Why do the Klingons use cloaking devices so enthusiastically?

[Paradon]

To think that the enemies is going to admire you because you attack and try to kill them in an honest way is very foolish. Anybody could just attack someone without thinking about the consequences, but that doesn't necessarily mean you are any braver or honorable. It could just mean you are selfish and willing to sacrifice your warriors all for the name of glory; that is an often a characteristic of a weak person. Furthermore, your enemies would probably try to prepare counter attacks and your warriors would have died for nothing which makes you selfish and power hunger. And It's just a waste! They would probably think you are very stupid for not preparing for the battle carefully. Unless of course, they challenge the Klingons for a hand to hand combat, then that would have been different stories. Or if the flagship leads other warriors into the crossfires if he thinks he's good enough in avoiding being destroyed, that would be honorable.

 

[Timo]

Historically, honor codes have existed in order to tie the hands of the warrior class. The worst threat to a culture that's protected against external enemies is an idled bunch of its own warriors. Hence, these warriors have to be motivated to do something harmless, such as kill each other in ceremonial fights, pick up the hankies of passing ladies, or do favors to people who once did them some.

The big problem is figuring out a suitable incentive. Generally, a good one is the promise of leadership positions to those who fight the others to submission and force them to follow the honor code. The leaders probably won't be easily controllable, but at least the rest will either be obedient because that's the honorable thing to do, or then fighting the leaders and the leaders only, to gain their influential positions.

Beyond that, there's no real point to honor. It's always just an arbitrary set of rules designed for the same function as the rules of asceticism on monks: to keep them busy with something irrelevant and harmless but at the same time highly regulated and indoctrinating.

Klingon honor as demonstrated is just as good as any other. Don't take hostages to protect your own life, fine. Take prisoners so that you can torture them and blackmail others to submission, fine. Don't attack without shouting a warning, fine. Attack from behind with a superior weapon while shouting the warning, fine. Don't send bombs or poisoned sweets without adding your signature, fine. Send assassins and proxies and photon torpedoes, fine. Not anything goes, that's the point - but what does go and what doesn't need not have any rhyme or reason to it.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Paradon]

It is generally accepted in Thai and Burmese cultures that senseless killing and killing the weak has no honor which are generally view as weak characters. Throughout the Thailand's and Burma's, and even the Ancient Romans', history usually honorable people can bare the burden of honor and are able to follow the laws and rules in time when it is difficult to do so. Of course, in the history of Thailand, the warriors often fought for recognition and fame that he is the best fighter around. Often different institutions would try to topple one another and the winners are usually the one still alive and standing proving their invincibility over the others. Fighting for the country and the people is a different thing altogether. It is view as honorable if they fought to protect the people and the king from the neighboring enemies who is looking to kill your people and destroy your culture, but other than that, starting a war in the name of glory is strictly taboo in Thailand, even for the kings. Killing weaker innocent people was and is still viewed as dishonorable.

 

[Paradon]

The Klingons kindda remind me of Optimis Prime on "Transformers". There a sense of gung-ho when you watch him in action, but he's not stupid and put himself in a situation where he and his subordinates could easily be killed. One scene that stuck in my mind is when he jumped on that 50 foot tall Deceptacon and shot it in the head causing it to crash and another one when he took on probably 7 Deceptacons, all of whom were a lot bigger than he was. Kindda like a classic example of honorable Thai warriors. They would climb up their enemies body, like you see on "Transformers", and crack their skull open with their elbows, or jumped up and knee someone in the face and head killing the person in the process like Bumblebee. Infact, I think all those moves were taken from Muay Thai and Krabi Krabong which are often used in MMA.

 

[Gary7]

In war there is no greater honor than victory.

Yep, General Martok said that, in DS9's "The Way of the Warrior".


I think the writers had the Federation shun cloaking devices to keep the plots more simple and to give the enemies a better chance. I wonder if the Borg can detect cloaked ships?

Personally, I thought that the special phase-shift cloaking device they installed in the Pegasus was a brilliant idea... and really stupid of the Federation not to exploit to some degree. Imagine using that against the Borg! You not only pass right through a Borg cube, you could create special phase-shift photon torpedoes that would explode inside their ships.

