I know this sounds like heresy, but does the Federation really need to be restored? While it was indeed a source of hope, it clearly couldn't adapt to how The Burn changed the galaxy. Instead of restoring or rebuilding it, why not build a new, better organization on its ashes. Maybe call it the Galactic Commonwealth, the Galactic Federal Commonwealth, et cetera.
Spoilers Does the _____ really need to be restored?
- Thread starter Ketrick
- Start date
Or just call it "The Federation"
Or just call it "The Federation"
That would be like calling the United Nations the League of Nations. What I'm talking about is creating a new organization that fixes the flaws of the Federation. At the very least, it should be called the New Federation or the Galactic Federation.
What makes you think the Federation would be exactly like it was pre-Burn if "restored"?
I'm not saying it would be. What I'm saying is if it's heavily restructured and changed it would no longer be the Federation. It would be something new and different. It would be a new successor entity like how the United Nations was for the League of Nations. Why call the new entity the appellation United Federation of Planets if its no longer a federation, but is something more centralized - something that would hold together better?
It wasn't given the chance.
Real or fictional, everyone expects governments to be perfect. The Federation wasn't so all-seeing and all-knowing as to be able to explain the Burn, so therefore they don't deserve to exist? Sorry, not buying it.
The Federation may have had flaws, but the solution is to FIX those flaws, not throw the baby out with the bathwater. You can fix the imperfections in an organization without destroying it.
That said, it would appear that, while severely dimished, there still is a Federation. It may have only a few member worlds, but (assuming Sahil's flag is genuine, which there's no reason not to) it's still there. So why not build on that? If the weakened Federation can be restored to its former glory, that - IMHO - sends a more hopeful message than just chucking it all in the bin and giving up.
Besides, let's be honest...the terms "Star Trek" and "Federation" will always be linked. Wherever there is Trek, there should be a Federation. To do otherwise would be like having L&O or Blue Bloods without using the term "NYPD".
Last edited:
We don't know how "centralized" the Federation was. That seem to fluctuate with the needs of the plot. This new Federation would theoretically be built around the still existing Federation we're scheduled to meet on Thursday. So it wouldn't be a from the ground up new build.
True, but the Federation was itself built upon the foundation the Coalition of Planets established. The Federation had a good run lasting 800 years or more. Why not let something better take its place in the post-Burn era?
It can be better by building on what's still there.
Last edited:
The name will not make it better.
You're right, it won't. What will make it better is changing its structure and fixing its flaws. The thing is, how much can an entity change and still retain its original nature? Would it not be more honest if this rebuilt Federation is so different and changed so much to give it a new name, a name which could contain Federation in it, but one that would fit its new evolved structure and nature?
A rose by any other name...
Why mess with what clearly works?
I mean, come on. "United Federation of Planets". You can't get much clearer than that. They're planets, they're united, and it's a federal system. What part of this progression is escaping us?
Why mess with what clearly works?
I mean, come on. "United Federation of Planets". You can't get much clearer than that. They're planets, they're united, and it's a federal system. What part of this progression is escaping us?
To fix the flaws of the Federation in the post-Burn era would probably require getting rid of the federal system. True, Federation has plenty of nostalgic value, but otherwise why continue calling it such if it's no longer an actual federation?
Which "flaws"? That's kind of a blank slate, isn't it?
What needs to be fundamentally changed though? What would be so different that it requires a name change when the
Federation is still in existence even without Earth.
No, they wouldn't.
Even if we knew what caused the Burn, there's no reason to condemn the Federation to death because of it. Maybe the damn Burn was just something NO ONE could anticipate or fix?
I mean, if we're looking for flaws, maybe they lie in those cowards who tucked tail and bolted from the Federation, rather than the actual government itself. An "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude is truly a flaw that must be fixed.
No, they wouldn't.
Even if we knew what caused the Burn, there's no reason to condemn the Federation to death because of it. Maybe the damn Burn was just something NO ONE could anticipate or fix?
I mean, if we're looking for flaws, maybe they lie in those cowards who tucked tail and bolted from the Federation, rather than the actual government itself. An "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude is truly a flaw that must be fixed.
You're making my point for me. The very fact that so many tucked tail and ran trying to go it alone shows that a stronger, more centralized organization is needed.
So, instead of working together out of mutual cooperation its via of threat punishment for leaving? 
Similar threads
