Destiny Why did they not... BEWARE Spoilers

[wew]

to be squashed by any means necessary.


5. No offense, but when you put on a military uniform you check your morals at the door. You know the whole "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Even in the best of situations you are going to do things that could haunt you for the rest of your life... not for the timid.

No offense, but you are dead wrong. When you put on a military uniform you do not check your morals at the door.

When I served it was driven home that there certain actions which would never be approved; and that if we violated them then we be held accountable.

So you think dropping a bomb on two hundred thousand civilians is morally right?

To answer your question: no.

Now my turn: you are in charge of a squad of 15 special forces personnel behind enemy lines preparing to lay a trap to ambush an enemy force; unfortunately a few young children between 5-12 year old children playing in the area accidently see you and your men. You know your ambush is blown and that your odds of having your entire squad killed is now about 95% because any outside help is at least several hours In your statement you say you check your morals at the door. Does that mean you now kill the children in order to save the lives of your squad? After all, if check your morals, that is what you would do.

 

[Nardpuncher]

Dammit guys....could we get back to talking about the Star Trek books?


I got nuthin'

 

[wew]

ah, but the question revolves around the issues of morality as depicted in the books, especially Picard's decision to use an illegal weapon, and a thesis has been argued that one should throw aways one's moral stance in face of potential extinction.

Also, if Picard attempted to use the weapon, what would keep the Caeliar from interfering, since they could then be held cupable at least from their standpoint of allowing harm to come from their actions.

 

[KRAD]

Man, this must be triple post day.

Didn't you get the memo?

 

[flandry84]

.When you're facing death is the perfect test of your moral strength;are you going to sell out your life's purpose to live another day?

What exactly does this mean?
Do you expect Picard to suddenly sprout a moustache that he can twirl?Will the fundamental character of the man suddenly evaporate?Picard,the moral compass of ST?
As for some sort of thalaron arms race....well,the galaxy has seen technological improvments before and survived.Remember that Archers ship could only manage warp 5,had no shields,no quantum torpedos etc.
To sort those problems are why politicians are paid so well.

 

[wew]

.When you're facing death is the perfect test of your moral strength;are you going to sell out your life's purpose to live another day?

What exactly does this mean?
Do you expect Picard to suddenly sprout a moustache that he can twirl?Will the fundamental character of the man suddenly evaporate?Picard,the moral compass of ST?
As for some sort of thalaron arms race....well,the galaxy has seen technological improvments before and survived.Remember that Archers ship could only manage warp 5,had no shields,no quantum torpedos etc.
To sort those problems are why politicians are paid so well.

The question has relavance. Picard himself notes in the text, if successful, the he loses his sould. In a sense, he's decided to build the thalaron radiation weapon, something he vehemently opposed in Nemesis, and now, facing potential death he sells his scruples/morals to live. And initially it appears that he is willing to live with, similar to Sisko's deals to get the Romulans into the war on the side of the Federation.

However, Geordi reminds him of his own values. How one faces death in is important, especially if it comes down to changing long held principles/morals to live another day.

In the book it notes; the Caeliar are willing to die, rather than violate the code of ethics; Picard has temporarily allowed himself violate his code of ethics. It isn't a matter of twirling a mustache; and yes, if use the weapon then the fundamental character of the man does change.

 

[flandry84]

Look,TBH I'm not going to go much farther with this debate...I simply cannot understand how anyone can argue that it is better to be ripped asunder by a Borg clone than fighting with all your heart and might.That puzzles me.

Btw when Jean-luc was moralising,did it cross his mind that he was probably condemning Earth and by extension the entire alpha quadrant to extermination?

 

[Sci]

If we set aside the question of the effectiveness of the thalaron weapon (I think the weapon would be ultimately useless) and the question of whether or not the thalaron weapon should be considered uniquely evil (I certainly don't see why it's considered to be any more evil than a photon torpedo, a small number of which can wipe out all life on a planet)....

