Civilians at Wolf 359

I'm sure this has been asked before in the past, so let me offer up a preemptive apology. I checked the FAQ and did not see anything though.

I just have one simple question.

Why were there civilians on the Saratoga at Wolf 359?

 

At the beginning of TNG, Picard indicated that the policy to have families aboard ship was a new one, and one he was uncomfortable with. Assuming this policy began to be applied to other ships in the fleet, it's not a stretch to think the Saratoga weuld have families by that point. What surprises me is that the policy would be applied on a ship that small; how does it have enough space for the extra facilities necessary for families (schooling, extra recreation, extra medical)?

 

Well if she were like the Lantree, she could run with an operational crew of about 24. Most starfleet spouses seem to be experts in their own right. I wouldn't be surprised if they took it in turn to tutor - it works for homeschooling now.

Or they could just study in front of a companel - Scotland runs lessons like that for students in remote locations. They take part in a virtual class. So I don't think size is a problem for having families.

Why they didn't put them on a shuttle and send them off in the other direction is a bit harder to answer. I can't see them not being able to spare that much - they must have had evacuation space for them in normal circumstances so it wouldn't weaken the ability to evacuate at a later date.

 

Huntingdon, I'll definitely agree with your last point. I mean, if they had the shuttles to evacuate the ship AFTER fighting the Borg, then it seems logical they had them BEFORE, as well...

 

Starfleet obviously thought that 40 ships would have been enough. They may have succeeded too had Picard not been assimilated. By assimilating him, they gained knowledge on how to defend themselves so they adapted. Starfleet didn't take that into consideration.

 

I never liked the idea of families on Starfleet ships. I like to think that events like the massacre at WOlf 359 helped Starfleet rethink that ridiculous policy.

 

^ I really don't think that the policy changed at all - even though I also agree it should have changed.

Evidence supporting: During DS9 we often saw Civilians boarding Federation starships.

The Odyssey had to hold off on departure from DS9 to search for Sisko because it was offloading its civilian personnel.

You could argue Voyager suggested that civilians were no longer permitted, but it was going on a short term mission when it went to find the Maquis. Enterprise-E could have a similar argument, but we have never been specifically said there weren't civilians aboard Enterprise.

 

Or, rather, that being aboard a ship with families was a new and uncomfortable experience to Picard.

Considering that he had spent the majority of his career aboard an old tub exploring the far fringes, it might well be that he had avoided the sight of children even if those had been aboard Starfleet vessels since August 21st, 2189.

FWIW, Chris Pike's ship already had people in civvies wandering the corridors and seemingly not recognizing their Captain by sight. Whether or not there are family members, or civilian specialists, or perhaps Marine batallions aboard a starship might depend more on the specific mission of that ship than on her exact type or on the timeframe of the adventure. Of course, the E-D and the Stargazer were very different types of ship, too, not merely on different missions...

Timo Saloniemi

 

Doesn't Jennifer Sisko count as a civilian at Wolf 359?

 

Yes, although the novelization of the episode says she is a Starfleet lieutenant.

 

Jake is certainly a civilian.

It's one thing for starships to have families on board, even tiny little Miranda class ships. However, wouldn't it have been prudent to evacuate them before heading off into battle against a deadly foe like the Borg?

 

That doesn't really fit with what Admiral Hansen's says over the comlink, which is I think after Picard's capture, when he says (paraphrase) they're pulling togetehr everythign they can get, that the Klingons are sending help but it may not get there in time, and they're even thinking of asking the Romulans for help. Doesn't seem to imply they were confidant of being able to hold off the Borg.

On the families, suirely the simplest solution is that it was an emergency scramble of ships, and there simply wasn't time to offload them - though even being dumped in deep space in a shuttle would seem a sensible option if the ships knew they were going into a possibly unwinnable situation, which the emergency scramble would imply.

 

For what?

Judging by the grim faces of the people aboard, nobody was buying into Admiral Hanson's morale-boosting hubris. If the fleet failed in stopping the Borg, Earth would be the least safe place in the universe for the families to be. Other UFP planets would be deathtraps of decreasing severity.

If their lot was to die, why not do it as a family? What could be gained by dying separately?

Of course, there is this whole general mentality of a separate military and civilian populance that may be an outdated concept in the Trek environment. When men of yore went to war, they took their families with them more often than not, until very recently. When bug-eyed monsters or merciless ridgeheaded humanoids descend on space colonists of future, there will be no "homefront" for the domestic partners to cower in while dedicated warriors do battle.

Just because Jennifer Sisko isn't in uniform doesn't mean she would be a civilian in the conventional sense. The frail Rishon Uxbridge took up arms in defense of her home in "Survivors"; countless meek scientists in Trek have brought their expertise to play on the battlefield. Mere roleplay no longer suffices for keeping the wives at home...

So what about cold logic? Should women be barred from fighting so that they can literally give birth to a postwar society? Tasha Yar would object. And as long as her objections are heard, there's no point in safeguarding Jennifer Sisko, either. Presumably protection of procreation resources no longer is decisive or even relevant in future warfare; it can hardly be argued to be that even today.

