Episode of the Week : The Enterprise Incident

[johnnybear]

Depending on which neutral zone they are crossing as well!
JB

 

[Keith1701]

A good, solid episode. 8

One of the BEST episode from Season 3!!!!

 

[Forbin]

The only nit I'll pick is that everyone speaks English.
Or did Kirk learn fluent Romulan before beaming over?

 

[Timo]

Kirk spoke fluent German in "Patterns of Force", apparently. Or then fluent Ekosian. Infiltration is always a breeze when you wear the Universal Translator.

And by "wear", I refer to the implantation of the wholly automated device, as Kirk was fluent in Miramaneesian despite his amnesia, too.

If the user himself can't spot he's getting interpreted on the fly, it's unlikely that people around him would notice, either.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Maurice]

The only nit I'll pick is that everyone speaks English.
Or did Kirk learn fluent Romulan before beaming over?

Respectfully, they always speak the local language no matter what planet they visit.

 

[Poltargyst]

You just handwave away any language differences with the Universal Translater. Otherwise, you have to spend the first twenty minutes of each episode watching them learn each other's languages, and nobody wants to see that every week.

 

[Timo]

The UT is a great excuse in most cases. In some, not so great. Going back to the Nazi Planet, Kirk being fluent in all local languages is easy to accept. But there are two distinct groups of natives there, and the distinction was quite a plot point. Would the repressed Zeonians be able to pass for Ekosians, accent-wise, when the slightest "racial characteristic" would no doubt be fanatically pointed out?

The UT can assuredly do the Salt Vampire thing, giving each and every UT-less person present the personal illusion of the conversation being in their native language (VOY "The 37s"). This shouldn't mean that the UT-less A and B can converse fluently with each other across a language barrier - and not even notice anything amiss with that.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Forbin]

Respectfully, they always speak the local language no matter what planet they visit.

Granted it's a conceit of the show in general, for the sake of convenience in storytelling.

As for the UT - the UT in TOS was a big hand-held flashlight-sized device, as seen in Metamorphosis, and would be pretty obvious if they were using it in other episodes.

 

[Timo]

the UT in TOS was a big hand-held flashlight-sized device, as seen in Metamorphosis,

Since the UT in sequel and prequel spinoffs clearly isn't like that, IMHO we'd do well to interpret Metamorphosis differently.

Overall, there seem to be layers to this UT thing. Without the assets of a starship (or, in this case, shuttlecraft) computer, and a device connecting the user to those assets (a generic or dedicated communicator), new languages cannot be deciphered (such as in "Basics"). But already encountered languages can be translated without visible hardware (such as in, again, "Basics"). The TOS episode is consistent with that, and the only thing different from standard is that Spock uses a dedicated gadget rather than a standard communicator, perhaps because this thing has more knobs for adjusting the parameters.

In virtually all other TOS episodes, contact with the aliens is made before the heroes lose access to their computer. Sometimes there has been preceding contact or survey (if not with these exact folks, then with somebody very much like them), sometimes the planet hails the heroes, sometimes there simply is a slot in the timeline where the heroes could have studied the local language. And sometimes the aliens should arguably have UTs of their own, eagerly bluetoothing with their foreign counterparts.

The Romulan language would be well known to the Federation, if not from the old negotiations, then at least from the "Balance of Terror" encounter where our heroes eavesdropped on the modern Romulans in their native environment.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Drone]

Of course starship skippers get to start wars. Oh, sometimes they rubber-stamp it with this "Council" thing, but there are many examples of a more direct process:

1) "Balance of Terror" - Kirk has strict orders not to cross the RNZ, and suicide is his duty if no alternative is found. What does he do? He orders the ship to cross the RNZ!
2) "Corbomite Maneuver", "Spectre of the Gun" et al. - a foreign civilization says "proceed no further or there will be hell to pay". What does Kirk do? He violates their borders!
3) "The Defector" - Picard has several times told his Romulan opponents that their hopping across the RNZ is an actionable act of war, and his patience is the only thing preserving the peace. A traitor says that there's an "invisible base" in the RNZ. What does Picard do? He not only goes to have a look on a personal whim, he also tells his pet Klingon to invite his friends to join in this act of war!