Then the real question becomes, Do the ends justify the means?

And mind you, that's neither a simple question, nor one that only accepts a yes or a no.

Personally, my answer is, No, except in very, very rare and extraordinarily desperate circumstances such as are rarely seen in life, and only when there is a 51+% probability of achieving that end through the questionable means. The ends do not justify the means even in an exceptionally desperate situation if the ends are not likely to be achieved by the means in question.

 

[Silversmok3]

Look,TBH I'm not going to go much farther with this debate...I simply cannot understand how anyone can argue that it is better to be ripped asunder by a Borg clone than fighting with all your heart and might.That puzzles me.

Btw when Jean-luc was moralising,did it cross his mind that he was probably condemning Earth and by extension the entire alpha quadrant to extermination?

The Alpha quadrant was condemned to extinction regardless.

The Borg invasion was not a problem that could be solved with moral flexibility.

 

[Marie1]

Maybe this is OT... but... this conversation reminds me of the one from Hippocratic Oath- the moral duty of freeing the Jem'Hadar from enslavement vs the security risk of having Jem'Hadar free that could go on their own rampage and kill...

There is no easy answer, I don't think. There is a moral standard because some people have none. Its tricky in a military situation because sometimes for the sake of saving someone or a group, to have a victory, a commander must make a choice that violates his/er conscience. The Borg drones are all enslaved, but they are trying to enslave... but if people are willing to do just anything, kill anyone, go to any measure to save themselves... then you end up with a very dangerous surviving civilization. Still, since building the Tal. weapon would be to save not just the Federation, but the AQ, the BQ, and maybe even the GQ eventually (due to the wormhole too) then maybe the Romulans etc. would understand?

 

[flandry84]

What if Kirk had decided that Earth could not be saved from the huge menace that was V'ger or indeed the cetacean probe or indeed a dozen other threats?
You fight until you can't anymore.That is my philosophy ,one I think I share with Kirk.
And indeed if as some here argue the Borg are a force of nature,why is there a moral question about defeating them?
The idea that Picard will somehow release thalaron tech into an unsuspecting galaxy is wrong..the Romulans have it.And don't forget,the only world to ever be threatened with a thalaron weapon thus far is Earth.

 

[Silversmok3]

Maybe this is OT... but... this conversation reminds me of the one from Hippocratic Oath- the moral duty of freeing the Jem'Hadar from enslavement vs the security risk of having Jem'Hadar free that could go on their own rampage and kill...

There is no easy answer, I don't think. There is a moral standard because some people have none. Its tricky in a military situation because sometimes for the sake of saving someone or a group, to have a victory, a commander must make a choice that violates his/er conscience. The Borg drones are all enslaved, but they are trying to enslave... but if people are willing to do just anything, kill anyone, go to any measure to save themselves... then you end up with a very dangerous surviving civilization. Still, since building the Tal. weapon would be to save not just the Federation, but the AQ, the BQ, and maybe even the GQ eventually (due to the wormhole too) then maybe the Romulans etc. would understand?

They would,but then follows the thought;"If Starfleet thalaron-ed the Borg when they were a threat ,will they thalaron us too when it suits them?"

Enter paranoia,stage left.

 

[CaptainGold]

Great conversation, a few points.

1. Yes, it is great that because of the ideals of Starfleet, Hernandez transcended her abilities, survived, co-existed with a superior race in terms of their technology. Then she found a way to heal both the Borg and the decaying Caelier civilization, and make them a new culture again. Not only that, she won a debate within the superior race based on sound logical reasoning they could not refute. Bravo! The solution worked. And the idea of lost souls was brilliant. Great work by the author and his associates and editors.

As a Christian believer myself, I think it is a great solution. Redemption instead of punishment always works for me it works for God (that is what Christianity is at its core)! But, the Caelier are not deity, and unlike our POV as readers, Picard does not have the option of knowing that everything will be all right at the end. So, time travel and thalaron radiation have to be on the table to be tried.

