Wouldn't you expect more Defiants in the current timeline?

Discussion in 'Trek Literature' started by MatthiasRussell, Aug 29, 2011.

  1. Relayer1

    Relayer1 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2011
    Location:
    The Black Country, England
    I could be wrong here (wouldn't be the first time) but the way I understood it was the Soviet Block had way more tanks than NATO, but the Wests were more technologically advanced.

    As could be seen in the Gulf Wars, relatively few hi-tech weapons platforms can take out large numbers of conventional opponents whilst minimising any danger to themselves.
     
  2. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    The Cold War is an example that proves my point. The whole thing was a tragic comedy of errors, driven by the two sides' misunderstanding of each other's psychology. The Soviets weren't planning on world conquest; they were just driven by the historical Russian siege mentality, the belief that they were surrounded by enemies who wanted to conquer them and that they needed to build weapons to protect themselves against it. But since America was founded on conquest and expansionism, we saw their arms buildup and assumed they thought the same way we did, that their intent was to conquer us, so we felt we needed to build weapons to protect ourselves. So each side built up weapons to protect itself and in so doing made itself look more aggressive and provoked the other side to build more weapons to protect itself, and it became a stupid, insanely dangerous vicious circle. Hell, it got to the point that the two sides between them had dozens of times as many bombs as they needed to kill everyone on Earth -- enough to melt the entire crust of the planet. By that point, it had become more about keeping the military-industrial complex in business as well as projecting the appearance of being more heavily armed than the other side even though it was far beyond the point that the difference was militarily relevant.

    It's bizarre that nations are so incapable of realizing that other nations will react to threats the same way their own people will -- not by backing down in fear, but by pushing back with threats of their own. Escalation provokes escalation. Building more weapons puts you in more danger, not less, because it'll just make the other side build more weapons. Because, as should be obvious, they think the same way you do, and will react to a perceived threat the same way you do -- namely, by building more weapons to protect their homes and loved ones from you.

    The only way to resolve a standoff like that is if one side or the other chooses to stop letting fear govern them and tries diplomacy and de-escalation. The Cold War didn't end because one side had more bombs; it ended because Gorbachev chose to relax his government's rigid hold over his own people and inadvertently triggered a revolution. And it ended because the Soviets' military buildup had bankrupted their nation -- something that probably would've happened to the US as well if it had gone on much longer.
     
  3. Idran

    Idran Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2011
    I was just about to post the same thing. And this isn't Christopher's supposition, by the way; this is supported by KGB files released in the post-Soviet era on their view of the American weapons build-up. They never planned to attack us, and they were terrified that we would strike them first.
     
  4. ryan123450

    ryan123450 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Location:
    Woodward, OK
    While all of that is undoubtedly true, they did have a desire to spread communism across the globe. So even though they didn't want to take over the world, they certainly wanted their new political/economic system to spread worldwide.
     
  5. Idran

    Idran Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2011
    So did we.
     
  6. DonIago

    DonIago Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2001
    Location:
    Burlington, VT, USA
    Kind of like the way we'd like democracy and capitalism to sperad worldwide?

    Oops, beaten to it...
     
  7. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Exactly. (And it wasn't supposition, I learned it in a college course.) And the Typhon Pact situation is the same. They're not aggressors. They don't want to conquer the Federation. They just don't want the Federation to threaten their own autonomy. So the stupidest thing the UFP can do with respect to the Pact is to take an aggressive posture.
     
  8. Idran

    Idran Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2011
    Isn't that what I said? :p
     
  9. Zman1

    Zman1 Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2002
    Location:
    nx-01 in the mirror universe
    Now this is an interesting thread.

    Now with materials cost being largely handled by replicator what is the real cost of one starship vs. another? what types of parts cannot be replicated? do larger complex vessels use that much more of those parts or just larger ones where its possible to have an economy of scale going on? Its entirely possible that an intrepid class has the same materials cost as a defiant. How about crew cost? in the end crew might be then as it is now the most expensive part of the ship.

    as far as the us/ussr cold war, the us didn't win as both countries bankrupt themselves with defense spending. however by giving up the russians possibly won because by time the us finishes hitting bottom from the debt incurred russia will be well on the road to economic recovery. calling that a victory would likely make pyrrhus' look like brilliant ones worthy of song.
     
  10. MatthiasRussell

    MatthiasRussell Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Location:
    Seattle
    I think the Voyager fleet could benefit greatly by having one dedicated warship to escort the supply ship.

    Also, what of during the Borg invasion? Don't remember reading of Defiants during all of those encounters and battles.
     
  11. MatthiasRussell

    MatthiasRussell Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Location:
    Seattle
    The cold war definitely could have gone better, but I'm glad the West kept their defenses up. In retrospect, they over armed but if the worst case scenario happened, those weapons were there and ready.Clearly the Pact wants to be ready for a fight. In that situation, mothballing the Defiants would be as stupid as the US saying they didn't need interceptors after WW2. If the Pact stays armed, the UFP has to as well, tit for tat, or they face invasion. Speak softly and carry several Defiants.
     
  12. Cicero

    Cicero Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    Tanusha
    I agree with most of your assertions about the Cold War, but am fairly certain that the United States was not in any danger of being bankrupted by a Cold War that continued along the same lines as it had in the 70s, 80s, and very early 90s.

    This chart, which delineates American defense spending from 1794 through last year (both per capita and as a percentage of GDP), demonstrates that the 1980s high never exceeded defense spending during the economic boom between World War II and Vietnam (indeed, in terms of GDP, it was generally half as great or less). The problem that we encountered, fiscally, was not one of spending beyond our means, but of failing to pay for what we spent - much easier to remedy than the Soviet problem (by 1990, Soviet GDP per capita had fallen to between 36% and 43% of that of the US).

