'CORRECT' OUTCOME OF KOBAYASHI MARU?

[Lazarus]

Broken down to the bare bones, the Kobayashi Maru scenario leaves the student two possible courses of action:

1: Decide to remain within Federation space and allow the civilian ship & passengers to be destroyed by hostile forces. Entering the Neutral Zone will almost certainly trigger an interstellar war between the Federation and a hostile race.

2: Decide to enter the Neural Zone, drive off the hostile vessels and save the civilian ship and passengers. As the Neutral Zone has been breached, an insterstellar war will result.

Bearing in mind that a war with the enemy race will lead to a loss of life hundreds of times greater than the number of, albeit unfortunate, souls on the civilian ship, can rescuing them REALLY be justified?

The Kobayashi Maru scenario is described as 'no win' - whichever course of action the student decides will result in loss of life. While this is true, surely saving the lives of the people on the civilian vessel but triggering a conflict that will cost the lives of hundreds of thousands can not be placed as an equal outcome as preventing said war at the cost of maybe a hundred lives?

I put it to you can the 'correct' course of action to take when presented with the Kobayashi Maru scenario is, as unpalatable as it may be to a Starfleet officer, to let the civilian ship be destroyed.

Opinions?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Perhaps, but any cadet that chooses that option may be judged by Starfleet as excessively cautious, unwilling to take risks, and therefore unsuitable for command.

 

[Lonemagpie]

Perhaps, but any cadet that chooses that option may be judged by Starfleet as excessively cautious, unwilling to take risks, and therefore unsuitable for command.

Actually it's probably impossible to judge out of context of whatever other psychological studies a candidate undergoes - it probably all depends on how their handling of the test fits with their persona so far.

Either way, it certainly doesn't work as a test of how one handles certain death, as the cadet *knows* he's in a simulator, so it's likely to be worthless in that element and actually used to evaluate other factors that the cadet isn't consciously expecting to be evaluated.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It depends on the terms of the treaty. For one thing, the simulation as described involves entry into the Neutral Zone and encountering KLINGON warships; as far as I know, Federation and Klingon space was never divided by a neutral zone, so you have to wonder if the treaty being violated is the Organian Treaty or the Romulan Treaty with Klingon involvement as a Romulan ally. OTOH, it's entirely possible that the Klingons are in the neutral zone conducting a war with the Romulans and the decision to enter the zone is at risk of being caught in the crossfire (since Klingons tend to shoot first and ask questions later).

On still the third hand, it's equally possible that entry into the neutral zone is permissible under emergency circumstances, and since it doesn't seem to apply to civilian vessels (or else what would the Kobyashi Maru be doing in the neutral zone in the first place?) a rescue mission would probably be covered under the treaty.

The reason it's a no-win situation is because Starfleet officers HAVE to render aid to civilians in distress, no matter what the risk. You won't win either way: either the Kobyashi Maru is destroyed by the Klingons, or YOU are destroyed by the Klingons. It's a test to see how you react to total and thorough defeat.


And while I know it's off the subject, I'm pretty sure this is what was going on during Balok's test of the Enterprise. Obviously he wouldn't have destroyed the Enterprise whether Kirk had bluffed him or not; probably he was just watching the crew to see how they would react to the approach of unavoidable death (hence the reason he gave them a few minutes warning). You can learn alot about a person by the lengths they will take to meet their goals, especially if their goal is to survive.

 

[Lazarus]

Perhaps, but any cadet that chooses that option may be judged by Starfleet as excessively cautious, unwilling to take risks, and therefore unsuitable for command.

But is inaction in order to prevent drawing the entire Federation into a massive interstellar war excessively cautious?

By ordering his ship across the border to aid the civilian ship the cadet will single-handedly trigger an immensely costly conflict, and is committing Starfleet and 150 Federation members to a war with a formidable alien power.

Is that unwilling to take risks? Or simply looking at the bigger picture?

 

[nx1701g]

I remember a while ago that there was a novelization where it included that a Cadet chose not to go after the Kobayashi Maru and was told he had automatically failed the exam. I remember that in the video game Starfleet Academy something similar would happen if you decided not to try to rescue them that the simulation would end.

 

[Lazarus]

The reason it's a no-win situation is because Starfleet officers HAVE to render aid to civilians in distress, no matter what the risk. You won't win either way: either the Kobyashi Maru is destroyed by the Klingons, or YOU are destroyed by the Klingons. It's a test to see how you react to total and thorough defeat.

