you mean 'Peace Through Superior Firepower', surely?
Aventine
- Thread starter 8of5
- Start date
Not necessarily. Had we succesfully created an SDI missle defense shield, there would no longer be any need for us to make arsenal after arsenal of nukes.
So...Peace Through Superior Defense (shields, sensors, etc.) would be, as a Vulcan would say..."Satisfactory...."
But until the UFP (and Starfleet) has the shield-and-sensor capability to survive any threat (which won't be for a REALLY long time...), "Superior Firepower" is, indeed, a necessary evil.
So...Peace Through Superior Defense (shields, sensors, etc.) would be, as a Vulcan would say..."Satisfactory...."
But until the UFP (and Starfleet) has the shield-and-sensor capability to survive any threat (which won't be for a REALLY long time...), "Superior Firepower" is, indeed, a necessary evil.
"Peace through strength" is just another way of saying, "Peace because you're scared we'll kill you." Except that's not really peace -- that's just the absence of combat. And as Bertolt Brecht famously noted, that is an unreliable form of "peace," because, "War always finds a way."
Starfleet does not believe in peace through strength. It believes in peace through cooperation, compromise, and diplomacy. It believes in defense through strength when it cannot keep peace with those who believe in aggression.
Which is another way of saying: "Speak softly...but carry a BIG stick."
"Peace because you're scared we'll kill you?" Try "peace because you're scared we'll retaliate if you attack us".
The strength of the UFP is only used for national security--defense. If there were no such line of defense, more attacks would be confucted against it. The Dominion (and while we're at it, the Cardassians, the Borg, etc.) attacked the UFP because 1) they overestimated their own strength, and 2) they underestimated the strength of the Federation.
Ask youself: what kind of nation is more likely to be attacked by an imperialistic force first: a strong nation with a stong line of defense, or a weak nation with a weak line of defense?
The stronger a peaceful nation is, the less likely it becomes for it to be attacked. "Fear" of said nation's strength can only go so far--not only is attacking out of fear stupid, it is also, ultimately, unsusccesful, because the attacker does not conduct his actions with a clear mind and a cool head--thus, his judgement is impared.
Here's another saying: "There is only one guaranteed path to peace--unconditonal surrender."
Since the threat of retaliation would only be a deterrent if the retaliation itself would be effective, that's just a euphemistic way of saying the same thing. If you can't hack it with your philosophy without prettying it up and hiding what you mean, maybe you should reevaluate your reasoning.
The Dominion attacked because they assumed the Federation was an imperialist power which would eventually destroy them, and that the Federation would not be receptive to attempts to subvert their autonomy. If they'd learned that Federation was willing to go along to get along in their little virtual reality simulation with the crew of the Defiant, they probably would've just absorbed them as they did the Cardassians and the Breen.
And the Borg would've attacked anyone, even if they had no chance of winning. The Borg have no compunction about throwing attack after ineffective attack at a species because every time, they learn something new and become stronger. Indeed, a stronger Federation was in their interests (since it gave them new and exciting technologies to assimilate), which is why they they kept poking and prodding them with single-cube attacks instead of making an earnest, total war attempt to take them down (until, of course, the Federation Experiment got out of hand and they actually posed a serious existential threat to the Borg).
There are other forms of strength beyond military force. And, I think we learned from Pearl Harbor that being attacked later is nothing like not being attacked at all.
The existence and efficacy of guerrilla warfare and terrorism disagree with you.
"They that live by the sword shall die by the sword."
Yeah, the US (aka the strongest nation in the world) has never been succesfully attacked.
I only have one thing to say about this:
.^ You (david) make valid counters to Rush's points.
I know this is getting way off-topic, but felt I had to mention this.
But let me ask this: If the Federation's goal of peace is not "Peace through defensive strength", then what is it? We know the Federation does have weapons. Both defensive and offensive but used mainly for defense and sometimes offense as a last resort ("Sometimes, the best defense is offense"). Would the Federation survive if it had no weapons at all? Perhaps, for a time. If it only met benign sentient (or even non-sentient) beings, or beings with the same rationality and moral basis. But what about races that are hostile by their very xenophobic nature or races that are even based on a tradition of combat (read Klingon), or space-going beings that may consider humanoids and organic matter as prey (read Crystalline entity, and yes I am reading Titan: Orion's Hounds)? Would these races/beings even pause toconsidera dialogue of any sort were they to encounter defenseless Federation ships? They would either attempt to subjugate (and succeed if there are no defenses) or destroy them. The only way IS to have a BIGGER or at least equal "stick" than the other guy. And then, they would consider opening dialogue if possible (with crystalline entities and Borg, that is moot...all the more reason to protect themselves with weapons).
I do not think the Federation is so twisted in its pursuit of its lofty ideals that it would subsume its own survival (and way of life: peace) for the sake of those ideals.
Perhaps an analogy would make things clearer. In our own lives, most of the people we meet (in my case: almost all) are friendly, have no hostile intentions and get along very well. Does that mean that we should advocate dismantling the law-enforcement system? Of course not. The possibility (and the near daily/weekly reported evidence) exists that people in the real world are being attacked. It's just common sense to have a strong law-enforcement and justice system. Yes, we would all love it if we didn't rather have them at all and nobody got attacked and there are no disputes at all. But this is the real world.
