Starfleet vs. Klingons (who wins)
- Thread starter Sisko4Life
- Start date
- Status
Didn't think of this in my previous post, but T'Girl is correct: The line in "Unification Part 2" comes just after Data nerve-pinches Sela. We cut back to the Ent-D intercepting the Vulcan ships, and Worf makes reference to "Vulcan defense vessels" readying themselves now that the "invasion force" (of TWO-THOUSAND... but that's another matter
) has been revealed for what it is. Now, this could mean "Starfleet forces in the Vulcan area", but I think a defensive force operated by the Vulcan government makes a lot more sense. If Worf has said something like "the Vulcan defense fleet", that would be more consistent IMO with the type of wording that is (and isn't) used to describe Starfleet forces throughout Trek. "Vulcan defense vessels" very much sounds like a military force operated BY Vulcan. So this would seem to constitute proof that member worlds can still maintain their own military force, though we also know that not all of them necessarily would (Bajor, as I mentioned before, apparently opted to integrate its military into Starfleet). Very true, and again, I point to wording. Sisko says that Betazed's "defense systems" were "obsolete, and undermanned." Especially with the word "systems" in there, that sounds much more like it refers to "planetary defenses", likely automated in part, rather than a general military. He also refers to the 10th fleet having been tasked with the defense of the whole area; that definitely refers to Starfleet ships. So, if Betazed's "defensive systems" refer to stations, satellites, large-scale weapons, etc. rather than ships, the question is who operates them? Local government/military, or Starfleet? No way to know for sure, but I would lean toward the latter in this case. Betazoids strike me as one of the members that would be perfectly happy to leave the vast majority of defensive concerns to Starfleet, rather than maintaining their own defenses.
I think the answer to this one is very easy, actually: if we DO accept that some members maintain their military forces even as Fed members, it would be logical to assume that those forces would be used almost exclusively as local defense. They would hardly ever have reason to stray far from the home system in question, to say nothing of taking part in deep-space (relative to that world anyway) offensive or defensive actions on behalf of the entire Federation. Such actions would fall completely under the jurisdiction of Starfleet. A local military would come into play if an enemy force was actually in a position to threaten that specific system. Thus, since we never heard of such a threat to any other specific systems/worlds, we never heard about the military forces some of those worlds might have.
I think you are right in saying that Starfleet is the only military that "the Federation" has, in regards to a military force attached to the UFP as a whole. But some worlds would still maintain their own military force for local defense only.
I don't remember exactly when it was, but yeah, I'm with you here. In fact:
I DO retconn it out. Not entire EPISODES, but all the references to the Enterprise being an "Earth" ship, all the UESPA stuff, etc. It's pretty clear that this was simply a matter of Roddenberry and the other writers changing their mind mid-stream, coming up with this new concept - the multi-species Federation that Humans are simply a part of, and the multi-species Starfleet to go with it - after the show had already begun airing. If the concepts of the UFP and Starfleet had been worked out prior to the writing and creation of the actual show, I guarantee there would have been zero references to the UESPA or Kirk's ship and crew being in any way part of an Earth-centric service. And remember, what's clear is that while some member worlds likely do maintain their own non-Starfleet military (Vulcan, as proven by "Unification"), some members don't (Bajor). Earth is clearly a member that doesn't, probably because Starfleet is so connected to Earth (the HQ is there, humans are the single most numerous species in its ranks and probably were at the forefront of its creation), thus they don't feel the need to maintain a seperate military force. This is proven by "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost."
Klingons I can see more closely being based on Vikings, with the Federation as Rome. And we all know what happened with them.
KlingonMaster
Ensign
Klingons would definately win. They have the star trek equivelent of a star wars star destroyer with the bird of pray. In star trek 2 they also had the Genisis which destroyed all life on a planet like the death star.
KlingonMaster
Ensign
If I were fighting earth men like them I would try and get the borg or the other aliens to help me. Im pretty sure Kirk or Piccard wouldn't be able to stand up against our aliance. I know the weapons if the Klingons and the borg combined them would be more powerful than anything we have ever seen before.
KlingonMaster
Ensign
Also - How do I get my avatar thing up and can I have a image as my signature? There a re alot of Klingon weapons I want to use in my signature.
It shows us what that war would be like in THAT timeline. A timeline that was different from the original timeline for quite a while. It does not give us a lot of info regarding the original timeline and a potential war. As you state, we have no idea what factors are at play in that war and we have no idea what all else is different because of the timeline changes. As a result, we cannot fully use it as a reference in this timeline. But I do remember episodes where Klingons state the Empire would lose a war with the Feds in this timeline.