What about the children? Well, the calculus-studying preteens of the 24th century are supposed to care for themselves to begin with. Basically everybody except the O'Brien kids have single parents, and even those are off to work for most of the day. Solitary confinement is the standard treatment for the recently orphaned or otherwise distressed. These kids just grow up faster - sometimes quite literally so, just look at Molly or Alexander! Being traumatized by what they may see in battle or in deep space exploration is an expected part of their development, not something they might hope to avoid by staying away from their Starfleet dads or moms.

Timo Saloniemi

 

Timo, I don't agree with you at all. For one thing, where'd you get the idea that most kids in the Trek universe have single parents? That's ludicrous.

Actually, I was trying to compile a list, and I'm not sure I'm correct on some of the particulars, so I'm going to start a thread in General Trek to get additional input.

 

I don't mean most characters, I literally mean most kids - that is, characters who are underage during their Trek appearances. For TNG, we have Wesley, Alexander, Jeremy Aster, Clara Sutter, and each and every one of the kids in "When the Bough Breaks" (or did the other parent from each family have something better to do than attend Picard's briefing?). For DS9, we have both Jake and Nog, although the latter isn't particularly relevant to the argument. VOY's Naomi Wildman is as good as fatherless, and for all appearances is motherless as well (at times, it's difficult to tell whether Ma Wildman is still aboard or not).

Basically the only exception to that rule in TNG is Molly O'Brien; DS9 adds Kirayoshi O'Brien. And VOY inserts the Paris-Torres baby literally at the last moment.

Perhaps this is something endemic to "quarterdeck breed" only, but this suffices perfectly for my argument about kids aboard starships. That Picard had a wholesome childhood is not relevant because he wasn't aboard a starship. And of the other characters, only LaForge is ever established as having a "full" Starfleet family; Janeway has a father in Starfleet. All other heroes are basically presented as Starfleet virgins, often joining against family wishes like Picard and O'Brien did.

FWIW, the "Starfleet brat" LaForge also indicates in TNG "Interface" that he would only spend time with one parent at a time... Goes with the territory, I guess.

Timo Saloniemi

 

Timo, I think we might be arguing semantics here. If I remember correctly (and I may not), you said most kids in the 24th century have single parents. What I think you may mean is, most kids who have parents in Starfleet have single parents (and even that I'd contest with you). The majority of those single parentages come as the result of the death of a parent, not a parent leaving. Surely you would admit this is due to the increased danger inherent in Starfleet life? After all, if the same percentage of parents were killed in civilian life, I doubt the human race would thrive past the 24th century. With medical and technological advances, I would think the number of parent deaths in the civilian population would be practically nil.

Having said that, the glaring example of yours that still stands is Picard's briefing, which is a case I think in which practical TV production requirements overrode reality - that is, if there were really nine kids abducted (I think that was the correct number), that means somewhere between 9-17 parents (obviously missing Wesley's dad), which makes for a bona fide crowd scene, not an orderly briefing (not to mention paying more extras...).

 

I believe we agree on basically every aspect of this, really. My original claim was a pretty fuzzily formulated one: I meant that every kid we saw on screen had 0 to 1 biological parents, but for brevity said that "basically everybody except the O'Brien kids have single parents".

This is definitely to the most part due to 24th century Starfleet life being risky. However, my point was that the kids cope with it, and are expected to - it is the social norm in Starfleet, and the statistical basis on which the Fleet made its decision to allow/encourage families aboard starships. The E-D starts out with families of this sort, instead of being decimated during the course of a pathfinding, concept-testing mission.

The situation might indeed be drastically different for planetbound civilian kids. Yet Starfleet is an alluring career choice despite the known risks, again telling something about the 24th century psyche. Since the LaForges and Parises and perhaps the Sulus are the only "Starfleet families" of significance in the shows, it seems the magic doesn't last very long, though...

Timo Saloniemi

 

Agreed. Which brings up the question, if Starfleet life is so dangerous that such a high percentage of these kids have dead parents, why DOES it allow families to live onboard ships? I think somebody's earlier comment about the policy only applying to long-term exploration missions is certainly valid, but those ships would be exposed to the most risk (after all, it wasn't a starfleet diplomatic courier ship that ran into the Borg). To me, I think this is simply a flawed policy. I certainly hope our societies never get to the point where kids are supposed to just "get over" losing a parent.

 

Life in paradise might carry the consequence of encouraging risk-seeking. And not just for the individual: there could be a definite death wish on a deep cultural level, a desire to risk everything either by going to join Starfleet or by colonizing a faraway wilderness. The government would do everything in its power to encourage such foolhardiness, lest Earth stagnate and suffocate.

Sisko's Saratoga did not appear to be a long range explorer on a mission of extended duration - ships of that sort would not have been the ones to reach Wolf 359 first anyway. Probably the family would not be onboard a short-duration mission to keep the serviceman or -woman happy through societal prostitution. Rather, the family would be there because of a lifestyle choice of their own: the family member in uniform would be their ticket to the stars. It's a pretty natural urge, really: every kid would understand the difference in attractiveness between "My dad drives around in his police cruiser!" vs. "My dad takes me with him to shoot the bad guys!"... It just takes a different root attitude, one no longer oriented towards winning a survival struggle, but instead towards finding such a struggle somewhere, anywhere.

Timo Saloniemi