 

[YARN]

yeah, given the later emphasis on Klingon "honor," it does seem incongruous to have their primary ship used in battle be one that operates with a cloak. You'd think their attitude would be "here we come, plain as day, try and stop us."

Well, that is the whole problem, isn't it? The later Klingons are idiots.

In TOS they were dusky commies. Later on they became the offspring of KISS and bad guys from the Road Warrior. Once cunning and vicious, they were later shown to be developmentally challenged macho ingrates who eat drumsticks and drink grog like slobs at a Renaissance Festival, and who shoot at anything that moves. They once offered a totalitarian challenge to the Federation's loose alliances (an old school Sparta vs. Athens contest of ideologies). Later, they simply devolved into a race in pursuit of a collective Darwin Award.

 

[Rojixus]

I always thought the whole cloaking device thing was just another symbol of the Klingons' blatant hypocrisy. The Klingons talk a good deal about honor but when it comes to practicing what they preach, very few Klingons measure up.

 

[T'Girl]

^ Just so I'm clear. What's "dishonorable" about using things like camouflage, misdirection and stealth in combat. Because that's all a cloaking device is.

In Tomarrow is Yesterday, Spock told Kirk that the Enterprise was likely detectable to 20th century radar, kirk order the shields raise so they wouldn't be detected. Was Kirk being "dishonorable."

The Klingons are no more being dishonorable using their cloak, than when a modern fighter jet dischanges chaff, or a gound soldier paints his face green to blend in with the surrounding foliage.

Historically, honor codes have existed in order to tie the hands of the warrior class.

The big problem is figuring out a suitable incentive.

Beyond that, there's no real point to honor.

I am an American Soldier.
I am a Warrior and a member of a team.
I serve the people of the United States, and live the Army Values.
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.
I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills.
I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.
I am an expert and I am a professional.
I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy, the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.
I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
I am an American Soldier.

 

[Rojixus]

By that logic, Klingons should also use camouflage for their ground forces and use bat'leths less often. However, the Klingons do not use camouflage for their ground troops and they seem to use swords as a primary weapon yet they use cloaks. One of these things is not like the other. Why do the Klingons in that instant use the militarily expedient cloaking device and not use things like camouflage or rifles? Perhaps I am coming at this from the wrong direction. There appears to be little rhyme or reason to Klingon honor, it always seemed to exist mainly to complicate the plot.

 

[Timo]

Might be ground camouflage is too inefficient in the future - tricorders see right through it, so it's better to go back to bright colors which formerly were important on the battlefield for purposes of communication and situation awareness.

The state of the UFP or Klingon Empire art apparently doesn't cater for the cloaking of individual soldiers; such a feat always amazes our Fed or Klingon heroes. Cloaking a starship appears to be a lesser technological feat, so Klingons go for that.

Now, the big question on Klingon uniforms is, what do they protect against? Not phasers, not disruptors, not swords, not knives. Apparently not bullets, either.

I am an American Soldier. [snip]

Like said, an arbitrary set of rules that arbitrarily reduces your efficiency as a killing machine. Plus, stops you from fragging your superiors even when they deserve it.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[sonak]

Might be ground camouflage is too inefficient in the future - tricorders see right through it, so it's better to go back to bright colors which formerly were important on the battlefield for purposes of communication and situation awareness.

The state of the UFP or Klingon Empire art apparently doesn't cater for the cloaking of individual soldiers; such a feat always amazes our Fed or Klingon heroes. Cloaking a starship appears to be a lesser technological feat, so Klingons go for that.

Now, the big question on Klingon uniforms is, what do they protect against? Not phasers, not disruptors, not swords, not knives. Apparently not bullets, either.

I am an American Soldier. [snip]

Like said, an arbitrary set of rules that arbitrarily reduces your efficiency as a killing machine. Plus, stops you from fragging your superiors even when they deserve it.

