Clueless Admirals

[gakelly]

Ever notice that all the admirals in TNG are always complete idiots?
I was watching Redemption, and the admiral was just completely clueless. She claimed the outcome of the Klingon civil war was none of the Federations business. She seems clueless that the Romulans could be helping the Klingons. What kind of crappy intelligence does the Federation have if their admirals are always such dullards?

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

Ever notice that all the admirals in TNG are always complete idiots?
I was watching Redemption, and the admiral was just completely clueless. She claimed the outcome of the Klingon civil war was none of the Federations business. She seems clueless that the Romulans could be helping the Klingons. What kind of crappy intelligence does the Federation have if their admirals are always such dullards?

There have always been shows that depicted bosses as clueless and disconnected, but around the time when TNG was made, those kinds of shows were in abundance, and I think it's a manifestation of that attitude of being fed up with the man.

 

[Tenacity]

. She claimed the outcome of the Klingon civil war was none of the Federations business

As long as it was a completely internal matter it was none of the Starfleets business. The only thing Starfleet was required to do was keep it from spilling over the border into Federation territory.

Only after the Romulan connection was revealed could Starfleet abide by the treaty and assist the sitting Klingon government.

Admiral Alynna Nechayev was my favorite of all the TNG admirals, not crazy, not corrupt, not clueless.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Admirals in Star Trek perpetually take the narrative role of “We can’t close the beach!”

Such is their fate in fiction.

 

[Prax]

Admirals just have a bigger picture in mind. That's why they always come off as evil or incompetent, because we are thinking too small.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Yeah, and no way they can close the beach during tourist season.

 

[Mojochi]

Well, Pressman wasn't an idiot. He was too damn smart for his own damn good lol

 

[Tenacity]

Well, Pressman wasn't an idiot. He was too damn smart for his own damn good lol

That whole matter was a case of clueless politicians (not clueless admirals), agreeing that despite fact that the Federation's enemies had cloaking devices, the Federation would not develop one.

The Federation: "Our enemies can build all the aircraft carriers they want, we will ethically keep using battleships."

 

[Prax]

"... as is stated in the treaty of roddenbox"

 

[gakelly]

That whole matter was a case of clueless politicians (not clueless admirals), agreeing that despite fact that the Federation's enemies had cloaking devices, the Federation would not develop one.

The Federation: "Our enemies can build all the aircraft carriers they want, we will ethically keep using battleships."

The whole not developing cloaking technology is about as dumb as Data not being able to use contractions. Of course we are going to allow our enemies to develop tactically superior technology and we won't.

 

[MAGolding]

That whole matter was a case of clueless politicians (not clueless admirals), agreeing that despite fact that the Federation's enemies had cloaking devices, the Federation would not develop one.

The Federation: "Our enemies can build all the aircraft carriers they want, we will ethically keep using battleships."

You are ignoring the difference between potential enemies and enemies at the moment. If there is a treaty with a foreign power it is merely a potential enemy, not an enemy at the moment. Calling the Romulans enemies at a time when nobody has had contact with them for 50 years seems a bit silly. The difference between a potential enemy and an actual enemy is the difference between night and day.

in "Errand of Mercy":

KIRK: Even if you have some power that we don't understand, you have no right to dictate to our Federation
KOR: Or our Empire!
KIRK: How to handle their interstellar relations! We have the right
AYELBORNE: To wage war, Captain? To kill millions of innocent people? To destroy life on a planetary scale? Is that what you're defending?
KIRK: Well, no one wants war. But there are proper channels. People have a right to handle their own affairs. Eventually, we will have
AYELBORNE: Oh, eventually you will have peace, but only after millions of people have died. It is true that in the future, you and the Klingons will become fast friends. You will work together.
KOR: Never!

That is what space war with actual enemies, as compared to a state of peace with potential enemies, is like in Star Trek.

Note that the Klingons were allies of the Federation during THG, became enemies for a time in DS9, and became allies again in the Dominion War in DS9. The Romulans became allies during the Dominion War in DS9. Both the Klingons and the Romulans were potential enemies during TNG but became actual allies during the Dominion War in DS9.