All good points, but do they HAVE TO render aid in circumstances such as this? If this is true then the scenario is more of an exercise in futility than it already appears, since the course of action is preordained by regulations - if the cadet MUST try and save the civlian ship, there is in fact no choice presented to him.

Personally I'm dubious as to whether Stafleet officers MUST render aid in a situation like this, to cross the border, very likely trigger a war and probably be have their own ship destroyed and crew die in a futile enterprise (pardon the pun) can not surely be the course of action required by Starfleet regulations? Surely rendering aid at the cost of your own ship and entire crews' lives is not the correct decision to make?

 

[Kegg]

It depends on the terms of the treaty. For one thing, the simulation as described involves entry into the Neutral Zone and encountering KLINGON warships; as far as I know, Federation and Klingon space was never divided by a neutral zone,

Indeed, but in context of the scenario it quite clearly refers to an otherwise unheard-of Klingon Neutral Zone.

 

[Joshua Howard]

If I was a cadet faced with the Kobayashi Maru test, I think that I would, at that time, decide that the correct outcome involved quitting Starfleet and escaping to a remote lightly inhabited planet via the next passing Frenegi smuggling vessel.

The bureaucracy of the Federation would be hard for me to take - just like real world bureaucracy of many varieties - and the Kobayashi Maru, right or wrong, would be seen by me as the tipping point when enough is enough.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The reason it's a no-win situation is because Starfleet officers HAVE to render aid to civilians in distress, no matter what the risk. You won't win either way: either the Kobyashi Maru is destroyed by the Klingons, or YOU are destroyed by the Klingons. It's a test to see how you react to total and thorough defeat.

All good points, but do they HAVE TO render aid in circumstances such as this? If this is true then the scenario is more of an exercise in futility than it already appears, since the course of action is preordained by regulations - if the cadet MUST try and save the civlian ship, there is in fact no choice presented to him.

But wouldn't it be too easy to simply leave the ship there? Especially since it is only a simulation? You can't test how a cadet faces death if they never actually DO face it.

Perhaps Starfleet allows for cadets to abandon/destroy the ship, but requires any cadet who does so to give a good reason.

Spoiler: New Frontier

That's exactly what Mackenzie Calhoun did, for example. He ordered weapons targeted on the Kobayashi Maru and destroyed it. He reasoned that either the ship is a trap, intentionally left there as bait, and that the original crew are all dead anyway, or the situation is real but they would probably be captured and interrogated anyway and therefore it would be better to destroy the ship and put its crew out of their inevitable misery.

 

[Sci]

Broken down to the bare bones, the Kobayashi Maru scenario leaves the student two possible courses of action:

1: Decide to remain within Federation space and allow the civilian ship & passengers to be destroyed by hostile forces. Entering the Neutral Zone will almost certainly trigger an interstellar war between the Federation and a hostile race.

2: Decide to enter the Neural Zone, drive off the hostile vessels and save the civilian ship and passengers. As the Neutral Zone has been breached, an insterstellar war will result.

Actually, I don't think that interstellar war is the inevitable outcome. The Neutral Zone, be it Romulan or Klingon, has been breached numerous times throughout history without that being the result.

I think the point of the exercise is not, "Go in or don't go in." The point of the exercise is, you go in, you do your best, but you still will not be able to rescue the crew of the Kobayashi Maru or save your ship.

That's what makes it a no-win scenario -- you're going to die no matter what you do. It's a test of the individual's ability to continue doing his or her duty in the face of imminent, inevitable death, not of the individual's ability to judge whether or not it's worth it to start a war.

Incidentally, that's also what ties the test in with the larger theme of Star Trek II. ST2 is all about death and mortality -- about Kirk fearing that he is growing old, about Khan refusing to live his life and so finding himself trapped in a state of emotional death, and about Spock sacrificing his life to save the Enterprise. It's all about death -- our deaths, not others'.

ETA:

Personally I'm dubious as to whether Stafleet officers MUST render aid in a situation like this, to cross the border, very likely trigger a war and probably be have their own ship destroyed and crew die in a futile enterprise (pardon the pun) can not surely be the course of action required by Starfleet regulations? Surely rendering aid at the cost of your own ship and entire crews' lives is not the correct decision to make?

