When Kirk asks the admiral for permission to go to the genesis planet in TSFS, the admiral says "your my best officer, Jim...but..." Realistically, instead of praising Kirk, do you think the execs at Starfleet might have punished him for getting a lot of inexperienced trainees killed by not raising shields when he encountered the Reliant? Obviously for the purposes of the movies, this wouldn't happen, but do you think realistically it could've damaged Kirk's career?
Could Kirk have been punished for not raising shields in TWOK?
- Thread starter Captain Worf
- Start date
I doubt it. Regardless of the regulation Saavik started to cite, I doubt there have been many Starfleet captains who would consider a need to raise shields when being approached by another Starfleet vessel.
At first I was thinking why raise shields when you're greeting a fellow Starfleet vessel? But I think the protocol should be that until verbal or visual communication is established shields should go up.
You never know when you might run into the very situation they did run into...a starfleet vessel that has been taken over.
You never know when you might run into the very situation they did run into...a starfleet vessel that has been taken over.
Starfleet vessels get taken over by madmen often enough that they have protocols for dealing with the situation.
Considering it doesn't do any harm or put the other ship in any danger to raise shields, it was pretty stupid not to put shields up as soon as an opening hail was ignored. I'd be surprised if that wasn't protocol, even for apparently 'friendly' vessels. It's not like he'd be asked to fire on them, just put his shields up perhaps unnecessarily.
In Kirk's defense, generally speaking, raising shields is seen as an aggressive act, so there are potential negatives. I vaguely remember a couple of situations when Kirk purposely didn't raise the shields because he didn't want it to be mistaken for an aggressive action. I wish I could remember exact episodes...
In any case, I'm sure Kirk feels bad about not having raised the shields immediately. But, hindsight is hell, and in all my memory I can't think of a time when Kirk has said "raise shields" when approaching a likely friendly, or even a neutral or unknown, ship. It may be a situation where starfleet command thinks it's better to show openness and risk attack than to show distrust and risk losing the opportunity for contact with another ship. After all, their mission is to explore.
Should starfleet command insert a regulation that says that you must raise shields whenever you encounter another starfleet vessel? I guess it would be useful in situations like this. But I'm skeptical that such a regulation was in place.
In any case, I'm sure Kirk feels bad about not having raised the shields immediately. But, hindsight is hell, and in all my memory I can't think of a time when Kirk has said "raise shields" when approaching a likely friendly, or even a neutral or unknown, ship. It may be a situation where starfleet command thinks it's better to show openness and risk attack than to show distrust and risk losing the opportunity for contact with another ship. After all, their mission is to explore.
Should starfleet command insert a regulation that says that you must raise shields whenever you encounter another starfleet vessel? I guess it would be useful in situations like this. But I'm skeptical that such a regulation was in place.
there's pretty much no good in-story explanation for Kirk's refusal to raise shields. Think about it: as others have pointed out, THERE'S NO DOWNSIDE TO RAISING SHIELDS.
If the other ship was hijacked, then you're protecting your ship. And if it HADN'T, all that'll happen is the ship's regular captain will either think you're a little paranoid or more likely think that you take wise precautions. No real consequence either way.
But, TWOK needed to raise the stakes and the drama, so they make Kirk look like an incompetent buffoon for not making the call that any first-year cadet would.
If the other ship was hijacked, then you're protecting your ship. And if it HADN'T, all that'll happen is the ship's regular captain will either think you're a little paranoid or more likely think that you take wise precautions. No real consequence either way.
But, TWOK needed to raise the stakes and the drama, so they make Kirk look like an incompetent buffoon for not making the call that any first-year cadet would.
I'm just saying, it would be one thing if they always raised their shields, and in some crazy out-of-character moment Kirk didn't. It seems to me that it's more normal for them not to raise shields, even when they are in potential danger.
Yes, he should have raised shields, but the question is whether he would be punished, and I'm guessing that though some regulations might change because of this incident, that you can't court martial someone for not following regulations that aren't in place.
Yes, he should have raised shields, but the question is whether he would be punished, and I'm guessing that though some regulations might change because of this incident, that you can't court martial someone for not following regulations that aren't in place.
Saavik did start to quote a regulation stating that shields are to be raised when communications have not been established with an approaching vessel, but Spock cut her off. By the very letter of the regulation, I'm sure Kirk could have been punished but, as I said in my first post, I doubt he would have been because I imagine that most Starfleet Captains would've done the same in his situation with another approaching Starfleet ship.
Better safe than sorry.
Maybe it drains power like crazy?
Actually, he was. His first officer was killed, his ship destroyed, a deadly device was detonated, his son murdered, an inquiry was held, some charges were dropped because he saved the universe, and he was ultimately demoted.
All because Kirk assumed a Starfleet vessel was being commanded by Starfleet officers. That all happened before anyone got around to lodging an official complaint about him "being caught with his britches down".
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
Why not keep the shields up 24/7 then? You never know when you'll be ambushed by someone using a cloaking device.
"The dilithium crystals canna take it, Cap'n."
Why don't passengers on cruise ships wear life vests 24 hours a day?
All in cases involving aliens who don't neccessarily understand Starfleet ways.
What do you think would have happened in Terrell was still in command of Reliant? he'd put in a report and have Kirk busted back down to ensign? A courtmartial?
As far as we know.
Yet we do know that starships virtually never raise shields. In a couple of TOS and early TNG episodes, there's an auto-raise function when the ship suddenly encounters unknowns - but when Kirk or Picard encounters an unknown let alone a known while having time to think about it, the shields stay down.
This is confirmed basically everywhere in Trek - from the very beginning ("The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before") to the most recent incarnations (part of STXI hinges on it being unheard of to raise shields "just in case").
So there probably are serious downsides to raising shields. Not just keeping them up for great lengths of time, mind you, but raising them at all.
Some possibilities have already been mentioned. Raising shields could create a "diplomatic incident", i.e. make the opponent fire at you in justified preemptive self-defense. Or it could block your sensors or communications devices, making you miss a vitally important piece of information. Or perhaps it would tell the enemy too much about you, giving him time to evaluate your defenses before acting? It's also possible that shields are more delicate than we think, and only give a limited number of raisings between overhauls...
In any case, Kirk did nothing unusual in ST2 regarding shields. Doesn't mean he couldn't be prosecuted on that, of course. But it would go against well-established Starfleet precedent for Kirk to act, and it would be a bit unfair to prosecute him for following the book. At the very least, the writers of the book ought to stand accused as well in that case.
Timo Saloniemi
wow, you're really reaching here. There's never been any indication that raising shields "blocks sensors" or prohibits any other similarly important system on the ship from functioning.
As for the potential for "diplomatic incidents," that might be true-IF THE SCENARIO IN QUESTION DIDN'T INVOLVE ANOTHER STARFLEET SHIP.
This wasn't a first contact situation with an alien race. If it had turned out to be Captain Terrell still in charge of the Reliant, he would've understood Kirk's response to be due to the failure on the Reliant's part to establish communications.
As Saavik was pointing out, Kirk would've been acting properly and within regulations to raise shields, so there would've been no leg for Terrell to stand on had he been mildly insulted that Kirk had raised shields.
Posters are just rationalizing here. Realistically, a good and experienced captain like James Kirk WOULD have raised shields in that scenario in the movie. But the STORY needs Kirk to "get caught with his britches down" so he can learn a lesson, and it needs the Enterprise to be heavily damaged by Khan's attack. So character motivations and consistency take a back seat to story needs. Happens all the time in fiction.
Similar threads
