I think the writing reflects that. She was fabulous right up until the ... end. I still think she is salvageable as a character.
I love the look Burnham and Saru exchange when Cornwell vaporizes what is left of Lorca's fortune cookies. Cornwell gives us an idea of what she'd do to MU Lorca if she'd had the chance. I could see this happening. PU Lorca convinces MU Klingons, or whichever, that he is not his infamous MU self, and joins the fight against the Empire. It will probably all come down to scheduling with Jason Issaks.
Just no. Wanting to destroy one ship and wanting to destroy one heavily populated planet is not at all comparable. (And Burnham was wrong anyway.) Frankly, if Federation is willing to commit such a genocide, then Federation is a lie. Even though the plan was aborted, this storyline irrecoverably tarnished Federation, or if we choose to believe that this was a plot by small cabal of conspirators that acted unbeknownst the leadership of the Federation, then it at least irrecoverably tarnishes those people. So Cornwell and Sarek. Those people are genocidal maniacs unfit of any office.
I didn't say that destroying a planet and a ship was the same thing. What I'm saying is that the setting aside of morals and ethics to commit either act is very much the same. You are of course welcome to feel any way you like about Starfleet at this point, but the fact that cooler STARFLEET heads prevailed in the end matters a great deal with respect to the organization's core values. And yes, you can indict current leadership, but I give them credit for actually listening to Burnham and realizing they were making a huge mistake. Those were the same leaders who then gave Burnham permission to go back to the surface and retrieve the bomb and implement a new plan.
See, I don't buy that at all. First of all, Cornwell and the rest of Starfleet (and Federation) leadership (including Sarek) should have had better intel on the Klingons and their strategy, motivations, and politics. If they really were an enemy prepared to fight to the last man, then Cornwell should have known that already. And regardless of whether that was true or not, hearing it from one individual prisoner of war — one who was not only on the outs with current Klingon leadership but who had literally missed most of the war — should have made no difference to its credibility. Moreover, if that was true, then genocide against the Klingon homeworld would not be a strategically sensible move, since the remaining Klingons offworld (which is to say, all of them in the fleet) would be even more convinced the Federation was an existential enemy, and more motivated to fight to the end. The "cover story" version of the mission to Qo'nos, as a means to get the Klingons to the bargaining table, would've actually made at least a little more sense. That's just sad, then. How can you enjoy Star Trek if its central characters no longer represent an ideal worth striving for?
Interesting characters and exploring a science fiction future. My idealism doesn't come from entertainment media, so my disagreement with some of the Federation choices doesn't mean I can't appreciate the characters and their choices.
Yeah, but you can get that from any old sci-fi show. What sets Trek apart from virtually anything else in the genre is it is, if not utopian, a boldly optimistic view of where humanity could go. Crapsack dystopias are a dime a dozen, and even with fleshed-out characters grow tiring after awhile.
I don't see the Federation as a dystopia. I just don't see it as an organization that I trust. I wasn't aware that in order to enjoy a show I had throw behind every aspect of the future presented
I dunno. The Federation, as depicted, seems more trustworthy than the average democratic republic of the early 21st century. Of course, we see very little of the Federation other than Starfleet, and it's important not to conflate them. But it seems like for the average Joe it's a great place to live, with the government concerned with public welfare with low levels of corruption.
As a general rule, I am skeptical of governments. So, perhaps it would be a better statement for me to say I am skeptical rather than I don't trust. Regardless, idealism is something I find on the individual level, the acceptance of differences, rather than at the government level. I really don't see how this is a problem
When I watched the season finale I remember thinking that Cornwell's/Starfleet's/the Federation's decision to blow up Qo'noS was very controversial, but that giving L'Rell control of the bomb so that she could hold the Klingon Empire hostage was also controversial. IMO, if Picard and the Enterprise D found themselves in the same situation as the Discovery crew then they would have recovered the bomb and then they either would have left Qo'noS or would have found another way to wreck havoc on that planet while they were there...
I like Cornwell. I had the sneaking suspicion they were going to kill her off after "Lethe" and I'm glad they didn't. I think (though I don't know) that was the original plan and maybe they liked the character and actor so much, they changed their minds. So I'm glad she survived. In Season 2, I think/hope, they probably will flesh her out more and give her more of a character arc and storyline. We've never seen that much of the Admiralty.
I saw an episode of Enterprise the other day that made me think of both Cornwell's and Sisko morally questionable actions that they took/wanted to take. Remember the Season 3 episode of Enterprise called Damage where Archer steals the warp coil from an Illyrian vessel? He knew that doing so meant that it would take them 3 years to get home and seeing that the Expanse was so dangerous it could have realistically prevented them from getting home. However, Archer was more concerned with protecting Earth from the Xindi weapon and used that reasoning to justify steal the Illyrian's warp core. He knew that his ship needed to replaced damage parts if they were going to be able to find the Xindi weapon. Perhaps Cornwell and company thought of Archer's historic example to help justify their decision to order the destruction of the Klingon homeworld. Of course, while technically this decision was made by a Starfleet officer, it was not made by the Federation as the Federation had not yet been created.
I agree. While I still don't agree with Burnham's original mutiny, at least it could be argued that those on the ship were soldiers and therefore legitimate targets. Destroying an entire planet means that Starfleet were prepared to kill potentially billions of Klingons who had nothing to do with the war, including children. Suggesting that it was the only way to save Earth is the same logic used by terrorists who target civilians.