Balance of Terror continuity

[Warped9]

We also have to remember the context of when the episode was written.

In "The Cage" Jose Tyler's reference somewhat infers that FTL is relatively new. WNMHGB somewhat supports that with the question of how the supposedly impulse powered Valiant reached the galaxy edge. It simply hadn't yet been tied down that warp drive has been around for awhile. It isn't until second season in "Metamorphosis" that they establish the spacewarp being developed at least 150 years or prior. The Horizon is said not have had subspace radio 100 years prior.

The whole mindset until "Metamorphosis" was that ships of the 22nd century are significantly less advanced--more primitive--than those of the mid 23rd century such as the Enterprise.

We can imagine these ships of low warp capability, no shields, at best impulse powered projectile weapons or more likely some reaction thrust drive. Some form of energy based beam weapons could exist. In most cases you can't afford to take prisoners at least in any significant numbers. And most likely direct hits result in total destruction so no prisoners left to take. There's no communicating with enemy ships because there's no purpose to it. It's simply kill or be killed until one side cannot afford to fight any longer. It could well be that Earth forces not only halted Romulan advances but also drove the Romulans back into their own space and then that's when the talking started to cease hostilities, and the Treaty and Neutral Zone were negotiated strictly by sunspace radio with no with visual communication. The ENT writers rationalized what they wanted to do and in the strictest sense they didn't contradict much, but for some of us ENT contradicted the subtext that was the mindset of the TOS writers when the show was in its first season. It's why many of us preferred the fanon based on the James Blish adaptation of "Balance Of Terror" because it was more consistent with what the episode was suggesting.

 

[Saquist]

-"Sunspace Radio" I like that.

I think it's more like a liberal sense when one starts rationalizing though no strict but I get your point.

Yeah you're right the Columbia apparently had radio only and it disappeared only 18 years from the time of the Cage.

Tyler: And you won't believe how fast you can get back. The time barrier's been broken. Our new ships can...

But if it was a ship sent out 150 years ago at relativistic speeds without subspace fields then rightly they wouldn't be clued into the new advances and something like 18 years would have passed.

 

[Warped9]

^^ Like I said these things weren't tied down yet. Tyler's remark might have been meant to suggest that FTL was relatively new or it could also mean that ship's like the Enterprise were a lot faster than those of twenty years before. Perhaps there was something of a technological explosion within the past twenty years, particularly in terms of starship propulsion, that resulted in a significant increase in sustainable velocities.

Fanon also picked up on the tidbits in James Blish's adaptation and suggested 22nd century ships were of low warp capability. They also picked up on the idea of the conflict lasting some twenty-five years, perhaps partly because of the transit time for slower ships. All these ideas (and others) took root in a lot of fans minds as the most likely scenario for what a 22nd century pre TOS universe looked like. And then along comes ENT pretty much totally ignoring what fans had pretty much accepted as a done deal since the '70s.

From a TOS and TAS only perspective we get the sense that humanity just started scrabbling out of the solar system during the 21st century, perhaps initially in relativistic ships and then early crude warp drives. Fanon has us meeting the Vulcans sometime during latter part of the 21st century, and it has us meeting them out there in neutral space. During the 22nd century the ships get better and humanity is having its first forays into deep interstellar space. We begin colonizing and exploring and butting heads with strange new races like the Andorians and Tellarites and others. According to fanon we may even have encountered something called the Vegan Tyranny (a James Blish idea from his adaptation of "Tomorrow Is Yesterday). References from TAS' "The Slaver Weapon" also have humanity butting heads with the Kzinti. Then somewhere in the mid 22nd century we hit the Romulans (or Rihannsu as they call themselves) and a twenty-five year conflict ensues. Out of that conflict are born the seeds of what eventually becomes the UFP, ratified in the late 22nd or early 23rd century. And out of the founding of the UFP we get the Star Fleet as the UFP's recognized exploratory and military arm.

Fanon didn't pull this stuff all out of thin air. They extrapolated from hints within the show itself and partly fleshed out by James Blish's adaptations. The UFP doesn't hit the Klingons until early in the 23rd century, decades after encountering the Romulans. This is hinted at in TOS and enhanced in John M. Fords novel The Final Reflection.

