was too late for either option to make a difference.

After all, the motives behind the two planned wars were different. The Romulan Praetor hoped the Federation would be weak enough to overpower, but backed down when Kirk established its strength. But T'Kuvma didn't see the Federation as weak -- on the contrary, he feared it was too strong, an aggressive force of cultural imperialism assimilating other cultures and stripping them of their identities. He believed the Klingons had to fight back in self-defense. So I don't think a show of strength would've made a difference there.

 

[XCV330]

I’m not sure where this should should be posted exactly, so I’m posting it here.

But the central question I have is this: does “A Quality of Mercy” justify/redeem Michael’s actions (or least the reasoning behind those actions) in “The Vulcan Hello”?

Burnham assaulted her captain and committed mutiny. There's no justification for it. Even she knew she had to do her time, for it. It seems to me that it didn't matter if Shenzhou engaged the Klingons right then and and there, or not. The Klingons intended to have a war, had a messiah figure to unite behind and each house was all-in, as long as T'Kuvma was alive. (After he died and Voq spent the next six months doing nothing but eating Fricassee of Starship Captain, they still were attacking).

The best thing that could have been done in Shenzhou's case was to nope the hell out of there, notify the admiralty who could have arrived (as they ended up doing, anyway), en masse, maybe with better numbers. What Kirk did was totally different during the attack on the rogue Bird of Prey.

 

[Christopher]

What Kirk did was totally different during the attack on the rogue Bird of Prey.

Hardly a rogue, since it was operating under direct orders from the Romulan Praetor. T'Kuvma was the rogue, acting on his own initiative against the consensus of the Klingon Houses.

 

[XCV330]

Hardly a rogue, since it was operating under direct orders from the Romulan Praetor. T'Kuvma was the rogue, acting on his own initiative against the consensus of the Klingon Houses.

The Klingon empire was in something of a warring-states period, apparently. T'Kuvma had enough support from houses to begin to wage his war, or would have if Burnham hadn't killed him.

Rogue as in plausible deniability.

 

[Christopher]

The Klingon empire was in something of a warring-states period, apparently. T'Kuvma had enough support from houses to begin to wage his war, or would have if Burnham hadn't killed him.

That wasn't the cause and effect implied.

OR'EQ: Can you be sure our brothers and sisters will answer your call?
T'KUVMA: They will because the prophecy commands all Klingons must come to the light of Kahless when it shines in the night sky.
OR'EQ: Will ships really fly across the galaxy because of a fable?
T'KUVMA: So, you doubt? You dishonour only yourself.

It wasn't that he already knew he had their support; he just believed that if he lit the beacon of Kahless, the Great Houses would feel honor-bound to accept its call, whether they wanted to or not. So he basically manipulated them into waging the war he wanted. (Indeed, tricked them into it, according to the tie-in comic, which revealed that the beacon was fake.)

Rogue as in plausible deniability.

I don't think that applies. The ship wasn't meant to be definitely identified as Romulan at all -- that's the whole reason for the cloaking device, to leave it uncertain. And once the crew knew it was Romulan, there was no doubt that it was acting on behalf of the government -- that's the whole reason they had to pursue and destroy it. The whole plot depended on the conviction that it was not a rogue ship.

Now, it's possible that after the episode, the Romulan government weaseled out of retaliation by claiming it was a rogue ship, much like the Enterprise's cover story in "The Enterprise Incident." But if so, that was never depicted onscreen and it remains purely conjectural.

 

[dupersuper]

The Vulcan Hello, is shown to be the correct course of action.

Was it? The Klingons seemed set to attack no matter what.

 

[TrekTrucker]

Hardly a rogue, since it was operating under direct orders from the Romulan Praetor. T'Kuvma was the rogue, acting on his own initiative against the consensus of the Klingon Houses.

Yes! The Klingon Great Houses were initially opposed and IIRC were not very fond of T’Kuvma. What set them all off was Georgiou sending that “As always, we’re here to help” message.” But had she started just firing at them instead…

I suppose the big difference between the two scenarios is that the Klingons say the Federation as a spiritual/cultural threat compared to the Romulans who saw them as a military one.