Would the Federation love to get rid of its defensive and offensive capabilities? Of course it would: as a galactic utopian ideal, where every race and every being exists and lives peacefully with no conflict whatsoever. Unfortunately, the galaxy they inhabit is far from a utopia. Even if it were....there are extragalactic threats to consider.
Even the almighty demi-gods such as the Q have weapons. And even they have been attacked by other sentient capable-of-dialogue beings (read book TNG: Q-Continuum) and had to defend themselves.
There are even examples of dialogue itself precipitating wars. When miscommunication occurs, or arguments deteriorate. Does that mean we get rid of dialogue?
I know this is getting way off-topic, but felt I had to mention this.
But let me ask this: If the Federation's goal of peace is not "Peace through defensive strength", then what is it? We know the Federation does have weapons. Both defensive and offensive but used mainly for defense and sometimes offense as a last resort ("Sometimes, the best defense is offense"). Would the Federation survive if it had no weapons at all? Perhaps, for a time. If it only met benign sentient (or even non-sentient) beings, or beings with the same rationality and moral basis. But what about races that are hostile by their very xenophobic nature or races that are even based on a tradition of combat (read Klingon), or space-going beings that may consider humanoids and organic matter as prey (read Crystalline entity, and yes I am reading Titan: Orion's Hounds)? Would these races/beings even pause toconsidera dialogue of any sort were they to encounter defenseless Federation ships? They would either attempt to subjugate (and succeed if there are no defenses) or destroy them. The only way IS to have a BIGGER or at least equal "stick" than the other guy. And then, they would consider opening dialogue if possible (with crystalline entities and Borg, that is moot...all the more reason to protect themselves with weapons).
I do not think the Federation is so twisted in its pursuit of its lofty ideals that it would subsume its own survival (and way of life: peace) for the sake of those ideals.
Perhaps an analogy would make things clearer. In our own lives, most of the people we meet (in my case: almost all) are friendly, have no hostile intentions and get along very well. Does that mean that we should advocate dismantling the law-enforcement system? Of course not. The possibility (and the near daily/weekly reported evidence) exists that people in the real world are being attacked. It's just common sense to have a strong law-enforcement and justice system. Yes, we would all love it if we didn't rather have them at all and nobody got attacked and there are no disputes at all. But this is the real world.
Would the Federation love to get rid of its defensive and offensive capabilities? Of course it would: as a galactic utopian ideal, where every race and every being exists and lives peacefully with no conflict whatsoever. Unfortunately, the galaxy they inhabit is far from a utopia. Even if it were....there are extragalactic threats to consider.
Even the almighty demi-gods such as the Q have weapons. And even they have been attacked by other sentient capable-of-dialogue beings (read book TNG: Q-Continuum) and had to defend themselves.
There are even examples of dialogue itself precipitating wars. When miscommunication occurs, or arguments deteriorate. Does that mean we get rid of dialogue?
Interesting stuff! What a small weapon list can do! 
Weapons are visible as exterior details and where on the "exterior details" list. (Thererfore got priority.) I think from a universe perspective she is armed but not over-armed, certainly not for that era. (Knowing about the Delta quadrant dangers etc.)
Being honest: I love weapons and I love battle scenes, but I'm fully aware that Starfleet's primary goal is peaceful exploration. I also think Ezri is much more an scientific explorer then a warrior. A Vesta class ship can be a good tool to go exploring with.
Might you run into an unknown space bully, one can always activate the Slipstream drive and be gone. If running is not an option and talking does not work either it might be time for weapons. But only as Ultima Ratio Regum.
Anyway I will work as quick as I can to supply a full specs list. (With more details about sensors, propulsion etc.)
Weapons are visible as exterior details and where on the "exterior details" list. (Thererfore got priority.) I think from a universe perspective she is armed but not over-armed, certainly not for that era. (Knowing about the Delta quadrant dangers etc.) Being honest: I love weapons and I love battle scenes, but I'm fully aware that Starfleet's primary goal is peaceful exploration. I also think Ezri is much more an scientific explorer then a warrior. A Vesta class ship can be a good tool to go exploring with.
Might you run into an unknown space bully, one can always activate the Slipstream drive and be gone. If running is not an option and talking does not work either it might be time for weapons. But only as Ultima Ratio Regum.
Anyway I will work as quick as I can to supply a full specs list. (With more details about sensors, propulsion etc.)
Peace through communication and mutual interest. Yes, weapons are sometimes necessary, but only when healthier options such as diplomacy and trade fail to work. They're a fallback position, not a keystone of policy.
When you move into a neighborhood, how do you introduce yourself to your neighbors? By showing them how heavily armed you are and warning them against trying to rob you? No. You may have defenses against intruders in your home, but they aren't the foundation for your friendships with your neighbors. On the contrary, if you define your relationship in terms of your destructive potential, you'll just scare the hell out of your neighbors and make them dislike you. Deterrence is not friendship.