Etc. etc. You really seem to have missed a fairly central part of what Star Trek heroes do for a living...

Timo Saloniemi

Starfleet=war, Starfleet=war. Here we go again.

I won't speak to the last example because of my uncertainty of the details of when or if I've seen it. However,....

1. No act, no provocation will be considered sufficient reason to violate the Zone. We may defend ourselves, but if necessary to avoid interspace war, both these outposts and this vessel will be considered expendable.

First, this doesn't mandate suicide. That's a rather a generous and convenient reading. Second, the ships have already engaged each other before the Zone was reached. I would say that implies that the Enterprise is defending itself. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the Captain's brief here is inviolable; prevent another interstellar war. Kirk clearly states that to avoid such an outcome, the breech of the Zone is unavoidable. Is he staking his career, to say nothing of his ship and crew on this determination? Without question. However, his knowledge of the parameters of the situation, Spock's counsel, the known limitations of the Romulan vessel, all combine to lead him to the inescapable conclusion that the Enterprise will emerge victorious and the threat of any greater conflict coming from this encounter will be extinguished. Hubris perhaps, but if so, a very well considered example and definitely not one of a cowboy shooting from the hip.

2. Neither of the antagonists in the two cited examples specifically say that a state of war will now exist between us, much less Starfleet, if Enterprise proceeds. In the second instance, as delegated, Enterprise is on a mission to seek establishing peaceful relations with the Melkotians. Although explicit, the very brief message sent them can't necessarily be delineated as a bona fide contention from an agency that actually represents the planet's power structure at all. It may stand for a number of things, a threat from a warring party or invader on the planet, an individual or group of outliers that seek to scuttle interstellar relations with aliens, a troll like Trelane, or perhaps a test by legitimate parties to gauge Starfleet's real intents (the truth). If every such diplomatic entreaty that was met in such a manner, reflexively caused Starfleet to withdraw without at least trying to ascertain the rationale for the response and making what it considers a good faith effort to assuage such concerns, there's little doubt that the Federation would be much smaller and have ultimately found far fewer friends with compatible assumptions and priorities than turned out to be the case. It's the case that Kirk and crew have been trained to make in following through in this capacity and not to slink away in a state of uncertainty and fear.

As is clearly stated in the case of the Fesarius, the sphere's intent or provenance wasn't stated, only perhaps implied. It seems fairly clear to me anyway, that Balok never had malign designs on Enterprise, as opposed to merely wanting to gather whether its inhabitants could satisfy his finally stated desire. In any case, with no warning proffered or means of intuiting its basis being possible, that Enterprise continue on its course would seem at least reasonably practical and an action that one couldn't logically deduce would lead to what amounted to an immediate death sentence being rendered. From that point on, we saw the entertaining game of cat and mouse, initiated by Kirk's bluff, being played out until such time Balok felt comfortable enough with who he was dealing with to feign disability and reveal himself as the charming, sophisticated, yet lonely host that he was.

I don't know, but it seems however I try to parse any of these situations, it doesn't seem that Kirk's, or The Starfleet Way represents an inveterate, predictable, or doctrinaire means to blithely and aggressively begin conflicts without end as you seem to hold in square conviction.

 

[Timo]

First, this doesn't mandate suicide. That's a rather a generous and convenient reading. Second, the ships have already engaged each other before the Zone was reached. I would say that implies that the Enterprise is defending itself. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the Captain's brief here is inviolable; prevent another interstellar war.

And the sum total of all of this still remains that Kirk has no permission to cross the RNZ. There is no clause in his orders that would open this possibility when conditions X and Y are met.

A diplomat sent to a summit with a competing superpower might have an "inviolable brief" of preventing another global war, too. That doesn't mean he would gain the right to defy his explicit orders not to assassinate the foreign head of state and his ministers when he has the chance. Kirk is in the habit of whitewashing his crimes both preemptively and in concluding logs, and getting away with it, yes, but this doesn't mean we should consider him innocent of wrongdoing. It's through sheer dumb luck that his dubious means sometimes come to acceptable ends.