There are variations to fanon, but the above is the gist of it. Yet this is what a lot of fans accepted as most likely true. Then ENT showed up and threw it all out the window...assuming one accepts ENT as of the same continuity as TOS (which I for one don't).

TNG contradicted TOS in a few things, but perhaps not seriously. TNG suggests the Eugenics Wars and WW3 are separate conflicts where TOS says they're one and the same. TNG says humans encountered Klingons during the mid 22nd century while TOS (and fanon) hints and leans to the early 23rd. TNG says the UFP came about in 2161 while TOS (and fanon) hints and leans to the late 22nd to early 23rd century.

ENT is really a prequel to TNG by way of FC. In that light the TOS we are familiar with doesn't exist because it's a different continuity. As such fanon's version of TOS prehistory remains true because that's how it originally happened until FC rewrote everything. And in extent ST09 rewrites it all further.

Okay, I've strayed wide of the initial subject. But I've laid the groundwork for why a lot of fans felt ENT was inconsistent and not a convincing prequel to TOS.

 

[Saquist]

According to the Star Trek Space Chronology:


Horizon journeys to the edge of the Galaxy in 2102, just before the Romulan War.
It was a Warp 3.2 Cruiser
The First UFP sponsored starship
New metals and ceramic alloys allow for greater Strength and lighter weight.

TNG must have been working on the Chronology book because it has the first encounter with the Klingons in 2151.

The ships at this point are only up to 4.8
Check that out!...It's only 20 years before the Constitution class starship shows up.
I guess Stternbach took Tylers comments into account. Boy did his homework.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

My question is why was Spock extremely vague? A war hundred years ago, lets say the Civil War. The average American knew more about that war then Spock knows about the Earth-Romulan War, a war that people who have lived during that time could have told him details such as T'Pau or the basic fact that the writers were being lazy.

The Earth-Romulan War, from what we have gathered it preluded the Federation, but the Federation was formed from its' ashes. So it would be an extremely important time period for the Federation. So doesn't anyone really know about it a hundred years later. I am not Vulcan, but I know more about the American Revolutionary War than Spock knows more about the war that helped formed the Federation.

So going from what Spock says about the Earth-Romulan War, he don't know shit and the remarks he was reading could have been an extremely general notation about the war in the Enterprise's Wikipedia.

 

[Saquist]

The writers execute the plot in Five Acts.
there simply isn't enough time for Trivia.

 

[Timo]

"Which" always refers to what came immediately before it. It's the creation of a new subject/predicate in the midst or after the original subject predicate. It's a pronoun like he,she and it. It never references the original subject predicate.

I guess I've just been raised wrong, so bear with me when I try to find out if we actually disagree.

In my native language, there are two separate reflective pronouns that serve the "which" function. One refers solely to a single element of the preceding construct: "Andy kicked a dog, which1 (the dog) made Cathy cry." The other refers to the preceding phrase as a whole: "Andy kicked a dog, which2 (the act of kicking) made Cathy cry." In English, which1 approximates "that" and which2 approximates "which", but "which" can take on some tasks of which1 in some cases.

So if the war was fought with crappy ships, then the act of fighting is as important a part of the subject for the second part of the phrase as the ships or the nature of the ships, right? The war isn't the subject, technically speaking; but the act of fighting the war is.

So we can choose to believe that the ban on quarter and prisoners stemmed from the act of fighting a war in primitive ships, or that the ban stemmed directly from the fact that the ships were primitive.

Which brings us to the point of agreement:

Thus, "primitive ships" are incapable of showing mercy

although I realize you meant the exact opposite with that.

That is, I believe Spock clearly said that primitive ships are incapable of showing mercy. You seem to believe that since it is logically impossible for ships to show mercy, Spock must have been saying something else, even though grammatically he appears to be saying that primitive ships (or the fact of fighting with those) makes mercy impossible. Right?

And I still don't have the faintest idea on why it would be logically impossible for primitive ships to show mercy. But the list of reasons for why it would be technologically impossible is long...

My question is why was Spock extremely vague?

Two main possibilities, both plausible:

1) He didn't know shit. In "Space Seed", he mistakes the 1990s conflict for "the last World War" and McCoy has to correct him with "the Eugenics War". Nowhere else does he appear well versed in Earth history, either; the most he ever correctly comments on is music by Brahms, which isn't exactly history.