2. Under the circumstances, the highest authority that Picard serves under sanctioned him multiple times to do whatever it takes to win, and save the Allies. Therefore, as I understand military law and ethics, Picard was morally justified to build and use the weapon. The effects of that decision would be taken by the the Federation president and heads of Starfleet Command, even if they would have to fall on their own swords as a result. When the best minds the Allies had said this is the best the best solution, they should have used it, or planned to use it. However, winning sides have ignored advice before.

3. Picard IMO, had a duty to work for solutions on multiple fronts, including all other ways to win this war, and in the main thread he was chided for not finding alternatives to the plan of Hernandez and Dax. If this was the best he had, well then, use it. the people who don't like the use of the radiation want it to be an either/or deal, and it can't be that. Picard should have (and did support Dax, and whatever Titan could come up with), and even make plans to try and scatter and escape the Borg if the Hernandez plan failed. Somebody on the command staffs in this little fleet had to or would be thinking about this-- after all "there are always possibilities," right?

4. With respect to those who are against the use of the Radiation weapon because it was illegal, please think about this probability. At least in the Romulan Empires, the moment they knew the Borg was coming in force that they could not stop conventionally, the radiation weapons would be put into use the moment they had them on ships. If Picard could make the weapon on a beat up starship, it is very logical to believe that anyone else with Federation tech or close to it would be using it, or close to using it. I mean, in this multicultural diverse word we live in, can we not accept the fact that races different than the Federation would make different decisions than the high ethics of the Federation?

5. I think the ethical bounds of Starfleet are great here, work for a solution within the rules. But if it is a war of total extermination, which has never really happened in human history, then making it to another day gives you another chance to win. Where they were at the Radiation weapon was the last chance (other than what happened) for there to be a tomorrow, then it is immoral not to try and take the chance. As long as there is tomorrow, there is hope, even if hope is Q.

6. The problems with using the weapon:
a. It may not work: So what? You are losing anyway, and if it doesn't work, you lose. If you don't use it you lose. Where is the down side to total destruction?
b. It is temporary: Yes, be it 100 years, or two months. But the tactical situation can always change, even the strategic one. Many things can happen in two months or 100 years, with thousands of derelict Borg vessels floating around full of intel. For example, the Borg come back in 20 years, and run into Federation staffed Borg cubes filled with borg tech and new Federation tech. Well, can brute force win? Yes. Even if no solution is found, then you have time to evacuate the Federation, Memory Alpha, and and other allied world to any and everywhere, at least there is a better chance the civilization of the Federation survives somewhere.
c. It's illegal: So? The Breen are going to attack the Federation because they used the weapon? Why? Or should they not fear it for a while? And who among the Allies, the Gorn, Tholians, etc, are going to look at the carnage, and make war because it was used. If they had to, the Federation President could stand trial for war crimes if another group didn't like the use of them. Bacco would sacrifice herself for the Federation if she had to.
d. Nobody more powerful will help if you do use it: Well, maybe, but at that point if the Caelier can't or won't help it doesn't matter, Picard is dead. If some kind of other ST demiurge would or wouldn't intervene they would make a decision based on other or no other things, regardless of what one guy did with some weapon.
e. "Better to die with your principles intact": That is in essence what the person who brought up the non-violent types (i.e. Amish) say, and in many cases, I can agree. It is worth giving up your life for a cause (especially when there is something after death worth having, like eternal life!). However, as the people responsible for Billions and Trillions of lives, the leader of a state or military force is not able or allowed to make those decisions for all involved. If you are a head-of-state you are required to protect religious people, atheists, pacifists, and militarists, and use the power of a state to do it. that is why you are head-of-state. Martin Luther had some interesting things to say about this, if you are interested in such things. Even in the Mirror Universe episode, the people at issue is one society, on one planet, of one heritage and philosophy/religion. The whole Federation 125 years later is not. And to apply "the specific to the general" in this case is a logical fallacy in the argument.