Timo Saloniemi

I understand what you're getting at, but you're wrong that these rules make things less efficient. It's not the case that guidelines and rules make things less efficient-if that were the case, then anarchies would be more "efficient" than liberal democracies, and that's certainly not the case. Less rules means less constraints on an individual yes, but not a more efficient organization. (not that more rules means greater efficiency, but sensible ones do)

 

[Paradon]

By that logic, Klingons should also use camouflage for their ground forces and use bat'leths less often. However, the Klingons do not use camouflage for their ground troops and they seem to use swords as a primary weapon yet they use cloaks. One of these things is not like the other. Why do the Klingons in that instant use the militarily expedient cloaking device and not use things like camouflage or rifles? Perhaps I am coming at this from the wrong direction. There appears to be little rhyme or reason to Klingon honor, it always seemed to exist mainly to complicate the plot.

There is nothing dishonorable about gaining tactical upper hand. I don't understand why people think loosing is acceptable. Attacking someone in a suicide mission doesn't prove you are any braver than your enemies; it's just a waste of ammunition and men. Anybody can do that! Common! Unless, taking part of a suicide mission in order to slow down the enemies advance so they can set up the defense parameter in time would be acceptable. You see this throughout Thailand's history as well as other some fearsome cultures that knew how to fight. That would honorable because it's not a waste of man power and ammunition. Being honorable just doens't mean fighting, but also it tests how competent and smart the warriors are. Incompetent warriors would be dishonorable warriors like you see in Thai and ancient Greek cultures.

 

[Paradon]

Unless, of course, you all think loosing is acceptable, so we can just go ahead and plan an attack that doesn't have any tactical advantages. I think that kindda reasoning just doesn't make any sense to me. You and your men would have died for nothing while your enemies try to figured out the best ways to kill you, or do you think winning would be a better prospect? Your enemies are going to give all it can give, so why not challenge them to see who is more capable fighters in a game of wits and bravery. Loosing is far less appealing believe me.

 

[Rojixus]

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of the Klingons using the cloaking device, it's just that it doesn't seem to jibe with everything else we know about the Klingons. From what we have seen, the Klingons apparently know little in the way of strategy and tactics and yet they use cloaking devices? Why now this island of rationality in a sea of guttural growling and bat'leth brandishing? Like I said before, one of these things is not like the other...

 

[Timo]

It's not the case that guidelines and rules make things less efficient-if that were the case, then anarchies would be more "efficient" than liberal democracies, and that's certainly not the case.

Agreed, and I wasn't suggesting the general case; I was postulating specifically that the honor rules are designed to make the warriors less deadly. That is, they keep the warriors from doing such efficient things as totally exterminating all opposing forces, and from following agendas that promote the military at the cost of harming the rest of the society.

Honor rules only come to exist if there's an agenda behind them, but they may survive even when the agenda goes away. Sometimes we're left with oddities, then: rules that say you can't execute a prisoner who has just killed your best buddies, but you can bomb to oblivion ten thousand people for having sewn clothes for the guy who just killed your best buddies.

There's no obvious order of preference for various honor rules in existence today. One set may say that it's dishonorable not to defend your country with lethal force, another may say that it's dishonorable to take on arms of any kind, yet another may say it's dishonorable if you don't strangle your own daughter for dating the wrong guy. All are equal in moral standing, from their own point of view; as usual, the local majority (or other locally superior power) then decides.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Paradon]

But one can agree that in any good fighting cultures, Thai, Greek, or Roman, loosing was not an option. There is no worse dishonor than loosing, especially if you've proven yourself to be an incompetent leader. A lot of military commanders were executed if they fail to follow orders, failing the mission, or having shortsightedness in Thai military in the old days. Thailand has never been colonized by any foreign powers, even western powers. Every culture looks down on failure to do their job and admire those who excel in it. Being a good warrior means winning is part of the game in order to prove your worthiness. Just like any other jobs, you are paid to do a good job and that's no different for warrior, or off with your head. I imagine the Klingons would be no different.

 

[sonak]

It's not the case that guidelines and rules make things less efficient-if that were the case, then anarchies would be more "efficient" than liberal democracies, and that's certainly not the case.

Agreed, and I wasn't suggesting the general case; I was postulating specifically that the honor rules are designed to make the warriors less deadly. That is, they keep the warriors from doing such efficient things as totally exterminating all opposing forces, and from following agendas that promote the military at the cost of harming the rest of the society.

Honor rules only come to exist if there's an agenda behind them, but they may survive even when the agenda goes away. Sometimes we're left with oddities, then: rules that say you can't execute a prisoner who has just killed your best buddies, but you can bomb to oblivion ten thousand people for having sewn clothes for the guy who just killed your best buddies.