Worse still, they rather seldom do come to acceptable ends, as there's no time allotted at the ends of the relevant episodes for restoring the ruins that Kirk has created. Sometimes this may succeed (arguably, "Return of the Archons"), but we have no real reason to believe it would ("The Apple").

Neither of the antagonists in the two cited examples specifically say that a state of war will now exist between us, much less Starfleet, if Enterprise proceeds.

So the assumption should be that warships can intrude into foreign space against the explicit no-no of the locals? Perhaps you are onto something - perhaps starship COs don't need to take, or be given, a personal mandate to start wars because outright invasion is a total non-issue for the arrogant Federation, rather than something to be subjected to diplomatic considerations first.

Trying to sugar-coat an invasion with "perhaps the victim wanted it, and actually enjoyed it, and did I mention her clothing?" is perhaps the most disgusting idea I've heard as relates attempts to defend Kirk's violations. But I concede that this could be a general Federation policy rather than a liberty taken by Kirk against the wishes of his superiors.

I don't know, but it seems however I try to parse any of these situations, it doesn't seem that Kirk's, or The Starfleet Way represents an inveterate, predictable, or doctrinaire means to blithely and aggressively begin conflicts without end as you seem to hold in square conviction.

That's curious. I can't come to grips how you could fail to see the militaristic mindset prevalent in TOS, the total disregard of differing viewpoints, rights or liberties, and the general veneration of the idea that the first duty of a Starfleet officer is to leave in his wake a series of photocopy Earths.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Drone]

And the sum total of all of this still remains that Kirk has no permission to cross the RNZ. There is no clause in his orders that would open this possibility when conditions X and Y are met.

A diplomat sent to a summit with a competing superpower might have an "inviolable brief" of preventing another global war, too. That doesn't mean he would gain the right to defy his explicit orders not to assassinate the foreign head of state and his ministers when he has the chance. Kirk is in the habit of whitewashing his crimes both preemptively and in concluding logs, and getting away with it, yes, but this doesn't mean we should consider him innocent of wrongdoing. It's through sheer dumb luck that his dubious means sometimes come to acceptable ends.

Worse still, they rather seldom do come to acceptable ends, as there's no time allotted at the ends of the relevant episodes for restoring the ruins that Kirk has created. Sometimes this may succeed (arguably, "Return of the Archons"), but we have no real reason to believe it would ("The Apple").Timo Saloniemi

"but if necessary to avoid interspace war, both these outposts and this vessel will be considered expendable.

No, it's not the entire statement, but it seems to me that it realistically (cynically, if you like) gives Kirk, or anyone, an out over the generic introductory phrase which you find the most salient. Especially, in a situation where the distance incurred into Romulan space was minimal. Was he so unmitigatedly blinded by blood lust that he allowed Enterprise to travel halfway to the enemy's lair (slight hyperbole I grant). No, the ships were engaged, likely barely inside Romulan territory and all the pertinent opinions (including the Romulans') strongly suggested that a successful demonstration of the Empire's finest, especially if challenged, would embolden them to initiating the kind of conflict referenced above. Kirk prevented that, likely sent the Romulan shipsmiths back to their drawing boards, all by venturing just a silly millimeter longer, as I'm sure Starfleet Command deemed it in the after battle report.

So the assumption should be that warships can intrude into foreign space against the explicit no-no of the locals? Perhaps you are onto something - perhaps starship COs don't need to take, or be given, a personal mandate to start wars because outright invasion is a total non-issue for the arrogant Federation, rather than something to be subjected to diplomatic considerations first.

Trying to sugar-coat an invasion with "perhaps the victim wanted it, and actually enjoyed it, and did I mention her clothing?" is perhaps the most disgusting idea I've heard as relates attempts to defend Kirk's violations. But I concede that this could be a general Federation policy rather than a liberty taken by Kirk against the wishes of his superiors.Timo Saloniemi

As I said, only one of the parties issued an unequivocal statement and in that case, given the importance of this part of Enterprise's mission, being able to clearly make a diplomatic foray that, in its full rendering, will allow the Federation to know whether the encounter has a chance of success or not, accepting only a few words, however forceful, as the means of gauging such progress, seems far too scant and feckless. Let the warning be repeated a number of times, accompanied by a force of warships, or at least identify the title or position of the source of the threat, before conclusively taking it as gospel and having Enterprise make one hopes, a still viable retreat. Given how it was presented, how do we know that this menacing sounding statement represents the full faith and power of the Melkotian Head and isn't just being spouted off by some dyspeptic joker who has just consumed a blot of mustard or an underdone potato? The diplomatic brief to extend the Federation's boundless gratuities is too serious to be discouraged by such fragmentary evidence of dismissal.