Well, I have more to say, but my post is too long as it is. Thanks for Christopher's involvement in the thread, to hear a writer's views on the subject is a great addition to it. And thanks to all for reading my stuff.

 

[CaptainGold]

..... They would,but then follows the thought;"If Starfleet thalaron-ed the Borg when they were a threat ,will they thalaron us too when it suits them?"

Ah, the Borg are killing quite well with out it, and if you are dead, does it matter how you get dead? Sort out the problems of tomorrow after you get to tomorrow, deal with the evil of today today.

 

[BillJ]

No offense, but you are dead wrong. When you put on a military uniform you do not check your morals at the door.

When I served it was driven home that there certain actions which would never be approved; and that if we violated them then we be held accountable.

So you think dropping a bomb on two hundred thousand civilians is morally right?

To answer your question: no.

Now my turn: you are in charge of a squad of 15 special forces personnel behind enemy lines preparing to lay a trap to ambush an enemy force; unfortunately a few young children between 5-12 year old children playing in the area accidently see you and your men. You know your ambush is blown and that your odds of having your entire squad killed is now about 95% because any outside help is at least several hours In your statement you say you check your morals at the door. Does that mean you now kill the children in order to save the lives of your squad? After all, if check your morals, that is what you would do.

And of course you leave out the central point of the whole thread. Are you the last line of defense to Doomsday? Borg were eight minutes from Earth.

Captain Gold, very good post, thanks for your insights... you got most of my points across far better than I could.

 

[Fireflywyo300]

No offense, but you are dead wrong. When you put on a military uniform you do not check your morals at the door.

When I served it was driven home that there certain actions which would never be approved; and that if we violated them then we be held accountable.

So you think dropping a bomb on two hundred thousand civilians is morally right?

To answer your question: no.

Now my turn: you are in charge of a squad of 15 special forces personnel behind enemy lines preparing to lay a trap to ambush an enemy force; unfortunately a few young children between 5-12 year old children playing in the area accidently see you and your men. You know your ambush is blown and that your odds of having your entire squad killed is now about 95% because any outside help is at least several hours In your statement you say you check your morals at the door. Does that mean you now kill the children in order to save the lives of your squad? After all, if check your morals, that is what you would do.

Wew: I agree with you on this point 100%. People forget that when you put on a uniform, a uniform that both protects and serves, you do it becasue you DO have morals. If you didn't have them to begin with, if you didn't have that conviction to protect the weak and the innocent, then you wouldn't even have the uniform on.

I can't speak to the military experience, but I do know, that protecting the innocent comes first.

Well said.

 

[Fireflywyo300]

Dammit guys....could we get back to talking about the Star Trek books?


I got nuthin'

We are talking about Trek books. Star Trek is based around examining the human condition and the situations we face which define our humanity. One way or another, this discussion is a great topic to examine.

 

[Silversmok3]

Dammit guys....could we get back to talking about the Star Trek books?


I got nuthin'

We are talking about Trek books. Star Trek is based around examining the human condition and the situations we face which define our humanity. One way or another, this discussion is a great topic to examine.

I recall the above being stated elsewhere as the reason Trek exists...

 

[wew]

Great conversation, a few points.



2. Under the circumstances, the highest authority that Picard serves under sanctioned him multiple times to do whatever it takes to win, and save the Allies. Therefore, as I understand military law and ethics, Picard was morally justified to build and use the weapon. The effects of that decision would be taken by the the Federation president and heads of Starfleet Command, even if they would have to fall on their own swords as a result. When the best minds the Allies had said this is the best the best solution, they should have used it, or planned to use it. However, winning sides have ignored advice before.

Captain Gold you make some great points, however in the quote above it should be noted their is a difference between legal and moral/ethical.