...The Federation: "Our enemies can build all the aircraft carriers they want, we will ethically keep using battleships."

Remember that in space, aircraft carriers and carrier based fighters and bombers are useless, and space battleships reign supreme.

On Earth, submarines travel though the dense liquid medium of water, surface ships travel on the border between the dense liquid medium of water and the rarified gaseous medium of air, and airplanes travel in the thin gaseous medium of air.

Airplanes have much greater freedom of three dimensional movement than submarines and especially surface ships - though still much less than space ships. Because water offers far more resistance and drag than air, airplanes can travel much faster than surface ships even though they have much weaker engines.

But in outer space, small fighter craft have no tactical advantages and a number of tactical disadvantages. Space battleships are the weapons of choice in a space opera setting.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

The question of whether the Treaty Of Algernon was wise has no bearing on whether it’s smart for one admiral to go off on his own to break it.

Unless you retcon him to be hooked up with S31.

 

[Mojochi]

That whole matter was a case of clueless politicians (not clueless admirals), agreeing that despite fact that the Federation's enemies had cloaking devices, the Federation would not develop one.

The Federation: "Our enemies can build all the aircraft carriers they want, we will ethically keep using battleships."

Algeron isn't just about ethics though. It's about shrewd diplomacy... The chess game that they always play with Romulus. The UFP isn't actually at war with them. So to act in a manner that considers them an enemy, makes them one in response. It also makes the UFP the instigator in the arms race.

Romulans had cloaking tech. UFP did not. For them to pursue it thereafter makes them the provocateur. It's bad form, bad policy & bad faith to be on the chasing end of what is to be an arms race, & the UFP's whole existence relies upon it being benevolent. They can't afford to be seen as arms race aggressors. It undermines their whole point. They're not an empire. They operate a trust. Skulking around in shadow stands in enough opposition to that, that their allies lose faith, & bail. Y'all don't look so benevolent no more

By acting to balance or outdo someone's tactical advantages admits a state of aggression, & sometimes it's necessary, when the stakes are high enough, but we're only talking about stealth tech. It's not like it's nukes, like how the U.S & USSR arms race came to a head.

The only way to potentially nullify that kind of WMD tech advantage is to match it. Not so with stealth tech. They already use tachyon fields to find ways around it. Cloak detection is far greater an answer to cloaks than tit for tat cloaks, & far less diplomatic suicide. Besides, when you have good faith diplomatic channels open to you, like with Klingons for example, you can grab a cloak, if you really need to get a hold of one

The gain/loss ratio tips heavy to losses if you chase down that tech. So you can be invisible to a degree. You potentially lose allies. You're not as easy to trust. Who wants to get mixed up with a federation that's supposed to be peaceful, but is actively looking to match outsiders tactically?

The thing about stealth tech is that eventually people figure out you have it, & then they're wary of you, & not just one group of people, but everybody. You can't maintain a union of peoples that way, & that's exactly what the Romulans want to happen, for the UFP to fall apart getting dirty with them. Klingon alliances being weakened etc..,

 

[DonIago]

Which admirals are we actually speaking of here? The only one cited is the one in "Redemption", and I doubt she actually claimed that the outcome of the Klingon Civil War was none of the Federation's business. She does give Our Heroes permission to set up the tachyon grid, so she doesn't seem that clueless.

If there was a civil war in the United States, how would Americans feel about foreign powers getting directly involved in it? What would other countries think of such an occurrence?

There's of course no indication that any admirals seen in TNG had anything to do with the creation of the Treaty of Algernon, and as we know very little about the details of the treaty, it seems short-sighted to claim it put the Federation at a disadvantage.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Admirals are clueless because of the plot widget they fit into. There’s no narrative benefit in having the Captain call Starfleet Command and just be told “Good plan, do whatever you want!” It’s wasted screen time if there isn’t a conflict. Hell, all the times we don’t see them we can probably assume that’s how the conversation went.