    Further, and more on topic, discussing defense spending in terms of tanks or the Cold War when considering Starfleet is highly misleading. Armies are expensive in a way that navies are not (air forces are similarly expensive, but for different reasons). The high recurring costs of personnel-intensive formations are a far greater burden than the similar one-time costs of naval vessels, even when coupled with comparatively low naval manpower costs (the naval equivalent of an Army division has between 7500 and 8000 personnel, where the Army division has about 25000). Ships are also built to last in a way that ground vehicles aren't; a modern capital ship can be expected to serve for about 50 years.

    As the chart linked to above shows, American defense spending has been a minor part of the economy whenever the country has not been burdened by the maintenance of a large Army - regardless of the size of the Navy. In 1914, for instance, the US Navy's battle force consisted of no fewer than 37 battleships, none of which were even 20 years old, along with an appropriate number of smaller supporting craft (cruisers, destroyers, etc.), despite defense spending having reached 2% of GDP in only one year of the previous fifty.

    Naval spending also offers civil utility that military spending does not. Naval vessels can be - and often are - used for humanitarian purposes, providing relief, transport, assistance, etc., for diplomatic missions, and for exploration and scientific research (as the somewhat improbable use of the Defiant demonstrates). Only the largest dreadnoughts* and the smallest patrol craft (generally those focused on interdicting small craft, submarines, and mines) are of little use outside of wartime. Ships are not tanks, nor are they infantry divisions.

    *Of course, in Star Trek, the Galaxy-class is the closest equivalent to the dreadnought battleship - and it was specifically designed to be of great use outside of combat.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2011
  13. MvComedy

    MvComedy Lieutenant Junior Grade Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 6, 2011
    I haven't read all of the Typhon Pact books and therefore can't say if this was a running theme or not. But one of the things that I liked in RBoE (however else readers felt about the rest of the book) was that it highlighted the way the Tzenkethi view the Federation - as an expansionist, imperialist threat. Something I enjoy about Treklit that was seldomly touched on in any of the series is that while the Federation's intentions may be pure from the inside, to those looking at it from the outside it may be something very different. The only time I can recall in any series that really tackled that theme was DS9 with the Maquis. Particularly Eddington's diatribe about how the Federation insidiously forces it's ideology onto other cultures and people who may just want to be left alone.

    On topic, as many have pointed out, I see Defiants as parked at key star systems and facilities and used when needed, never regularly. In addition to the fact that the Defiant is a warship and was not designed with exploration in mind, it was really not even designed with long-term use in mind. The ship is cramped, can only handle a low crew complement, has no kitchen, no storage, no holodeck or entertainment facilities, etc, etc. Even if you could add on a bunch of labs and science equipment to make it useable for exploration, who would want to live onboard a Defiant-class starship long-term? It's even more spartan than the NX-class, which at least had a gym and a movie theater.
     
  14. Cicero

    Cicero Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    Tanusha
    ^ The use of the class on DS9 seemed appropriate to its design. It's well-suited to the role of system/sector security and defense, based out of a permanent facility which would be home to the ship's crew.
     
  15. BrotherBenny

    BrotherBenny Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Location:
    BrotherBenny
    Matthias, the Voyager fleet doesn't need a warship. Other than the supply and medical ships, the others have enough weaponry to lay waste to a solar system.
     
  16. MatthiasRussell

    MatthiasRussell Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Location:
    Seattle
    ^ Having a single warship among the fleet makes sense to me. Not many, just one who can be the needed muscle when necessary. You could say the fleet doesn't need supply ships because they have replicators which can make enough food to feed a solar system and can make supply runs home when needed. Just like it is good to have a supply ship, it would be handy to have a warship just in case.
     
  17. MatthiasRussell

    MatthiasRussell Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Location:
    Seattle
     
  18. Brefugee

    Brefugee No longer living the Irish dream. Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2007
    Not sure if you've read Children of the Storm, but:

    They do have those funky one person fighters to "assist" in any combat situations that the main fleet can not handle.

    As for more Defiant Class vessels in Starfleet, until Message in a Bottle (and not Prometheus as Chris thought, tis an understandable mistake given that was the ship that the EMH was transported to in the episode) was broadcast here on BBC2 (it was shown before A Call to Arms etc) I thought it was a one off, never to be repeated exercise by Starfleet R&D.
     
  19. j3067

    j3067 Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Location:
    Prepping for the next Great Tribble Hunt
    Lech Walesa and Poland's Solidarity movement predated Gorbachev's Premiership. The pressure for revolution was already there behind the Iron Curtain in the Eastern European nations. Citizens of those nations who fought to maintain their identity and culture may be surprised to hear that the USSR interest in world domination was actually a historical misconception.
     
  20. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Star Trek is not a war story. So it shouldn't have "warships" as a regular or widespread part of Starfleet's complement. That's just the wrong tone for this particular fictional universe. If you want to read about warships, go pick up a Star Wars novel.


    Well, yes, obviously. That's implicit in what I said. Gorbachev thought he was just going to ease things off and let the Soviet system work more humanely, but by easing the pressure, he inadvertently unleashed the drive for rebellion that was pent up within the society.

    Russia's history is one of constantly being invaded and conquered. And from their perspective, they were surrounded by enemies -- Europe to the west, China to the south (contrary to American paranoia, the Soviets and Chinese communists loathed one another and were bitter rivals), the US and Canada to the east and north(over the pole). They felt it necessary to establish a buffer zone of allies around themselves. So yes, they did conquer neighboring countries, but it wasn't part of a Western-style philosophy of Manifest Destiny and perpetual expansion, but a Russian-style philosophy of surrounding their home territory with a defensive zone against outside threats.