Why Let Khan Live?

I don't think Kirk and company would really worry about planet-bound, pre-spaceflight civilizations they found stumbling onto Khan and his gang. Certainly they'd not be concerned about the god-like aliens they encountered falling victim to him.

As for space-faring civilizations at technological levels similar to the Feds, they really didn't encounter very many of them. Even so, I have a hard time believing Khan and his colony would represent any greater danger to, say, the First Federation than the dangers they would just naturally face by exploring space in the first place.

I never make assumptions about the Original Series' intentions based on what the spinoffs cobbled together after the fact.

 

As I said, I don't disagree with you. I just remembered what happened in the movie.

 

Technically Kirk would have to kill (or order to kill) all of Khan's people as well since they were all genetically enhanced superhumans and they all posed a risk. Killing just Khan, especially if they called it self defense, is one thing. Killing them all is mass murder.

 

Compare this to the fact that Khan apparently killed nobody!

...Well, yes, technically he presumed he had killed Kirk with the pressure chamber thing. But he didn't really bother to feign surprise when finding Kirk alive and well.

The episode started out with Kirk and his crew idolizing Khan. It really did not end differently. As far as bad guys go, Khan was downright gentlemanly, a man very much to Kirk's liking.

Considering him a "criminal" based on what he did in the past would be pretty thick. He was a head of state, after all - immune to prosecution if anything! What he did after being waken up did not seem to bother Kirk too much, either.

Neither, I'd think. The planet did not pose any mortal threat to settlers, as far as we were told, and the Earth or Federation colonies we saw in TOS were all of this type anyway: a tiny bunch of people who have severed all ties with their former home and settled down with basic tools and little else. OTOH, dropping Khan off on an alien world is just defusing a bomb, as the endeavor supposedly would consume Khan's ambition and turn his powers to good.

Timo Saloniemi

 

Because Trek hadn't become just "kill the badguy, save the day" yet. Morality, ethics and other things that make you think are what make for a good episode.

 

Because it's the 60s and good guys don't execute people.

 

I think it made sense to exile Khan and the rest of his followers. For one thing, there would be no chance that they could escape, since Ceti Alpha V had no technological base. And if Kirk and the rest of Starfleet had been more diligent about putting warning beacons in orbit and all that, there would have been no chance of somebody else accidentally stumbling across Khan. So if that plan had worked, Khan and the Augments would have been permanently isolated, with a colony consisting only OF Augments, and no chance of innocent people getting hurt or killed.

Khan was not a legitimate government. He was a dictator who seized power by force. He didn't earn it. He wasn't recognized as a head of state according to normal diplomatic channels. Thus he doesn't deserve any protection afforded to same.

 

Khan was guilty of attempted murder and attempted hijacking of a Federation starship. But in the Federation's eyes, those wouldn't be grounds for execution. About the only crime that was threatened with death was visiting Talos IV.

Should Kirk have confined Khan and his followers to the brig and ferried them to a starbase for trial? Perhaps... But OTOH, it may have not been expedient to do so. A class M planet not claimed by anyone? Seemed a little peculiar to me, but given what little resources were given to Khan and his followers, one could consider it a kind of penal colony. Cut off from the rest of humanity, with no means of escape. And I'd have expected a probe would be left in the vicinity to monitor things like keeping away visitors.

 

Napoleon was exiled to the island of Elba. Thankfully the adjacent island did't blow up causing a change in the climate.

 

[qujote]Khan was not a legitimate government. He was a dictator who seized power by force.[/quote]

So was George Washington. Doesn't mean zip for his legitimacy or lack thereof.

There's no basis for such a claim.

So you don't think there are any warning beacon chasers in Trek?

...But happens rather frequently in all the shows. It's probably just that in the billions of years that various civilizations have reigned over the galaxy, about 100% of suitable rock planets have been terraformed (which in turn has promoted the growth of younger cultures that are compatible with terraforming, including mankind). When cultures die or ascend to higher planes of boredom, planets are left to fallow and, depending on the quality of terraforming, may remain Earthlike for billions of years. Or then degrade into hellholes that nevertheless retain an otherwise unlikely oxygen atmosphere...

I don't really see this sort of a scheme working. If somebody is interested in taking empty-looking Class M worlds, he will take them, probe or no probe... If not, he won't bother coming close enough to make a difference.

Timo Saloniemi

 

"In the real world" has no place in this discussion. It's Star Trek. It's fiction. Reality doesn't count.

 

Thematically, Khan was discovered having been banished from earth in the Botany Bay (or voluntarily escaped, depending on your narrative). Their punishment was to complete the voyage of the Botany Bay, by reaching "landfall" where they could be given free reign without risking established society. From a story perspective, it's a suitable resolution.

 

Of course, in-universe we're left with some pretty big questions.