Surely it is! Starfleet is an agency of the state, and exists to serve its citizens. It is the Federation's military. Its job is to defend civilian life from hostile foreign powers. If its members are unwilling to sacrifice their lives to defend Federation civilians, then Starfleet does not deserve to exist.

Saying that Starfleet vessels are not obligated to be willing to sacrifice themselves to save Federation civilian lives is like saying that U.S. Naval vessels don't have a similar obligation. Well, if they don't, what the hell is the point of having a navy?

 

[Tom Riley]

Broken down to the bare bones, the Kobayashi Maru scenario leaves the student two possible courses of action:

1: Decide to remain within Federation space and allow the civilian ship & passengers to be destroyed by hostile forces. Entering the Neutral Zone will almost certainly trigger an interstellar war between the Federation and a hostile race.

2: Decide to enter the Neural Zone, drive off the hostile vessels and save the civilian ship and passengers. As the Neutral Zone has been breached, an insterstellar war will result.

Actually, I don't think that interstellar war is the inevitable outcome. The Neutral Zone, be it Romulan or Klingon, has been breached numerous times throughout history without that being the result.

I think the point of the exercise is not, "Go in or don't go in." The point of the exercise is, you go in, you do your best, but you still will not be able to rescue the crew of the Kobayashi Maru or save your ship.

That's what makes it a no-win scenario -- you're going to die no matter what you do. It's a test of the individual's ability to continue doing his or her duty in the face of imminent, inevitable death, not of the individual's ability to judge whether or not it's worth it to start a war.

Incidentally, that's also what ties the test in with the larger theme of Star Trek II. ST2 is all about death and mortality -- about Kirk fearing that he is growing old, about Khan refusing to live his life and so finding himself trapped in a state of emotional death, and about Spock sacrificing his life to save the Enterprise. It's all about death -- our deaths, not others'.

ETA:

Personally I'm dubious as to whether Stafleet officers MUST render aid in a situation like this, to cross the border, very likely trigger a war and probably be have their own ship destroyed and crew die in a futile enterprise (pardon the pun) can not surely be the course of action required by Starfleet regulations? Surely rendering aid at the cost of your own ship and entire crews' lives is not the correct decision to make?

Surely it is! Starfleet is an agency of the state, and exists to serve its citizens. It is the Federation's military. Its job is to defend civilian life from hostile foreign powers. If its members are unwilling to sacrifice their lives to defend Federation civilians, then Starfleet does not deserve to exist.

Saying that Starfleet vessels are not obligated to be willing to sacrifice themselves to save Federation civilian lives is like saying that U.S. Naval vessels don't have a similar obligation. Well, if they don't, what the hell is the point of having a navy?

I completely agree with you, on all of your points. That's exactly what I saw the Kobayashi Maru as.

 

[DGCatAniSiri]

I remember a while ago that there was a novelization where it included that a Cadet chose not to go after the Kobayashi Maru and was told he had automatically failed the exam. I remember that in the video game Starfleet Academy something similar would happen if you decided not to try to rescue them that the simulation would end.

See that bothers me - inaction is at times as valid a decision as action. Especially if your prospective captain is a Vulcan, wouldn't the logical conclusion, knowing that by entering the Neutral Zone, mercy mission or no, war is a very likely outcome, be to allow the few to die for the good of the many? I mean, let's say that later incarnations of the Kobayashi Maru test involve Federation foes like the Dominion or the Borg. They certainly don't believe in mercy missions - if the starship goes in, they get destroyed by the enemy and so does the civilian ship. And races like those two don't particularly need much in the way of motivation to begin to go after Federation vessels. So I resent the idea that by choosing to leave them is grounds for automatic failure.

Now, granted, I doubt my conscience would let me do such a thing in reality, but still...

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

But as I said, the entire point of the test is lost if the cadet never encounters a life or death situation. If they choose to leave, they will never be in danger, so what's being tested?

 

[DGCatAniSiri]

But as I said, the entire point of the test is lost if the cadet never encounters a life or death situation. If they choose to leave, they will never be in danger, so what's being tested?

How long it would take for the crew to mutiny to go to help the civilians?

Honestly, though, I understand that train of thought. However, I maintain that were the situation real, it's just as possible that the captain would be right to pull back from rescuing them (perhaps not morally, but statistically). That's why I see it as a valid option.

