No, all Trek starting with TOS. Once you take off the nostalgia goggles that is.
Picard qualified to command Enterprise?
- Thread starter dstyer
- Start date
No, all Trek starting with TOS. Once you take off the nostalgia goggles that is.
What about when Kirk, you know, blew up his own ship?
Indeed.
I suppose one could ask, though, if there is a difference in Starfleet's eyes between losing a ship as a result of an intentional self-destruct and losing a ship by other methods, such as an accident or in battle.
Presumably, Starfleet equips starships with self-destruct routines because they believe there are circumstances in which it is necessary and expected. Surely, then, every case of using the self-destruct sequence couldn't automatically carry a penalty for the commanding officer. How can you penalize someone for doing what they're supposed to do?
OTOH, a loss from an accident, or even a loss in battle, could be seen as the result of incompetence or doing something improper and could potentially result in disciplinary action. Certainly at least a court martial proceeding to discern the truth.
^But we already know that there's an automatic court-martial when a captain loses his ship. And in Picard's case, he was exonerated after the Stargazer's destruction. So I can't see how this would disqualify him from commanding again.
A court martial is required if a ship is lost. Even if it a "no fault". For example, and surviving captains at Worf 359 would have to face a court martial, to both make sure they fought like they should of, but also to find information on how to better face the Borg threat.
And if you think Captains who lost ships do not get promoted or gain other ships, tell that to Elliott Buckmaster, Fredrick Sherman, Forrest Sherman, Charles P. Mason, and John M. Hoskins - What they had in common was that they where the captains of US aircraft carriers lost in battle. All became admirals, and John M. Hoskins was giving command of the USS Princeton (CV-37), after the loss of the USS Princeton (CVL-23).
and Charles Purcell Cecil lost a ship and had two navy crosses and a couple ships named after him.
And if you think Captains who lost ships do not get promoted or gain other ships, tell that to Elliott Buckmaster, Fredrick Sherman, Forrest Sherman, Charles P. Mason, and John M. Hoskins - What they had in common was that they where the captains of US aircraft carriers lost in battle. All became admirals, and John M. Hoskins was giving command of the USS Princeton (CV-37), after the loss of the USS Princeton (CVL-23).
and Charles Purcell Cecil lost a ship and had two navy crosses and a couple ships named after him.
Which might be why Picard fell under suspicion: he did not destroy his ship!
Perhaps when Philippa Louvois insisted that a court martial is standard procedure when a ship is "lost", she was referring to situations where a ship's whereabouts become unknown? There is no need for the procedure if a ship is "destroyed" or "decommissioned", but a ship being "lost" (that is, "misplaced") is exotic enough to warrant inquiry.
On the other hand, nowhere in Star Trek do we get the impression that the abandoning of a ship should be followed by scuttling. Picard was found innocent of wrongdoing or negligence even though he didn't scuttle, after all. Quite possibly, the self-destruct machinery is in place solely for tactical applications, such as the ones where Kirk or Janeway took their enemies with the scuttled ship, or threatened to do so.
Picard lost two ships from under him, and always got a new command. Sisko lost one (not counting, say, the time he lost her to boarding attack but got her back eventually) and got a replacement command, and never mind all the runabouts he went through. So even if we lack precedent, we got plenty of postdecent for loss of command being no grounds for blocking further command.
Timo Saloniemi
Which might be why Picard fell under suspicion: he did not destroy his ship!
Perhaps when Philippa Louvois insisted that a court martial is standard procedure when a ship is "lost", she was referring to situations where a ship's whereabouts become unknown? There is no need for the procedure if a ship is "destroyed" or "decommissioned", but a ship being "lost" (that is, "misplaced") is exotic enough to warrant inquiry.
On the other hand, nowhere in Star Trek do we get the impression that the abandoning of a ship should be followed by scuttling. Picard was found innocent of wrongdoing or negligence even though he didn't scuttle, after all. Quite possibly, the self-destruct machinery is in place solely for tactical applications, such as the ones where Kirk or Janeway took their enemies with the scuttled ship, or threatened to do so.
Picard lost two ships from under him, and always got a new command. Sisko lost one (not counting, say, the time he lost her to boarding attack but got her back eventually) and got a replacement command, and never mind all the runabouts he went through. So even if we lack precedent, we got plenty of postdecent for loss of command being no grounds for blocking further command.
Timo Saloniemi
You would not have a court marital from a decommissioning (Unless it was so damaged it had to be decommissioned to be scrapped.) A court martial for a ship loss does not mean that anyone is at fault, it just so that they facts are part of the public record. This is a historical fact from the age of sail or before. Kirk most like did face a courtmarital after blowing up his ship, just that it established why he had to do it, and that he made the right call.
I thought Kirk faced his second court-martial because he stole the Enterprise, then blew it up. He wasn't her commanding officer at the time, he wasn't supposed to be aboard the ship, he wasn't supposed to take it to Genesis, and certainly wasn't supposed to blow it up. All good reasons to court-martial him. Again.
^ Do we know that Kirk was actually court-martialed? All we saw were Kirk and Company appearing in front of the Federation Council itself, where the President personally dismissed all but one of the charges and then gave Kirk back the Enterprise as "punishment." The Federation Council is obviously not a military organization, and wouldn't be carrying out a court martial. It seems that following the "whale incident," those higher up than the Starfleet brass decided it would be bad PR to do anything negative to Kirk and crew and took matters into their own hands.
its all in the oratory..... most starfleet captains have a shakespearian trait... 
I would suggest that, In Star Trek, the automatic court-martial in the event of a ship's destruction must not apply at war-time. There was no question that the Defiant (among others) was destroyed at no fault of Sisko as the result of the Breen energy dissipating weapon catching Starfleet by surprise. It seems foolhardy to convene dozens of courts-martial to investigate why none of the captains saw it coming, when they knew they had to focus on regrouping and coming up with a new strategy.
On the other hand, it confuses me to see everyone defending Kirk's decision to blow up the Enterprise 1701 in Search for Spock... While you're focussing on the tactical necessity of the destruction as a way of fighting against the Klingons, you seem to have forgotten he stole the ship in the first place, and wasn't on a Starfleet sanctioned mission to begin with?
On the other hand, it confuses me to see everyone defending Kirk's decision to blow up the Enterprise 1701 in Search for Spock... While you're focussing on the tactical necessity of the destruction as a way of fighting against the Klingons, you seem to have forgotten he stole the ship in the first place, and wasn't on a Starfleet sanctioned mission to begin with?
But if he doesn't show up, no one knows what happens to Grissom and one of the key developers of the Genesis device gets taken back to the Klingon Empire never to be heard from again.
If I was Starfleet, I'd want to sweep Kirk's actions under the rug as quickly and quietly as possible. His actions exposed Starfleet's total ineptitude in the matter.
Well, Sisko spent a chunk of time between the loss of the Saratoga and his assignment to DS9 working at the Utopia Plantia shipyards, including on the design of the Defiant.
If we take Riker's line literally, Picard might well have had a similar spell, working on the Galaxy-class.
I think people take the "wrote the book on this ship" a little too literally. The idea I think was to enforce that the Enterprise couldn't operate business as usual. Because Picard knows the personnel a little too well. It's why Guinan tells Riker that its time to throw the book away and write a new one. If they were talking from a technical standpoint, that suggestion would be impossible.
If Kirk doesn't blow up Enterprise in STIII, the Enterprise and her secrets fall into the hands of the Klingons. Kirk may have disobeyed orders and stolen the ship and disagreed with Starfleet's position regarding a trip to Genesis, but he still knew his duty to the Federation.
Similar threads