2) He wasn't told to be nonvague. Being brief was more important, considering that they were headed for a battle they had not expected.

Perhaps the two reasons are related. Spock might know nothing about the war for the same reason nobody else besides Stiles does: it was a small and obscure conflict that left no mark in history (relatively speaking; consider, say, the Korean standoff from the viewpoint of the 2050s, or the continuing state of war between Russia and Japan over a few silly islands, both comparable to the barely ongoing Romulan "tension" in the 2260s but not the sort of stuff general history or soldiers in Europe or Middle East would really be interested in). Thus, the crew would require a basic introduction, not a detailed strategic analysis.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Flashover]

That's an interesting take on the situation, Timo. We've always supposed that The Romulan War was some huge long drawn out conflict... like WW2 or the Dominion War.

What if it wasn't? What if it was nothing more than a couple clashes over a handful of star-systems, followed by a treaty. Sort of a "hey you get of my lawn!" "Ok ok, first tell me where your property line begins" "right here you fu*ing moron" type situation.

I foresee a shift in thinking here, at least on my end....

 

[Timo]

For the Romulans themselves, it was apparently a huge thing. Centuries afterward, the floor mosaic of their Senate building depicts the border created in that war...

For the Federation, it may have been much less significant. Romulans were considered "mad dogs" in TOS: the irrational worst could be expected of them in "Balance of Terror" and "The Deadly Years", and the only time the Federation really went dirty on any enemy was when they cheated and killed their way through the Romulan Neutral Zone and a Romulan ship in "The Enterprise Incident". In the TOS movies, they weren't given much more attention or respect, until ST6 where they suddenly were trusted military allies. But Klingons always were the big enemy, the gold standard of villainy, the respected military opponent, and any conflict with them was remembered with a vengeance.

Which we couldn't easily predict in TOS yet. Both the Romulans and the Klingons were introduced rather abruptly, by announcing that they had always been enemies even though they had never before been mentioned. The Romulan animosity was given a historical framework immediately; the Klingon one was explained in bits and pieces, the first oblique historical hints coming in "Trouble with Tribbles" and the remarks on the battle of Donatu V. Yet in the end, Klingons became the main enemy, and Romulans actually disappeared from our view for almost a century - and even from the view of our heroes for half an offscreen century!

It's quite possible to see the situation as highly asymmetric, and the Romulans as the essentially harmless if fierce two-bit aggressors of the mid-22nd century; the forgotten has-beens of the mid-23rd; and finally, in TNG, as the new galactic power carefully fermented with an additional century of hatred and industrial-military espionage and development. The Feds would always be the big dog that barely notices the little runt nibbling at its ankles - but at some point would learn that its tender parts were at the mercy of the runt that had learned to stalk and jump...

It is also possible that Starfleet in Kirk's era viewed the war with detached disdain, because it was fought by another Starfleet entirely. Would the early US (Continental) Navy be proud of Lord Nelson, who fought in wars that were important to the formation of the United States but essentially represented a despised foreign power and indeed an enemy nation afterwards? The modern USN recognizes its RN roots even if it delights in the fact that there is more to the USN than those roots; it also has left behind the idea of the Great Britain as a backward nation with antiquated and sometimes appalling ideas. Yet Kirk's Starfleet might still consider Archer's Starfleet barbaric, and the history of the Federation might in fact feature a twist or two mirroring the UK/US history, so that to Kirk the old United Earth would be as distasteful as George III's England was to Decatur. To hell with old UESF wars, then. Required reading at the Academy, perhaps, but something even a "stack of books with legs" would only cursorily go through...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Warped9]

There's nothing vague about the intent of the exchange between Spock and McCoy in "Space Seed" and nothing vague in "Balance Of Terror." And there were issues with the Chronology long before this discussion came along.

 

[Timo]

There's nothing vague about the intent of the exchange between Spock and McCoy in "Space Seed"

Indeed. For this rare once, it's pretty much clear that our heroes are saying things that are incorrect, and being corrected for it. The entire teaser for "Space Seed" is built of exchanges like this, with every character in turn saying "it certainly can't be X" and being told immediately afterwards that it indeed is X; with Kirk and Spock one-upping on their DY knowledge; Spock and McCoy bickering about Earth history; and eventually even Kirk being corrected on the spelling of McGivers' name!

and nothing vague in "Balance Of Terror."