Humans will (mostly) go and rescue the people. However, let's say a member of Non-Human Race A over here, who is of a stock where the greater whole's needs outweigh those of a few individuals, takes the test and looks at the risk and sees the options as 'let a handful of people die' versus 'send a fully operational starship, filled with hundreds of Starfleet's best and brightest and military secrets, into a disputed zone where the ship could be captured by an enemy trap' and decides that the loss of the starship would be a greater tragedy than a civilian cargo vessel? Is member of Non-Human Race A in the wrong? Not from his cultural perspective. Starfleet seems to pride itself in its acceptance of all sorts - are they going to tell the members of Non-Human Race A that they are, as a culture, unfit to captain a Starfleet vessel because of their beliefs?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The reason it's a no-win situation is because Starfleet officers HAVE to render aid to civilians in distress, no matter what the risk. You won't win either way: either the Kobyashi Maru is destroyed by the Klingons, or YOU are destroyed by the Klingons. It's a test to see how you react to total and thorough defeat.

All good points, but do they HAVE TO render aid in circumstances such as this? If this is true then the scenario is more of an exercise in futility than it already appears, since the course of action is preordained by regulations - if the cadet MUST try and save the civlian ship, there is in fact no choice presented to him.

But wouldn't it be too easy to simply leave the ship there? Especially since it is only a simulation? You can't test how a cadet faces death if they never actually DO face it.

Perhaps Starfleet allows for cadets to abandon/destroy the ship, but requires any cadet who does so to give a good reason.

Spoiler: New Frontier

That's exactly what Mackenzie Calhoun did, for example. He ordered weapons targeted on the Kobayashi Maru and destroyed it. He reasoned that either the ship is a trap, intentionally left there as bait, and that the original crew are all dead anyway, or the situation is real but they would probably be captured and interrogated anyway and therefore it would be better to destroy the ship and put its crew out of their inevitable misery.

In the TOS novel "Kobyashi Maru,"

Spoiler: Kobyashi Maru

- Chekov responded to the test by setting his ship to self-destruct, taking the Klingons with him. The other cadets thought this was hillarious.
- Scotty used a loophole in the simulation software to destroy several Klingon ships and ALMOST won.
- The novel version has Kirk reprogramming the simulator so that all he had to do was identify himself to the Klingons, who would then recognize him as a great warrior and be too afraid of him to risk a fight.

I don't think Starfleet cares how the cadets handle that situation because the scenario is one of extreme unlikelihood and a sort of Catch-22 where regulations both require and prohibit their getting involved. There is NO right answer, but there may be degrees of wrongness that might reveal strengths and weaknesses in a leadership position.

And I'm pretty sure that Starfleet conducted the "psyche test" a la "Coming of Age" even in the 23rd century. It would probably be a surprise emergency during one of their training cruises designed to be indistinguishable from the real thing (and this way, they can't tell if it's a test, because they're on a real starship on a real training mission).

 

[Timo]

...as far as I know, Federation and Klingon space was never divided by a neutral zone...

When a Neutral Zone with Klingon ships in it was mentioned in ST2, this was the first time we heard of such a thing, yes. For all we know, it wasn't even a Klingon Neutral Zone, but the well-known Romulan one, with the Klingons visiting it solely in order to cause a political incident... After all, this Zone was close to Gamma Hydra, and TOS "The Deadly Years" tells us the Romulan NZ lay close to that star.

However, when truce with the Klingons was being pondered in ST6, the treaty would have involved dismantling the Neutral Zone. In that context, the RNZ makes little or no sense; a KNZ seems a given in 2291, then, suggesting it could have existed in the early 2280s as well.

Whether there was a KNZ before that is unknown. But a NZ does seem like a standard UFP stratagem in dealing with its aggressive neighbors. There's nothing to preclude the existence of a KNZ in TOS - or, say, all the way back in the ENT finale.

Whether a KNZ persisted beyond ST6 is unknown as well. In TNG "Heart of Glory", an unnamed NZ again has Klingons in it...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[nx1701g]

Kobayashi Maru outcomes (Film/Novels)

Mackenzie Calhoun (Novel): Destroyed the freighter.
David Forrester (Game): Reprogrammed the simulator similar to Captain Kirk's changes.
James T. Kirk (Film): Reprogrammed the simulator so the Klingons would lose shields/power.
James T. Kirk (Novel): Reprogrammed the simulator so the Klingons would be afraid of him.
Peter Kirk (Novel): Challenged the Klingon Captain to a ritual duel so his ship could warp away with the Kobayashi Maru survivors.
Nog (Novel): Means unknown.
Quentin Stone (Novel): Means unknown.