 

[FederationHistorian]

No. Georgiou understands the difference of a war of aggression and a defensive war. That’s why she did not want Burnham to fire - it would paint the Federation as aggressors instead of paint them as on the defense. T’Kuvma was telling his followers that the Federation coming in peace was lie.The Klingons firing the first shots proved that it wasn't a lie at all, even though the Klingons thought what they were doing was defensive. And despite Georgiou saying that almost no had seen Klingons in a hundred years – raiding parties aside – they are 35 years in to hostilities between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. They are already in a state of war; firing first to show they speak the Klingon’s language to avoid a conflict makes no sense and won’t make a difference here.They are already in conflict! But Georgiou should have realized that Burnham's plan had merit since the Federation and Klingons were already in a state of war. Had that happened, Burnham would not have felt it was necessary to deceive and then assault her captain.

In SNW, the Federation are on the defensive and the Romulans are the aggressors. This timeline turned out worse because the Praetor actually responded to the message sent by the Romulan Bird of Prey this time. Considering its an alternate timeline, the Praetor seen in SNW may have been more aggressive that the Praetor in the original TOS timeline. And therefore, it’s a more aggressive Romulan Empire than in the original timeline. But Pike knowing that this Praetor is aggressive may lead to Section 31 being sent to depose her and replace her with a less aggressive Praetor to avoid a decades long conflict.

 

[Christopher]

Considering its an alternate timeline, the Praetor seen in SNW may have been more aggressive that the Praetor in the original TOS timeline. And therefore, it’s a more aggressive Romulan Empire than in the original timeline.

No; the whole point of "Balance of Terror" is that the Romulans will start a war if the BoP successfully returns from its mission, because it will show that the Romulans' new plasma weapon and cloaking device are successful and will give them the military advantage they need to launch the war. The Commander and Centurion's dialogue makes it clear that the Praetor is eager for war and will undoubtedly launch one as soon as the BoP makes it back successfully. That's why it's so urgent that Kirk destroy the ship before it crosses the border, so that the Praetor will judge the mission a failure and back off from the war plans.

So the Praetor's eagerness for war is identical in both timelines. That's intrinsic to the dilemma that both captains face, whether and how to destroy the ship before it reaches the Neutral Zone. The only difference is that the Praetor is called "him" in BoT yet appears female in "A Quality of Mercy." But that could be explained by there being more than one Praetor (the Roman Empire had different numbers of praetors at different times), or by the female-appearing Praetor using he/him pronouns (either by personal preference or by some kind of institutional tradition like how the Pharaoh Hatshepsut had to present herself as male).

 

[BillJ]

The only difference is that the Praetor is called "him" in BoT yet appears female in "A Quality of Mercy." But that could be explained by there being more than one Praetor (the Roman Empire had different numbers of praetors at different times), or by the female-appearing Praetor using he/him pronouns (either by personal preference or by some kind of institutional tradition like how the Pharaoh Hatshepsut had to present herself as male).

Or simply a different Preator since the timeline had been changed…

 

[Sci]

To me, part of the point of "A Quality of Mercy" is that different approaches are required for different situations. So the fact that Pike's more diplomatic approach didn't work with the Romulans in 2266 does not mean his approach would not have worked with the Klingons in 2256. Doesn't mean it would, either -- again, the point of the episode is that no one approach is universally applicable, and in this one instance Pike had gotten it wrong.

The only difference is that the Praetor is called "him" in BoT yet appears female in "A Quality of Mercy." But that could be explained by there being more than one Praetor (the Roman Empire had different numbers of praetors at different times), or by the female-appearing Praetor using he/him pronouns (either by personal preference or by some kind of institutional tradition like how the Pharaoh Hatshepsut had to present herself as male).

It's also possible (though potentially less likely) that a female praetor being in power is a butterfly-effect consequence of Pike staying on as Enterprise captain somehow.

 

[Christopher]

It's also possible (though potentially less likely) that a female praetor being in power is a butterfly-effect consequence of Pike staying on as Enterprise captain somehow.

If anything, that's the more likely interpretation, which is why I considered it too obvious to mention and instead suggested a couple of alternative possibilities.

Although the problem with it being a different Praetor is that the intent of the story was that the political situation and the Romulan agenda was exactly the same in both timelines, with the only difference being that Pike was in command instead of Kirk. I've already seen someone in another thread/forum speculate that this Praetor was a bigger warmonger than the original one, which is misunderstanding "Balance of Terror," since that episode made it explicit that the Praetor wanted war and destroying the BoP was the only way to prevent it.

Still, I suppose it's possible that two different Praetors in two different timelines could have been equally warmongering. Maybe the broader political context meant that only a candidate who was eager for war would've succeeded in getting the support of the Senate and getting elected/appointed Praetor.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

how could Pike staying on as captain of the Enterprise have anything to do with the choice of Romulan praetor? The Romulans and the Federation had no contact with each other, in either timeline, until the BoT incident.