Do you think a lot of the civilians on board Enterprise requested to leave?

[somebuddyX]

I think the big issue with civilians and kids on starships is it makes more sense if the ship was doing a big deep space exploration for years and years out on the frontier and might not return for ages. If in the distant future NASA and the Airforce have been sending out colony missions to planets for a hundred years and then decide they're going to try one with families, I could see this happening. The Enterprise is out there all alone but is ready to defend itself. But I'm not really onboard with the ship being sent into warzones or other dangers that the head office knows ahead of time they might get everyone killed.

 

[Farscape One]

The USS Yamato would like to speak to you.

That was one instance where the captain was being an idiot. Riker suggested, and quite correctly I might add, to offload all civilians to the Enterprise, but Varley said it was premature. Then the Yamato blew up a couple minutes later. Had Captain Varley agreed to it, but the destruction happened as shown, then I would at least give him credit for getting that preparation underway, even though it may not have saved anyone simply due to time.

Honestly, I don't like the idea of children on starships. That is simply too dangerous a place for them. An alien attack, a random anomaly, a space organism... hell, the ship itself.

 

[Timo]

Then again, the starship can defend herself against those dangers. Other kindergartens can't.

Indeed, planets come under attack just about as often as starships - and it then falls upon those starships to do the defending. If the Giant Space Hamster is gobbling up kids, then those aboard a starship at least have combat shields between themselves and those sharp, mile-long teeth of pure antiplausibilitium.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Farscape One]

And if their shields, weapons, and engines fail, where can they go? Escape pods and shuttles are even more vulnerable.

At least on a planet, there are options to run and hide until help arrives. Tunnels, caves... underwater even.

I think possibly the best alternative is a starbase. They are usually big, have a lot more defenses than a ship or planet, and more often than not have their own ships in dock. Even better if the starbase is orbiting a planet, like the one in TNG's "11001001".

 

[DonIago]

I think it ultimately depends on how often the kids are likely to see their parents if they're off-loaded.

 

[Makarov]

I like the idea having the families there is part of their evolved sensibilities

 

[JirinPanthosa]

As Wil Wheaton put it in all the commercials when TNG was syndicated in the year 2000 on Boston’s Hub 66.

“We could be attacked by the four assed monkey people, and it’s okay for us.”

The premise of TNG is the idea of not being afraid of the death you might face exploring the unknown.

 

[at Quark's]

Hmmm … now I'm stuck with this scene in my head of 12 admirals who reached the decision to make the exploration flagship host entire families some time before the start of TNG. 11 admirals are very much like "what could possibly go wrong?" and 1 admiral is the voice of reason, how most Enterprises were destroyed before their time, unknown dangers in uncharted territory, yadda yadda, but of course he gets outvoted since 24th century technology is so advanced these horror stories surely are a thing of the past. Must have played out very similar to that Quorum of 12 scene in the original Battlestar Galactica movie

 

[Sareesataka]

Maybe the best time for civilians to request to leave the ship would have been just before the battle at Wolf 359.
Not sure why they wouldn't off-load all the families before going into a battle with the Borg? 39 ships lost. How many civilian casualties?

 

[Crazyewok]

The entire concept is bizzare.

Putting civilians on MILITARY ships is akin to using human shields.

 

[Nakita Akita]

I wouldn't let my kid on a starship. That's just bad parenting right there.

Yep, send them to live with relatives or send them to boarding school.

 

[Herbert]

I wouldn't let my kid on a starship. That's just bad parenting right there.

So Worf was a good father after all

 

[Sir Stewart Wallace]

So Worf was a good father after all

Yeah he was.

 

[Tenacity]

Putting civilians on MILITARY ships is akin to ....

... putting your children on one of those planets where every last person is killed.

 

[Marc]

... putting your children on one of those planets where every last person is killed.

What was the body count after the Borg went through in the Destiny Trilogy? Into the 10s of billions with dozens of planets laid waste?

 

[Crazyewok]

... putting your children on one of those planets where every last person is killed.

But they are not military vessels.

That's like saying, let's put children and families on aircraft carriers as they could get bombed at home.


And don't give me any nonsense about starfleet not being military.

 

[DonIago]

I still don't think you can realistically expect parents to off-load their kids before going on missions lasting months if not years, and I don't see how it's good for the kids to not see their parents for that length of time.

 

[Crazyewok]

I still don't think you can realistically expect parents to off-load their kids before going on missions lasting months if not years, and I don't see how it's good for the kids to not see their parents for that length of time.

Military today do it all the time.

Putting kids at risk or destruction, assimilation or worse is not good for them either.

 

[Makarov]

They're meant to be doing diplomatic missions, transporting and hauling civilians around so there'd be civilians on board anyway

 

[Sir Stewart Wallace]

The whole "planets are dangerous too" argument doesn't hold water unless you decided to buy land from Kodos the Executioner right after you had a kid. Life is dangerous and risky. But courting risk by traveling on a starship into potentially unknown territory is essentially child endangerment.