Which must be why even Mike Okuda decided that "a century ago" in this one episode doesn't mean 36500 days ago sharp...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[blssdwlf]

My question is why was Spock extremely vague?

Two main possibilities, both plausible:

1) He didn't know shit. In "Space Seed", he mistakes the 1990s conflict for "the last World War" and McCoy has to correct him with "the Eugenics War". Nowhere else does he appear well versed in Earth history, either; the most he ever correctly comments on is music by Brahms, which isn't exactly history.

2) He wasn't told to be nonvague. Being brief was more important, considering that they were headed for a battle they had not expected.

On #1, McCoy only added more information. Spock called it the "last of your so called World War" while McCoy detailed it as the "Eugenics War". It isn't that much different from Bob saying "The first of your world wars" and Smith adding, "The Great War".

Option 3) TOS takes place in a different universe/continuity from TNG/ENT/later productions. Trying to reconcile them both only forces one to take a side in deciding which characters were correct in their dialogue. It can be troublesome within one series, but expand it to a different production crew that makes a series decades later and trying to keep it straight? We might as well call TOS Golden Age Star Trek followed by TNG Silver Age Star Trek

 

[Timo]

On #1, McCoy only added more information. Spock called it the "last of your so called World War" while McCoy detailed it as the "Eugenics War". It isn't that much different from Bob saying "The first of your world wars" and Smith adding, "The Great War".

We really don't know that. Given the history between those two, and Spock's lack of knowledge on Earth history, it's just as possible that Spock was wrong and McCoy was right. Or that both were right, but McCoy was more so: only in certain special cases would "WWIII" be applicable as the name of the 1990s conflict.

Say, Spock might be saying that "the Vietnam War" began in 1940, while this name is usually only applied on that part of the conflict that involved the Americans and not on the Japanese or French fighting, and thus would begin in 1955 or perhaps as late as 1962. Wars in general tend to be protracted and fuzzy affairs, all the more so if they are associated with a people or a nation or other geographic location ("Romulan War", "Vietnam War", "Indian War") rather than with a specific person or event ("War of Jenkins' Ear", "Cod War", "Jom Kippur War")...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Saquist]

I guess I've just been raised wrong, so bear with me when I try to find out if we actually disagree.

In my native language, there are two separate reflective pronouns that serve the "which" function. One refers solely to a single element of the preceding construct: "Andy kicked a dog, which1 (the dog) made Cathy cry." The other refers to the preceding phrase as a whole: "Andy kicked a dog, which2 (the act of kicking) made Cathy cry." In English, which1 approximates "that" and which2 approximates "which", but "which" can take on some tasks of which1 in some cases.

1-"Andy kicked a dog, which1 (the dog) made Cathy cry."
2-"Andy kicked a dog, which2 (the act of kicking) made Cathy cry."

This would be confusing in American English. They aren't wrong though. It also gets into restrictive and non restrictive clauses which apparently has no particular rules in regards to that and which according to some. It's also the proper use of commas.

More Clearly:
1-Andy kicked the dog which made Cathy cry.
This makes the clause clearly restrictive to "the dog making her cry" and not resultant of the kick itself.

Alternatively placing a comma which interupts the thought...

2-Andy kicked a dog, which made Cathy cry.
This is the difference between a complete sentence in 1, and now placing a comma between dog and which thus making a conjunction in 2. This sentence shows Cathy crying as a result of Andy kicking the dog.It's about pauses...

Notice too: In order to make the sentence a restrictive clause I had to remove the indefinite article "a" and replace it with the definite article of "the" to express the thought which isolates the dog as the source of Cathy's woes.

So if the war was fought with crappy ships, then the act of fighting is as important a part of the subject for the second part of the phrase as the ships or the nature of the ships, right? The war isn't the subject, technically speaking; but the act of fighting the war is.

I have to amend my previous statement.
The original subject/predicate is, You recall. That means through a series of comas these thoughts are all conjoined as a parenthetical or as compound sentences.

(So we can choose to believe that the ban on quarter and prisoners stemmed from the act of fighting a war in primitive ships, or that the ban stemmed directly from the fact that the ships were primitive.)

Which brings us to the point of agreement:

I gotcha.