As to the Fesarius, come on, the whole incident was just fun and games parlayed into a seemingly existential crisis by a truly mirthful and fun loving guy. One who was just looking for some congenial companionship and had an interesting means of testing if he had truly found it. That's all. No malign intent on anyone's part.

 

[Timo]

gives Kirk, or anyone, an out

Out from the absolute need to commit suicide. But if anybody argued that the wording gives Kirk the excuse to declare war on the RSE, that alone would be enough of a cause for the RSE to go to war against the UFP!

Pages-long excuses for inexcusable behavior just make matters worse. Both the world wars of the past century were de facto launched by misguided good intent, and while they might be argued to have to some minimal extent served the interests of the winners, they in general just made matters worse for everybody involved. Kirk seems to have taken it unto himself to solve any and all crises (including those of his own making) by provoking war and seeing whether the other side backs down. If not, Kirk wins said war in forty-five minutes or thereabouts, which is exciting and entertaining, but neither particularly realistic nor something anybody should wish from his military representatives.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[johnnybear]

But he got the cloaking device didn't he! And we never saw it or heard it mentioned again in TOS!
JB

 

[Drone]

Kirk seems to have taken it unto himself to solve any and all crises (including those of his own making) by provoking war and seeing whether the other side backs down. If not, Kirk wins said war in forty-five minutes or thereabouts, which is exciting and entertaining, but neither particularly realistic nor something anybody should wish from his military representatives.

Timo Saloniemi

I think that the bottom line is that in this era of Starfleet, ship captains were given the benefit of the doubt in situations of seeming existential import, like another war with the Romulans would generally be seen to represent. It seems to me that Kirk was presented with making a calculation of what choice he was faced with that would actually provoke that conflict, and decided on the one that he reckoned would in fact be the most effective in preventing it. I won't absolutely argue that his decision doesn't serve, to a degree, to render hollow the command orders about violating the Zone. But those dictates, at least to my knowledge, aren't one of Starfleet's General Orders, which in my opinion, mitigates their abrogation in this instance. Also, while many malign acts throughout history have been carried out under the rubric of the end justifying the means, not all such actions necessarily have that design as their intention or have as their conclusion, conditions that would commonly be described as being salubrious.

 

[Timo]

I think that the bottom line is that in this era of Starfleet, ship captains were given the benefit of the doubt in situations of seeming existential import

So we do agree that the declaring of wars was up to the personal whim of a starship skipper?

Where's the disagreement, then? In that Kirk, despite always choosing the way of conflict in the documented cases, and never the backing down, shouldn't IYHO be considered a warmonger? I guess we can argue this if we trust him with divine inspiration (since his aggression always did end up minimizing conflict) rather than sheer dumb luck. But that's a purely dramatic conceit, establishing nothing positive about the fictional Starfleet organization, only about the dramatic nature of the Star Trek universe that pampers to the warmongers.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Drone]

Maybe our dance on the head of a pin is a matter of differing perceptions of the matter of degree. Or a cultural distinction on the issue of an aggressive action as opposed to the unequivocal declaration of war. While not particularly looking to open a can of worms here, would you classify the attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 an act of war? At the least, I find that I feel reconciled that you acknowledge that, (since his aggression always did end up minimizing conflict), which is a statement that I think I can clearly say is at variance from other utterances you've made to characterize the intent, if not result, of some of Kirk's actions.

Perhaps we can agree to take him down a few pegs in the pantheon of the greatest Starfleet Captains throughout history, at least as far as tactical acumen goes, and describe his place more along the lines of a moniker such as "guts and unfathomable luck", along the lines of what you suggest above.