Nobody here is claiming that Starfleet vessels should go unarmed. I don't even know how that idea got injected into the conversation. Of course self-defense is a good idea. The point is that Starfleet is not about weapons and firepower. The weapons are a backup plan for emergencies, like the tire jack and flares in your trunk. It's a good idea to have them, but the normal, desirable operating procedure is to leave them unused.
And to get things back on track, the real point is that I want to hear about the specs of the Vesta class that aren't military in nature. We seem to have drifted pretty far off topic.
I do not advicate living by the sword, per se. I advocate "speaking softly"--using diplomacy as much as humanly possible, as peaceful as humanly possible--while carying the "big stick"--a strong defence force--for backup, in the event that negotiations go down.
Nothing's wrong, sir. And frankly, pacificism does invite "absorbtion". Thus, the balance between "peace" and freedom MUST be taken into account.
This is probably going to make someone mad, but as David cgc has stated, I've minced words for too long. When the pseudo-Colonel Green said in "The Savage Curtain", "No one talks peace unless he's ready to back it up with war", he was actually giving good advice--in a way. You need to bring some kind of strength to the table, otherwise, you will not succeed in matters of diplomacy. Indeed, Kirk seemed perfectly fine with
this line of reasoning--and of course, Kirk had to fight to get away from Green and Co.
Not necessarily. Terrorists have the weapons of secrecy and covert operations. Thus, a strong intellegence force is also necessary for national defence, so as to protect the nation from these weapons.
The enemys who attacked us did so either because (in the case of WWI Germany and WWII Japan) they overestimated their own strength, or (in the case of Al-Qaeda) they underestimated the resolve of the American people to defend themselves.
Let's face it. Many times, we neglected to go the extra mile when defending ouselves, and took the "safe route". This came across to our enemies as weakness. Thus, they felt no qualms about trying to (in their minds) scare us even more.
So help me, I actually agree. Kudos to David cgc for challenging my points on the intellectual level. As Worf would say, "You are...a worthy opponent."
Exactly. Thank you, rahullak. I could rarely explain it better myself.
I must admit, yes, I was rather...inarticulate concerning my previous comments. In my defense, though, I was trying to be as curt and simple as possible...so as to keep the original topic going....
On that subject...can we PLEASE get back on topic, so as not to allow this thread to dissolve into something entirely different from its intended form?
We can talk more about this later.
So...what are Aventine's shield capabilities, anyway?
I agree--on all counts.
Can't wait!
Yeah...in fact, Cris, I actually started writing my big monologue-rebuttle before your and Clawhammer's last posts!
My bad....
But anyway, agreed. The sooner we put this What-The-Heck-Is-The-UFP's-Foreign-Policy-Doctrine-Anyway thing behind us...THE BETTER!
But that's not peace. That is the absence of combat. It would even be fair to reword it as, "Defense through scaring you that we'll kill you." But that's not peace.
I'm not saying that that's not a valid goal. When you are facing a hostile, imperialistic enemy, it's perfectly valid to seek to secure your own safety by inducing a realistic fear of death into your enemy (provided you did not start the fight yourself).
But you're deluding yourself if you think that that is a solid foundation for peace -- peace being the condition of two cultures actively wishing to coexist in partnership and/or friendship, rather than being forced to do so by a lack of firepower. It's all well and good to say, "Speak softly but carry a big stick" -- but the problem is, eventually, the other person always finds a big stick, too, and then there's nothing to stop a fight from breaking out. "War will find a way" -- that is, unless the conditions that lead to a desire to fight are changed.
That's not to pin the blame on the Federation for every war, either. Clearly there are some cultures that are going to want war no matter how vigorously the Federation tries to wage peace on them. And there's nothing wrong with a big stick. Big sticks are perfectly valid to have and to use in self-defense. But But this does not mean that big sticks are a reliable foundation for peace, either.
Once again, throughout your post, you confuse a lack of combat with a state of peace.
ETA:
To illustrate the difference.... The United States and the United Kingdom are at peace. The United States and Canada are at peace. The United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran are not at peace. The United States and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela are not at peace.
Interesting points, Sci...and you do have a valid line of reasoning.
I see, then, the initial premises upon which our respective positions are built. For a while, I was confused as to why the heck we were arguing in the first place. Now I know.
The premises of our arguments are, then, our respective philosophical defenitions of peace.
But again, this is a subject for another post.
^If you two want to debate the philosophy of war and peace, maybe you should take it to PM or a different thread. This thread is for discussing the starship Aventine.
All that you have stated is obvious to me and in line with my thinking. I somehow felt that the idea that Starfleet vessels should go unarmed appeared to have been injected into the conversation, hence the (admittedly overlong) rhetoric.
JD was being sarcastic, I believe.
^Yeah--that's how I took it...
Gladly.
And thanks, Chris. This has gone on long enough....
Gladly.
And thanks, Chris. This has gone on long enough....
Don't worry, it was sarcasm. I guess I should have added a smilie at the end.
I read somewhere that the Aventine has chroniton sensors but I think I missed that in the actual novel.