Thus, "primitive ships" are incapable of showing mercy

although I realize you meant the exact opposite with that.

LOL, uh, no.
OH, the vagaries of preception....
How can I say this? I'm referring back to the quality of human emotion that primitives ships aren't capable of displaying. I don't believe Spock is choosing to personify the ship as being human like. I don't believe he's being metaphorical.

That is, I believe Spock clearly said that primitive ships are incapable of showing mercy. You seem to believe that since it is logically impossible for ships to show mercy, Spock must have been saying something else, even though grammatically he appears to be saying that primitive ships (or the fact of fighting with those) makes mercy impossible. Right?

It's all contingent on whether you believe no quarter is mercy or boarding. I've isolated mercy away from a possibility because this is not a simile but a history lesson on the nature the technology of those ships.

The only problem that I have with your interpretation is
how can technology of the ship not allow for surrender, that being the captive portion. It has to be applied in the same way as mercy.

It's all very confusing at this point.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

We could speculate endlessly...

I've got news for you, dudes: you passed "endlessly" a long time ago.

SPOCK [OC]: As you may recall from your histories, this conflict was fought,
SPOCK [OC]: By our standards today, with primitive atomic weapons and in primitive space vessels
SPOCK: Which allowed no quarter, no captives. Nor was there even ship-to-ship visual communication. Therefore, no human, Romulan, or ally has ever seen the other. Earth believes the Romulans to be warlike, cruel, treacherous, and only the Romulans know what they think of Earth. The treaty, set by sub-space radio, established this Neutral Zone, entry into which by either side, would constitute an act of war. The treaty has been unbroken since that time. Captain.

Looking at the entire passage quoted above, which is about a war and a warlike race, Spock isn't just talking about primitive conditions; he's explaining how badass and secretive these Romulans are believed to be.

Since Spock's speech is about the military, his use of a military term ("no quarter") makes sense. The idea that the Romulans would allow no mercy in time of war fits in with this fearsome picture of Romulans far better (for me) than the idea that this monstrous warlike race took no captives because, aw shoot, it was too inconvenient to make room on board for the legions of enemies they would vanquish in time of war.

Consider also that it can be problematic to assume that the writers unfailingly wrote in perfect English, or that the actors always delivered their dialogue perfectly, or that words were always intended to be deciphered literally, or that overall context was irrelevant to the interpretation of dialogue.

 

[Warped9]

On #1, McCoy only added more information. Spock called it the "last of your so called World War" while McCoy detailed it as the "Eugenics War". It isn't that much different from Bob saying "The first of your world wars" and Smith adding, "The Great War".

That's pretty damned clear.

 

[Saquist]

We could speculate endlessly...

I've got news for you, dudes: you passed "endlessly" a long time ago.

SPOCK [OC]: As you may recall from your histories, this conflict was fought,
SPOCK [OC]: By our standards today, with primitive atomic weapons and in primitive space vessels
SPOCK: Which allowed no quarter, no captives. Nor was there even ship-to-ship visual communication. Therefore, no human, Romulan, or ally has ever seen the other. Earth believes the Romulans to be warlike, cruel, treacherous, and only the Romulans know what they think of Earth. The treaty, set by sub-space radio, established this Neutral Zone, entry into which by either side, would constitute an act of war. The treaty has been unbroken since that time. Captain.

Looking at the entire passage quoted above, which is about a war and a warlike race, Spock isn't just talking about primitive conditions; he's explaining how badass and secretive these Romulans are believed to be.

Since Spock's speech is about the military, his use of a military term ("no quarter") makes sense. The idea that the Romulans would allow no mercy in time of war fits in with this fearsome picture of Romulans far better (for me) than the idea that this monstrous warlike race took no captives because, aw shoot, it was too inconvenient to make room on board for the legions of enemies they would vanquish in time of war.

In order to conclude mercy was meant "by no quarter" we need combatants. Spock can't possibly mean Star Fleet was going to give no quarter. We would have to assume it's both sides in the conflict because he doesn't name the Romulans specifically in the subject either.

Spock starts with a statement on tech and then by Starting a whole thought...moves into the issues of qualities of human and romulan nature. This would have been the time to mention "no mercy" among cruel and treacherous.

Consider also that it can be problematic to assume that the writers unfailingly wrote in perfect English, or that the actors always delivered their dialogue perfectly, or that words were always intended to be deciphered literally, or that overall context was irrelevant to the interpretation of dialogue.