Man, I kinda want to watch YE again, it was one of my favs.
Yesterday's Enterprise is valid in my book. The episode shows us an actual, sustained conflict between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. There was no proof of any extraordinary happenings that would make the timeline radically different from the current timeline.
How was it different "for quite a while"? It was only different after the split point, the point during which the prime timeline went one way, and the alternate went the other. That point is the Ent-C either fighting the Romulans and being seen going down in a blaze of glory attempting to defend Klingon lives (prime), or beginning to fight the Romulans, but then disappearing into the temporal anomaly before the Klingons even knew the ship was there (alternate). Everything BEFORE that point would be exactly the same in both timelines. Why wouldn't it be? Ergo, Starfleet's military preparedness to fight a war against the Klingons would be the same.
People keep saying "That's an alternate timeline, it's different, we don't know how a UFP/KE war would go in the real timeline."
But (and if I may, I think this might be what Rojixus has been trying to get at), the problem with that is that the war itself IS what defines the alternate timeline. The war itself IS the difference. NOTHING leading up to that split point I mentioned would be any different.
The alternate universe and the prime universe were one and the same until 2344, which is when the split point revolving around the Ent-C occurs. "20 years of war" is the number tossed around in YE; thus, the war started soon after that (2346-47 at the absolute latest). Therefore, there is - at MOST - a three-year window between the split point and the war. That's not nearly enough time for some other catastrophic thing to happen to change the nature of the universe that the Klingons and the Federation inhabit, especially since there is no reason for anything else to occur. The only difference is the Klingons witnessing or not witnessing the Ent-C fighting the Romulans; in either timeline, the ship is still gone. This isn't like Abrams-Trek where the difference is much more significant (the Kelvin is destroyed, vs. the attack that destroyed it never even happened in the first place). Thus, the only thing different about the alternate universe in which the war occurs is the occurrence of the war.
People in this thread have said "Yes, but what if the UFP fought a war with the Klingons in the PRIME timeline, instead of in the ALTERNATE timeline? How would THAT war go?" And the answer is in YE: the alternate timeline IS the prime timeline in every way except one: a war started.
Aside from Kurn saying this (though didn't he and Worf say the Empire might lose?) in "Sons of Mogh", when else was this said by a Klingon character? I honestly don't remember any other instances.
And on that Kurn/Worf scene, as I mentioned in my other post, Starfleet's military capability has certainly changed (for the better) by 2372. I'm of the opinion that the UFP would win a war if it started in 2370 or later. However, when it comes to earlier TNG, or back into the 2340's, well... YE pretty much showed us what would happen.
And I JUST NOW noticed that the poll actually says "Dominion War Time Period."
So yeah, in that case, I would vote for the Feds. All of that said, I'm also of the opinion that it would be a massive slugfest, and that - in either the 2340s-2360s, or the Dominion War time frame, or whenever - the eventual "winner" of a full-scale war between these two powers would be in quite a bad state themselves, and would only "win" by virtue of being slightly less beaten to crap than the other guy. Pyrrhic, regardless of who wins and when it takes place. I believe this was the case in YE as well: the Klingons were winning only by virtue of the Feds being even worse off then they were after 20 years of war.
On that point, hopefully most in this thread will agree, it was a cool ep.
Last edited:
My point exactly, you've hit the nail on the head.
Also, the Federation's weapons upgrade during the Dominion War doesn't appear that great. The Klingons were able to keep up with the Federation in fighting ability all the way to Cardassia and in fact were able to hold off the Dominion while the Federation was developing countermeasures to the Breen Energy Damper.
How was it different "for quite a while"? It was only different after the split point, the point during which the prime timeline went one way, and the alternate went the other. That point is the Ent-C either fighting the Romulans and being seen going down in a blaze of glory attempting to defend Klingon lives (prime), or beginning to fight the Romulans, but then disappearing into the temporal anomaly before the Klingons even knew the ship was there (alternate). Everything BEFORE that point would be exactly the same in both timelines. Why wouldn't it be? Ergo, Starfleet's military preparedness to fight a war against the Klingons would be the same.
People keep saying "That's an alternate timeline, it's different, we don't know how a UFP/KE war would go in the real timeline."
But (and if I may, I think this might be what Rojixus has been trying to get at), the problem with that is that the war itself IS what defines the alternate timeline. The war itself IS the difference. NOTHING leading up to that split point I mentioned would be any different.
