Re: Typhon Pact: Zero Sum Game Review thread
^Well...technically, as "Extreme Measures" implies a cell-like structure (and indeed, common sense demands decentralization to this effect), L'Hann is probably a Director, as opposed to the Director.
But I agree--it is most fascinating that Vulcans are in high-ranking positions in 31. But it isn't the first time we've seen that. In A Time To Kill/Heal (written by David Mack!), there's a senior agent who's a Vulcan.
That was in fact the very same L'Haan who appeared in the finale of
Zero Sum Game.
Sci, as to your latest point--yes, The Gipper's strategy of arms race was as you say. But remember his conclusion: He asserted that the Soviet Union was sufficiently weak economically that they would end up massively spending money they didn't have to counter us, and therefore either collapse or come running to the table, desperate for a deal--which is basically what happened. Also, remember Reagan's guarantee, "America is not in the business of starting wars." This is a far cry from what Mahmoud has said.
I'm not making an exact parallel or trying to claim that Ahmadinejad is the equivalent of Reagan. I'm using Reagan as
one example of a larger point: That a country's leaders can sometimes want others to view them as being more dangerous than they actually are.
Now--you are right, in that we do not know. But here, Mahmoud's belligerence--and indeed, the belligerent words of the Pact ambassadors to the effect of We Will Bury You--are a case of "better safe than sorry".
That's certainly one opinion. But it does not change the fact that we don't know their intentions. Nor is it intellectually honest to phrase one's opinions in absolutist terms.
Thus, the CIA--and SI--are wholly justified in sabotage--and whatever comes with it.
"Wholly?" Really? There's no ambiguity there at all? The justification is complete and absolute?
I'm actually amused that you've taken up this argument, since I brought up that thought experiment largely as a counter to the people who were
against the mission as depicted in
Zero Sum Game. My initial point in bringing up the Iran thought experiment was to say, "Don't be too quick to assume that such a mission was unjustified and immoral. Relate it to circumstances in real life that capture a better sense of the potential dangers posed by not engaging in such a mission, and re-think your stance. It may not seem quite so unjustified as you're thinking."
But, amusingly enough, you seem to have interpreted my thought experiment as an argument
in support of the idea that such missions as depicted in
Zero Sum Game are unjustified!
My actual point is this:
It's ambiguous and it's not an easy thing to judge, on either side.
Let's do keep in mind the Breen already killed many Federation workers and heavily damaged a major Federation shipyard, which should factor into your scenario I think.
True. But that's
not the same thing as being set on a policy of hostile expansion into Federation territory. Which is not to preclude it, either. Again: We don't know.
Of course. But it is an aggressive and hostile action and would nuance the response that's being made. You'd have to modify your Iran scenario to account for Iranian saboteurs who stole classified American/British/French/Russian/etc technology and heavily damaged a production facility to aid in escape, killing American/etc civilians in the process
Given the well-known role of the Iranian government in, for instance, supporting insurgent attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq (within the blanket of plausible deniability), I did not consider the parallel to require such exacting precision. Iran has already demonstrated a willingness to engage in some hostilities with the U.S. on a limited scale (just like the Typhon Pact demonstrated a willingness to engage in limited-scale hostilities by stealing the slipstream drive).
Is the parallel exact? No. It does not have to be; the relevant parallels are there: A rising power with unknown long-term intentions, willing to engage in small-scale hostilities, attempting to assert itself on the larger political stage by developing a dangerous technology, and the choice faced by the larger, more established, but lately somewhat weaker liberal democracy to use or not use espionage and black operations to destroy the technology potentially at the cost of a great many civilian lives.