Writing in less modern times was more standardize and more trustworthy. Was it perfect, of course not. But I'm not going to assume an error before one is found. That wouldn't be reasonable. I know of no teacher or professor that would grade work in such a way.

 

[blssdwlf]

Some more thoughts about Spock's description:

It is entirely possible that the types of space battles in that conflict "allowed no quarter, no captives" because Spock pointed to the technology of that day.

Even if Earth or her allies wanted to grant mercy or try to take captives, the TOS-style nukes as portrayed in the series will not allow that (paralleling the 1960's vision of nuclear combat). And if they got lucky and disabled a Romulan ship we know they most likely will nuke themselves to prevent capture. And based on how the Romulan ship attacked the outposts, they didn't leave any survivors and seemed only interested in making sure their target was very, very destroyed. Even when they saw the Enterprise "crippled" the Romulans made no attempt to try and capture her but rather went in for the killing blow.

"No quarter, no captives" seems to be a fairly good description for the type of fighting they were in for, IMHO.

SPOCK [OC]: As you may recall from your histories, this conflict was fought,
SPOCK [OC]: By our standards today, with primitive atomic weapons and in primitive space vessels
SPOCK: Which allowed no quarter, no captives. Nor was there even ship-to-ship visual communication. Therefore, no human, Romulan, or ally has ever seen the other. Earth believes the Romulans to be warlike, cruel, treacherous, and only the Romulans know what they think of Earth. The treaty, set by sub-space radio, established this Neutral Zone, entry into which by either side, would constitute an act of war. The treaty has been unbroken since that time. Captain.

 

[Timo]

The only problem that I have with your interpretation is
how can technology of the ship not allow for surrender, that being the captive portion. It has to be applied in the same way as mercy.

I feel the two aspects are in fact pretty similar, essentially two ways of saying the same thing. Taking captives is showing mercy (as opposed to the alternatives). Some technical limitation meant the ships had to shoot to kill, which prevented the showing of mercy through the taking of captives - a situation akin to submarine warfare in the latter parts of both the World Wars.

Granted that there's that titillating connection between quarter-as-accommodation and the keeping of captives. But as said before, keeping of captives is trivial. Taking of captives is the likelier interpretation of the simple "captives" in Spock's statement, as it would be nontrivial in best of conditions and might be hampered by the primitiveness of available means.

Spock starts with a statement on tech and then by Starting a whole thought...moves into the issues of qualities of human and romulan nature. This would have been the time to mention "no mercy" among cruel and treacherous.

Which is why it sounds natural to assume that the "No mercy" thing was due to technical limitations (because it was mentioned in that context), and lamentably applied to the good guys as well as the opposition. Mercy would have been shown had it been "allowed". But technology "disallowed" it.

"No quarter, no captives" seems to be a fairly good description for the type of fighting they were in for, IMHO.

And the only reason I have even slight reservations about that interpretation is because ENT has later shown that the type of fighting in the mid-22nd century wasn't particularly merciless as such. They did have stun guns, they did have ship-to-ship weapons that could disable rather than destroy, they did have transporters for capturing resisting victims.

But as argued, all that could change with a few technological changes. In DS9, Romulans are the guys attributed with the first onscreen "anti-transporter weapons", the remat scramblers that gruesomely kill the transportee at rematerialization. Certainly such a device would mercilessly end the use of transporters for taking prisoners! But only if the side under threat of capture were willing to counter the threat by committing grisly suicide - again right down the Romulan alley, but not something the later enemies would practice, thus explaining why Kirk can again take captives with some ease.

Then there's the issue of cloaking, making it risky to linger on battlefields with shields down. And it's not difficult to come up with further scifi concepts that would be all the rage in the 22nd century but would be forgotten or negated later on. Romulans being Romulans is a good umbrella argument for having them (and only them) use various tricks and technologies that take mercy out of the equation.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[F. King Daniel]

You guys all realize that if we applied this level of anal to TOS's internal continuity the whole thing would collapse into James R. Kirk's open grave, right? Retcons are not a crime, and there is no hidden depth or secret pattern to what Spock said in "Balance of Terror" which makes it fit perfectly with Enterprise.

With that said, carry on...