- Who defeated Khan?
- What did Khan really intend to achieve with his flight?
- Did Khan get what he wanted when Kirk marooned him?
- With the whole "incomplete records" thing, how many of the "facts" of Khan were accurate, and how many were distorted?

The episode plays out nicely prima facie, but the truth about Khan could easily be more complex. On awakening, his first and only question is "How long?". In which circumstances would this really be relevant? A journey intended to achieve a destination would rather call for the question "Where?", not "When?"...

If Khan in fact had no destination in mind, but merely hoped to wait out the opposition to him, then "How long?" would be a highly relevant question. If Kirk says "More than three lifetimes", then Khan is safe, because he has been forgotten. If he says "Oh, I estimate three months", then Khan is screwed, because those who want his head on a platter are still alive and sending out Wiesenthals.

Perhaps Khan just wanted to loop back to Earth after the dust had settled? Or perhaps he bet that his ship would eventually be discovered and he could do exactly what he did in the episode. Evidence for him wanting to settle a distant planet is lacking: we never hear of people in the 1990s knowing where or even whether there would be habitable worlds, and we never see colonizing gear or even a means of landing when we study Khan's ship! Indeed, when Khan does colonize, his equipment is stamped with UFP symbology...

Timo Saloniemi

 

I do. It is a totally different situation.

Kruge had just murdered Kirk's son after torturing him for information hours after obliterating the entire crew of the USS Grissom and attacking the Enterprise. Still, after all that, when Kruge was in danger of falling, Kirk offered his hand. Kruge's response was to pull Kirk down into the lava with him. To save himself and Spock, Kirk did the only thing he could: he kicked his adversary over the side. At that point, Kruge had done one thing after another and another, so Kirk's exasperation added the "I have had enough of you" to it.

Self defense / justifiable homicide / justice. Executing Khan and his followers after having them in custody would be brutal, heartless murder. Sorry, not in support of that.

 

99.9% of the time, I would agree with you. But people like Hitler, Napoleon, Stalin, Khan, etc.... I say, release the hounds. (oh and people who dress up their dogs in people's clothes...take them out too!).

 

I disagree completely. He probably knows something has gone wrong since humans have awoken him. For all we know, he might also be able to feel that he has been "sleeping" for much longer than intended. Whether he asks "when" or "where" doesn't make him more or less realistic. When I've been sleeping for too long the first thing I do is look at the clock.
If I for some reason don't remember where I went to sleep, of course I wonder where I am when I wake up. If I am traveling on a boat and have slept I wonder both what time it is AND where I am. I most often ask what time it is because I know what time I will arrive at my destination.

Anyway, I would probably ask "how long" if I had been on a spaceship and feeling as if I was halfdead and the people bending over me had thingamajigs looking a lot more advanced than what I was used to.

 

The crew of Regula One would have been happy to hear that, if Khan hadn't SLAUGHTERED them all in cold blood.

 

wut...

Are you comparing Khan to Eisenhower??

 

Probably in Khan's favor, even.

Many of you seem to proceed from the assumption that Khan was a so-called bad guy. But the dialogue does not support this at all.

Let's not forget what was said about Khan in the episode itself:

So Khan is compared to Napoleon, a leader of good repute who is widely admired in the 21st century still. He is compared to Alexander, a leader of mythical proportions. Both killed an awful lot of people - but any modern leader has the capacity to do much worse, and most have indeed done so. Trying to nail down Napoleon or Alexander as a "butcher" just puts you in the loonie bin, by modern sentiments.

Moving on:

Like Kirk points out, Khan uses the language of tyrants. But so did Winston Churchill and a long string of US presidents in times of national crisis. Kirk is playing games here; he's not really interested in passing judgement, but merely in tripping Khan into exposing himself.

Further:

Our heroes are really pulling Spock's leg here with their "defense" of Khan's virtues, obviously. Scotty gets it started with a mischievous look on his face. But what they say is apparently factually true. Remember that Kirk loathes the 20th century in general (see his previous comment about 20th century men), even if he romanticizes the 19th century United States to a degree. Khan rises above Kirk's standards for that century, and while that's not much in absolute terms, it still paints Khan as a saint of his times.

Khan's attitude towards "freedom" is unclear. Are we talking about McCarthyism here? Or Berianism? Good old-fashioned monarchism with freedom of thought but no freedom of press?

Later Trek shows that Earth wasn't exactly heading for the better after Khan left. "The" tyrants were overthrown, but democracy didn't win, and things got worse before WWIII put an end to everything and Vulcans then apparently sorted it out.

Is Khan a Rommel to Kirk - a good guy fated to exist as part of an evil movement (in terms of myth, with the facts of the matter irrelevant)? Or is he something better or worse? Well, he's Napoleon and Alexander... If he were Hitler, surely Kirk would bring up the matter.

Timo Saloniemi