The alternate universe and the prime universe were one and the same until 2344, which is when the split point revolving around the Ent-C occurs. "20 years of war" is the number tossed around in YE; thus, the war started soon after that (2346-47 at the absolute latest). Therefore, there is - at MOST - a three-year window between the split point and the war. That's not nearly enough time for some other catastrophic thing to happen to change the nature of the universe that the Klingons and the Federation inhabit, especially since there is no reason for anything else to occur. The only difference is the Klingons witnessing or not witnessing the Ent-C fighting the Romulans; in either timeline, the ship is still gone. This isn't like Abrams-Trek where the difference is much more significant (the Kelvin is destroyed, vs. the attack that destroyed it never even happened in the first place). Thus, the only thing different about the alternate universe in which the war occurs is the occurrence of the war.
People in this thread have said "Yes, but what if the UFP fought a war with the Klingons in the PRIME timeline, instead of in the ALTERNATE timeline? How would THAT war go?" And the answer is in YE: the alternate timeline IS the prime timeline in every way except one: a war started.
Aside from Kurn saying this (though didn't he and Worf say the Empire might lose?) in "Sons of Mogh", when else was this said by a Klingon character? I honestly don't remember any other instances.
And on that Kurn/Worf scene, as I mentioned in my other post, Starfleet's military capability has certainly changed (for the better) by 2372. I'm of the opinion that the UFP would win a war if it started in 2370 or later. However, when it comes to earlier TNG, or back into the 2340's, well... YE pretty much showed us what would happen.
And I JUST NOW noticed that the poll actually says "Dominion War Time Period."
All of that said, I'm also of the opinion that it would be a massive slugfest, and that - in either the 2340s-2360s, or the Dominion War time frame, or whenever - the eventual "winner" of a full-scale war between these two powers would be in quite a bad state themselves, and would only "win" by virtue of being slightly less beaten to crap than the other guy. Pyrrhic, regardless of who wins and when it takes place. I believe this was the case in YE as well: the Klingons were winning only by virtue of the Feds being even worse off then they were after 20 years of war.
On that point, hopefully most in this thread will agree, it was a cool ep.
OKAY!! That might be where we differ. If you are asking if the war had started 20 years prior to the Next Gen or even in that YE timeline, I agree, it appears according to the YE that the FEDS might be in trouble. That being said it is not over until it is over. The Feds still might have won.
I was taking it as what if the war between the Feds and Klingons had started sometime during the run of TNG and that is where I am saying YE could not be used accurately as a reference. Bc 20 years is a big difference. Twenty years being played out differently would def affect everything afterwards. So maybe we were discussing different scenarios. God, this discussion was a welcome break from the work day. Thank You!
Probably a combination of both...
well, the polls have decided. For every klingon there are 2 Feds.
Well you wouls technically have to budge becuase the force generated by the rest of the world is considerably more than the force you are generating in holding them back
Well you wouls technically have to budge becuase the force generated by the rest of the world is considerably more than the force you are generating in holding them back
That's what you think!
^ is a True Klingon, through and through.
Assign him to the MACO squad ASAP, let the philosophers continue their debate.
Assign him to the MACO squad ASAP, let the philosophers continue their debate.
During the Dominion War, the klingon performance was underwhelming during most of their showings:
The jem'hadar bitch slapped them out of the DMZ, a small jem'hadar force inflicted disproportionately heavy damage on a klingon fleet during the first battle of Chin'toka, Martok's 'cavalry attack' lost too many ships and men - for merely damaging a dominion base - to be effective, during the end of the war the klingons engaged in suicidal/reckless attacks, etc.
The klingons have a discipline problem - they're brawlers, not soldiers - and a leadership problem (Gowron was far from unique or the worst klingon chancellor).
The Federation's performance, while far from stellar, was not embarrassing - at least Starfleet showed its officers understood what chain of command means.
The jem'hadar bitch slapped them out of the DMZ, a small jem'hadar force inflicted disproportionately heavy damage on a klingon fleet during the first battle of Chin'toka, Martok's 'cavalry attack' lost too many ships and men - for merely damaging a dominion base - to be effective, during the end of the war the klingons engaged in suicidal/reckless attacks, etc.
The klingons have a discipline problem - they're brawlers, not soldiers - and a leadership problem (Gowron was far from unique or the worst klingon chancellor).
The Federation's performance, while far from stellar, was not embarrassing - at least Starfleet showed its officers understood what chain of command means.
I'll agree that the Klingons presented themselves more as drunken bikers than professional soldiers, but like you also said, Starfleet's performance was far from stellar. Starfleet doesn't even consider itself a military! At least the Klingon Defense Force is willing to admit it's a military. The Klingons also didn't have those sorry dust buster-shaped phasers, they had real guns (even though they all seem reluctant to use them for some reason).
- Status
Similar threads