Legally, Picard, et.al. are shielded from legal reprecussions for what ever actions they take; using the weapon would be justified by UFP and Starfleet.

Morality or ethics plays on multiple levels; ones personal ethics/morals; societal ethics/moral, etc.

Individuals can engage in legal and ethical actions, but still face moral condemnation for their actions within certain communities. We see this in a variety of actions; the reference to individuals as "Uncle Tom's" because cross racial lines, police officers who inform against fellow officers, anti-war protesters, etc.

This is a matter which plays across societies today;and I'd argue if it Picard's thoughts on the matter had not come to the forefront; especially belief that success would cost him his soul - then Picard's initial action would be looked at differently. Geordi on the other hand has chosen his moral/ethical position and despite knowing the most likely consequences stands his ground. Geordi shows the strength of his character; knowing he and pretty much everyone else will die.

Now, whether someone else judges LaForge's actions differently is another factor. I could also see other people shunning or gunning for his willingness to see their lives extinguished for maintaining his moral position.

 

[Silversmok3]

Great conversation, a few points.



2. Under the circumstances, the highest authority that Picard serves under sanctioned him multiple times to do whatever it takes to win, and save the Allies. Therefore, as I understand military law and ethics, Picard was morally justified to build and use the weapon. The effects of that decision would be taken by the the Federation president and heads of Starfleet Command, even if they would have to fall on their own swords as a result. When the best minds the Allies had said this is the best the best solution, they should have used it, or planned to use it. However, winning sides have ignored advice before.

Captain Gold you make some great points, however in the quote above it should be noted their is a difference between legal and moral/ethical.

Legally, Picard, et.al. are shielded from legal reprecussions for what ever actions they take; using the weapon would be justified by UFP and Starfleet.

Morality or ethics plays on multiple levels; ones personal ethics/morals; societal ethics/moral, etc.

Individuals can engage in legal and ethical actions, but still face moral condemnation for their actions within certain communities. We see this in a variety of actions; the reference to individuals as "Uncle Tom's" because cross racial lines, police officers who inform against fellow officers, anti-war protesters, etc.

This is a matter which plays across societies today;and I'd argue if it Picard's thoughts on the matter had not come to the forefront; especially belief that success would cost him his soul - then Picard's initial action would be looked at differently. Geordi on the other hand has chosen his moral/ethical position and despite knowing the most likely consequences stands his ground. Geordi shows the strength of his character; knowing he and pretty much everyone else will die.

Now, whether someone else judges LaForge's actions differently is another factor. I could also see other people shunning or gunning for his willingness to see their lives extinguished for maintaining his moral position.

The Federation exists on the premise of ,in so many words,doing the right thing.

Picard personally almost lost his starship and hundreds of crew trying to stop a thalaron weapon being used.

Once he made the decision to use the weapon he sold his soul(and arguably spat on the sacrifices his crew made against Scinzon) for the 'possibility' of saving the day.At that time there was no assurance a Thalaeron weapon would work from Picard's standpoint,and as covered above the weapon would at best delay the inevitable.

We're forgetting an important detail;With Picard about to become a father,he's making knee jerk decisions meant to preserve his nascent family.

His wife and unborn son are on the Enterprise with him.Betting on a thaleron weapon seems a better deal than faith in an alien process:even more so with his family at stake.If the Caeliar plan failed or was rejected having the thaleron weapon allows Picard to rest easier knowing his family won't just die against a Borg assault-hell at least take a few Cubes down with him.

While morals-vs-survival is a strong theme in this novel,we must consider Picard's situation as well:he must trust the survival of his family to a bunch of aliens that may or may not solve anything.In that state I'd be ready to grasp straws too.

It's a classic situation of having faith in an unseen and unknown process(Hernandez proposing to the Caeliar),vs taking the quick and dirty out that makes a mess of things and doesn't fix everything (Thalaron weapon) .