• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

The Defiant was designed primarily to be used against the Borg. Sisko said this in "THE SEARCH, PART I", along with 'desperate times breed desperate measures'. Against a foe like the Borg, you most certainly need something like the Defiant.

I don't think it's a glorification of war simply by creating something like that out of necessity.

And having her in the fleet museum... I can see at least one ship of every class ever built being part of the museum. (I'm sure there's several of them around.)

I just don't see her as a glorification of war. It's like saying the memorial of the Arizona is a glorification of war.
 
Without the Defiant, and other ships that fought in the Dominion War, that Starfleet Museum would be in Dominion Space. Assuming it would even still exist (a very big IF). So, the Defiant very much belongs in there.

Starfleet is the military, even though they oftentimes try to make it look like it's not. And fighting to protect the Federation is part of the job.
 
Last edited:
On a related but different note, I get a kick out of how, in the end:

Kirk's ship is a replacement. The A was a replacement for the Refit.
Picard's ship is a rebuild.
Sisko's ship is a replacement. Just like Kirk's.
Archer's ship is a refit.
.
.
.
... but Janway's ship is the original! And (more or less) the original configuration!

Voyager won the Survivor Contest. ;)
 
A lot gets made of "the Defiant was a purpose built warship". Which was the intention. After nine or ten years of TNG Star Trek we were supposed to go "Oooooooh!" Except all of those "mixed role" Fed ships credibly defended the Federation border for hundreds of years. Against other nation's "purpose built warships". Anytime the Klingons wanted to take on the 1701 they either resorted to sabotage or they showed up with three.

Also the Defiant was built for one job: Take on the Borg. And... Tough little ship or no, she got her butt handed to her. (It's no fun being the guest star.)
 
On Our Man Bashir - I actually went to the emergency room because of that episode! I was watching it in my basement workshop (probably building a starship model), with an electric heater going. The heater blew a circuit breaker at a critical point in the episode. I yelled NOOO! and ran into the back of the cellar to flip the breaker. Only it was, ya know, DARK! With no lights! So I ran back to grope for the flashlight I keep by the door, and tripped over the electric heater, giving myself a gash in the leg that required four stitches. But I finished watching the episode first. :lol:
 
They didn't get names, during the entire run of the show.
That was the point. Uhura and Sulu didn't get names in TOS. Sulu in The Undiscovered Country. Uhura didn't get a name until JJ. (And it was even a running gag.) James T. Kirk didn't get a T until TAS and in live action not until The Undiscovered Country.

Did that somehow break canon or reduce the mystery or likeability of the characters?

(SPOCK does not get another name. Sorry.)
 
I just don't see that. War is never glorified in TREK. It is accepted, and some even enjoy it, but the costs are always held out as not worth it.
Like I said, I do love the Defiant. I'm just not sure I would have put her up on a plinth. I guess I should just look at her as a "sign of the times".
 
Like I said, I do love the Defiant. I'm just not sure I would have put her up on a plinth. I guess I should just look at her as a "sign of the times".
I'm a big fan of recognizing history in terms of significance not glory.

I think DS9, like a couple of my other favorite shows, highlights the clear costs of war and lets the viewer determine the right and wrong of it. There's no glory in it, but that doesn't make the story less in the telling, even if it's on a pedestal.

I mean, I see people who praise Captain Kirk yet he self-describes as a solder. Is that glorifying war?
 
I mean, I see people who praise Captain Kirk yet he self-describes as a solder. Is that glorifying war?
Nope, he's doing his duty.

½ of StarFleet's duty is as a Soldier for the Security, Defense, & Peace-Keeping of the UFP.
½ of StarFleet's duty is as a Diplomat / Scientist / Explorer on behalf of the UFP.
 
I'm a big fan of recognizing history in terms of significance not glory.

I think DS9, like a couple of my other favorite shows, highlights the clear costs of war and lets the viewer determine the right and wrong of it. There's no glory in it, but that doesn't make the story less in the telling, even if it's on a pedestal.
The moment where Sisko and Ross refuse to drink bloodwine with Martok on Cardassia at the end of the Dominion War really underlines that point. It's set up as a positive goal for the characters to give them hope to come out of things alive. And, in a lesser show, it would have been a moment to celebrate for the "heroes."

Instead, it's treated exactly as the Female Founder predicts. Victory is almost as bitter as defeat and the moment shows how even if Sisko and Ross have bent rules and crossed ethical lines during the war, they reaffirm the Roddenberry-ethos of a socially evolved humanity where they can't see the Cardassian bodies as anything other than a tragedy.
 
Nope, he's doing his duty.

½ of StarFleet's duty is as a Soldier for the Security, Defense, & Peace-Keeping of the UFP.
½ of StarFleet's duty is as a Diplomat / Scientist / Explorer on behalf of the UFP.
Interesting. This assumes fighting in a war is acceptable if it is in line with one's duty.

Fascinating.
 
Interesting. This assumes fighting in a war is acceptable if it is in line with one's duty.

Fascinating.
f4F7N34.png
Soldiers aren't going to be at war all the time, they need things to do, part of that in the ST Universe of the UFP should be Exploring, Diplomacy, Scientific Research.

All those will help benefit every Soldier / Officer.

Nobody wants war, trust me; you can ask almost every single Military Man who is in the service or have been part of it. I can gurantee that 99.999999…% will tell you that they don't want war. Only that minority and outliers will tell you that they want war. If there is a way to avoid Blood Shed, so be it.

But it doesn't mean we're push overs either, there are certain things every person as part of every military within the Nation-State system will defend.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top