There's no obvious order of preference for various honor rules in existence today. One set may say that it's dishonorable not to defend your country with lethal force, another may say that it's dishonorable to take on arms of any kind, yet another may say it's dishonorable if you don't strangle your own daughter for dating the wrong guy. All are equal in moral standing, from their own point of view; as usual, the local majority (or other locally superior power) then decides.

Timo Saloniemi

do you mean honor rules specifically or rules on the conduct of war? Because though things like the Geneva Convention may make things a little more difficult in things like getting info from prisoners they also make it so that YOUR troops aren't at risk from getting tortured as well.(leaving aside whether various leaders observe these rules since many haven't)

As to your points about the honor codes being equally valid, just because various cultures have different rules, doesn't mean those differences are arbitrary.

 

[Timo]

Some rules of conduct may be utilitarian, even if the utility is somewhat irrational ("don't shoot at medevac" is very utilitarian, but concentrating your fire on ambulances and hospitals would probably be a humane thing to do and would shorten wars considerably).

However, the details of how the utility is achieved often tend to be quite arbitrary. And the main point of having "soldier's honor" is not the sort of utility that regulates what the troops can do to the enemy and vice versa - it's the sort of utility that makes wars possible in the first place, by creating a layer of mechanisms that allows balding geezers to tell young lads to go and die. Once that mechanism is in place, things like "don't shoot at medevac" or "don't kill your POWs" are relatively insignificant, and if that mechanism ever falters, they will be even more so!

But as you say, not all honor rules deal with the regulation of military power. There are plenty of other power games being played in this world, and wherever you find a hierarchy, you find a set of honor rules (in the sense of the rules being based on sheer weight of tradition and featuring nonsensical elements even when the underlying utilitarian basis is clear). And the end result is often quite confusing. You don't defy your father / you do defy your father when the priest or the general says so; you don't work without pay / you do work without pay for the greater good; you don't squeal / you always confess.

Ultimately, everybody must choose on one or more sets of rules. And often one has to choose several times, or even constantly. And of course the very act of choosing is always dishonorable, because every possible set of honor rules begins with "I shall always obey these rules, and these rules only".

In practice, it's probably easiest to do lip service. Or to invent honor rules of your very own!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Gary7]

Losing a battle is acceptable, if it appears that there's a significant disadvantage afoot that will result in a total loss of lives. In that case, one retreats and gives up ground so that a regrouping is possible for fighting another day, in more favorable conditions.


I do feel like the "Klingon Honor" thing is a bit overdone from time to time. It does seem to "adjust" for convenience, depending upon the story. Generally speaking, there is no honor in ignoring diplomacy, firing first and asking questions later. I do not feel there is any honor in killing a commanding officer for making a mistake or error in judgement. The Klingons do not believe in rehabilitation or constructive correction. There was a DS9 episode, I think The Way of the Warrior, where General Martok kills a commander for having conducted a searching of vessels that was not authorized by the Federation. It takes many years to create a skilled commander... but you just kill him off, losing that resource? There's no honor in that, IMHO.

 

[Paradon]

No, loosing is not an option for warriors...unless retreating means gaining a tactical advantage, but that's not really loosing, just the opposite. In the Old Thai military system they would have excuted you if you found you fail your mission out of shear incompetence. Of course they have to investigate the situation carefully. In the modern military system they probably would have demoted you.

On DS9 the Martok that executed the Klingon commander wasn't Martok at all. He was one of the Fouder posing himself as Martok push the Klingon Empire into war with Federation.

Loosing is not an option, but a lot of things can be adjusted to what they feel is the honorable thing to do. For instance the Klingons like to use their knives and Bat'lith when they board a station or vessel to prove their prowess and bravery. Kindda like the Native American advancing into the enemies tribal ground and touching one or two enemies without the use of weapons or killing and still made it out alive using his wits and skills. One time a group of Sioux Indians rode into a U.S. military outpost with horses empty handed with no weapons like a wind that swept through the fort, taking all the Armies' horses with them. They were long gone before anyone could react and open fired on them. That was the gutsiest thing anybody had ever done or seen in the entire U.S. history.