 

[Sci]

I remember a while ago that there was a novelization where it included that a Cadet chose not to go after the Kobayashi Maru and was told he had automatically failed the exam. I remember that in the video game Starfleet Academy something similar would happen if you decided not to try to rescue them that the simulation would end.

See that bothers me - inaction is at times as valid a decision as action. Especially if your prospective captain is a Vulcan, wouldn't the logical conclusion, knowing that by entering the Neutral Zone, mercy mission or no, war is a very likely outcome, be to allow the few to die for the good of the many?

That depends upon the a priori assumption that the lives of Starfleet officers are as important in making a command decision as the lives of civilians, and also upon the a priori assumption that war is a likely outcome of crossing the Neutral Zone. "Logic" is merely the process by which a decision is made; it is dependent upon a priori assumptions and does not by itself prescribe any particular decision. Two Vulcans can come to two different decisions that are equally logical.

For the record, Starfleet's a priori assumption must always be that Federation civilian lives are more important than Starfleet lives, because, as I've said before, it is the function of Starfleet to protect civilians.

Further, you are forgetting something: In a real-life rescue scenario, there is no guarantee of failure and of it being a no-win scenario. The purpose of the Kobayashi Maru is not to teach them to intentionally go into a mission that is guaranteed to fail "just 'cause." The purpose is to teach them how to cope (i.e., how to keep doing their duty and not succumb to blind panic) if a mission unexpectedly turns out to fail, or to teach them how to go on missions where they will likely not survive in order to achieve mission objectives (say, going on a suicide mission during a war).

But within the context of the test itself, it is not known by the captain that the mission is guaranteed to fail. That is knowledge that the test subject has from the real world, but it is not known within the test.

So I resent the idea that by choosing to leave them is grounds for automatic failure.

Then you would not be allowed to become a starship captain. Your job as a starship is to do your utmost to protect civilians and defend the Federation, and to obey orders even when you know your own death will likely stem from it. If you cannot make that choice, you don't deserve to be commanding a ship.

Humans will (mostly) go and rescue the people. However, let's say a member of Non-Human Race A over here, who is of a stock where the greater whole's needs outweigh those of a few individuals, takes the test and looks at the risk and sees the options as 'let a handful of people die' versus 'send a fully operational starship, filled with hundreds of Starfleet's best and brightest and military secrets, into a disputed zone where the ship could be captured by an enemy trap' and decides that the loss of the starship would be a greater tragedy than a civilian cargo vessel? Is member of Non-Human Race A in the wrong?

First off, as this thread amply demonstrates, Humans are not going to mostly go for rescuing them. There's going to be a diversity of opinions, irrelevant of species.

Secondly, that's the sort of thing that's determined by Starfleet's mandate (which is itself put together by members of many different species), not by the culture of the individual officer.

Not from his cultural perspective. Starfleet seems to pride itself in its acceptance of all sorts - are they going to tell the members of Non-Human Race A that they are, as a culture, unfit to captain a Starfleet vessel because of their beliefs?

If an officer comes from a different value system and cannot sublimate his values to Starfleet's, then he doesn't belong in Starfleet. Like it or not, being in a military like Starfleet means accepting certain operational values, such as democratic control of the military and being willing to give your life in the protection of the state and its citizens. You can't serve in Starfleet if you are unwilling to, for instance, take orders from female officers because you come from a patriarchal culture. Just as cultures must give up certain practices to join the Federation (i.e., caste-based discrimination, as established in DS9's "Accession"), officers must give up certain practices to serve in Starfleet.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Personally, I always thought that the Kobayashi Maru test didn't have the option of not entering the Neutral Zone (otherwise, why bother taking the test at all? Spock prime surely didn't).

I viewed the Kobayashi Maru as being more of a psych test of a commander's composure with steadily dwindling options than a test of one's tactical skills. Like some attrition score-based video games, even if one is somehow able to rescue the Kobayashi Maru and its crew, the computer will just keep throwing Klingons heavies at you to block off every escape route until you and the Maru are eventually destroyed anyway...