The narrative function of admirals is the same of police commissioners, mayors, senators. To place limitations that force the protagonists to be more creative or defy the rules. To create a situation where the hero must take a brazen risk to prevent disaster. There is no point in putting the guy with authority over the hero on screen if he’s just on the same page.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Ever notice that all the admirals in TNG are always complete idiots?
I was watching Redemption, and the admiral was just completely clueless. She claimed the outcome of the Klingon civil war was none of the Federations business. She seems clueless that the Romulans could be helping the Klingons. What kind of crappy intelligence does the Federation have if their admirals are always such dullards?

The Klingon Civil War was presented as just that, an internal affair. Yes they are allies of the Federation, but that doesn't give them the right to interfere. Picard and the E-D crew only suspected external involvement, due to his role in choosing the next Chancellor, their personal involvement with Worf and his families history with the House of Duras, all of which was kept quiet by the crew for the good of the Empire, so Fleet Admiral Shanthi may not have been privy to those details. Given Romulan cloaking technology it would be difficult to track all ship movements, so they have no way of really knowing just where and what the Romulan fleet is doing. She is clearly savvy enough to know that something might be going on behind the scenes as she approves Picard's plan and gives him a fleet--not something she'd do on a whim, not without some information supplied from somewhere that might support what Picard believes.

Admiral Alynna Nechayev was my favorite of all the TNG admirals, not crazy, not corrupt, not clueless.

She was my favourite as well. A sharp, tough and unyielding leader, who wasn't going to take no crap from anyone.

The whole not developing cloaking technology is about as dumb as Data not being able to use contractions. Of course we are going to allow our enemies to develop tactically superior technology and we won't.

Maintaining peace through appeasement may not always be the best tactic (1930s Europe shows how badly it can go), but it did prevent war between the Federation and Romulans for decades. Even after they emerged from their second isolationist period, there were a few tense encounters but war between the two great powers never occurred, so sacrificing cloaking technology was worth it in the long run.

 

[Leviathan]

 

[J.T.B.]

The gain/loss ratio tips heavy to losses if you chase down that tech. So you can be invisible to a degree. You potentially lose allies. You're not as easy to trust. Who wants to get mixed up with a federation that's supposed to be peaceful, but is actively looking to match outsiders tactically?

The thing about stealth tech is that eventually people figure out you have it, & then they're wary of you, & not just one group of people, but everybody. You can't maintain a union of peoples that way, & that's exactly what the Romulans want to happen, for the UFP to fall apart getting dirty with them. Klingon alliances being weakened etc..,

Cloaking was a device (ha) to tell a submarine story in space, and I don't see why historical parallels to submarines would not be informative. In 1905 a British admiral called submarines underhanded and "un-English," but you can see how long that attitude lasted. The US protested German unrestricted submarine warfare (sneak attacks on merchant shipping) in 1915. After Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941, the first message that went out to US forces was "EXECUTE UNRESTRICTED AIR AND SUBMARINE WARFARE AGAINST JAPAN."

If you take a pass on developing new weapons tech and you get in a war, it's too late, the enemy can use that weapon against you but you can't use it against them. Your allies want you to develop that capability, because you can use it to help them. Nobody wants to be responsible for the decision that lost the war. That's why it's so rare for a nation to unilaterally back out of an arms race.

 

[Kor]

Ever notice that all the admirals in TNG are always complete idiots?
...

That's why they were booted up to the ivory tower of Starfleet HQ bureaucracy instead of being kept working at ground-level in the field.

Kor

 

[Mojochi]

Cloaking was a device (ha) to tell a submarine story in space, and I don't see why historical parallels to submarines would not be informative. In 1905 a British admiral called submarines underhanded and "un-English," but you can see how long that attitude lasted. The US protested German unrestricted submarine warfare (sneak attacks on merchant shipping) in 1915. After Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941, the first message that went out to US forces was "EXECUTE UNRESTRICTED AIR AND SUBMARINE WARFARE AGAINST JAPAN."

If you take a pass on developing new weapons tech and you get in a war, it's too late, the enemy can use that weapon against you but you can't use it against them. Your allies want you to develop that capability, because you can use it to help them. Nobody wants to be responsible for the decision that lost the war. That's why it's so rare for a nation to unilaterally back out of an arms race.

But the UFP isn't a nation or an empire, in this narrative. It's a collective, built on the cornerstone concept of peaceful relations. It would be like the UN trying to develop sneak attack weapons