 

[Marsden]

A declaration of war can only be done by a governing body. Unilateral action by a general/admiral or other person in the military hierarchy with the means to do so still doesn't make it a war. It could certainly bring one about if the damage is too irreparable, but it's still an isolated incident by a very few individuals and not necessarily the will of the nation involved.

We don't even know if the Federation has the authority to declare war, and I doubt that it would. And Starfleet certainly does not. The member worlds would have to be the signatories of a war declaration and I could easily see some of those members wanting to remain neutral to a conflict, depending on the circumstances.

I hate these filthy Neutrals, Kif. With enemies you know where they stand but with Neutrals, who knows? It sickens me.​

Could a Starfleet cause a war through hostility or incompetence? Possibly, but it would be up to those in power to pursue that course after the events. Why would Commodore Stocker's little invasion be less of a provocation than Kirk stealing the cloaking device? That seemed like it would be more of a reason simply because I doubt the Romulan military would want it revealed that their latest technological achievement was just absconded with so easily. Also, based on Mr. Spock's theory and the Centurion's own words, a strong show of force would actually make the Romulans not want to declare war, where as Stocker's total inability to do anything but cry on the floor of the bridge in a fetal position would probably just give the Romulans the inkling that they could beat the Federation. In a way, the stealing of the cloaking device was less about getting the tech than showing the Romulans how much trouble they would be in if they tried another attack like the first Romulan Commander did.

 

[Timo]

A formal declaration of war appears insignificant in comparison with the factual act of igniting a war. If Starfleet allows its employees to conduct acts of war with impunity (Kirk never got punished afterwards as far as we know), then it is de jure making those acts of war, and de facto starting the wars that may result.

Whether Starfleet has the formal authority to declare war is likewise insignificant, as it again can ignite war, and has indeed quite unilaterally done so in DS9, without consequences from its putative superiors.

In the end, in the Star Trek universe, Starfleet field commanders are in charge of decisions over whether to go to war or not. Consultation of high military let alone civilian authorities is not part of that process. At the very best, we can argue that high authorities have given a carte blance at some point for this sort of decision-making.

Why is it that field commanders can ignite wars? Why, because they are in direct charge of strategic weapons of biblical level. Letting one starship slip past a line drawn in vacuum may cost billions of lives. Granted that the one instance where Starfleet did ignite war was not a direct application of the firepower of a single frontline unit, but rather a strategic provocation conducted with passive deployment of fairly ho-hum weaponry. This was still an entrapment plot directly coupled with massive first strikes against Dominion shipyards - if not on the initiative of lowly field commander Sisko, then at least on his timing cue that left no time for civilian oversight.

Why is it that field commanders performing these potent acts of igniting wars generally fail to achieve that end result? Because few players actually want war, it seems (the UFP for general human(oid)ist reasons, perhaps, and its arch-enemies out of fear of losing). But when the party choosing how to respond to the provocation or direct threat of a Starfleet loose cannon in practice is the Klingon or Romulan counterpart, a starship commander, one is left to wonder about the exact mechanism that protects the galaxy from constant war.

Are we to suppose that Starfleet and its Romulan counterpart play a game of escalating provocations solely to test the resolve of the opponent, with strict orders to shamelessly provoke yet stay unprovoked? But why would Starfleet care about Romulan resolve? Or are the provocative missions all conducted for practical gain (such as the capturing of cloaking devices), and proportionate response suffices?

Ultimately, the system seems to work just fine, with relatively few wars ignited. Or then it's the very reason there seems to be constant war on the background in all the shows, to such a degree that it doesn't even warrant a mention. It's a scary sort of world to live in, is all.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[velour]

"

But he got the cloaking device didn't he! And we never saw it or heard it mentioned again in TOS!
JB

Good point.

There was an amusing dialogue in TVH regarding a cloaking device.

McCOY: You'd think they could at least send a ship. It's bad enough to be court marshalled and spend the rest of our lives mining borite, ...but to go home in this Klingon flea trap...
KIRK: We could learn a thing or two from this flea trap. It's got a cloaking device that cost us a lot.
McCOY: I just wish we could cloak the stench.

What makes Kirk think Starfleet could learn something from that Klingon cloaking device? Starfleet didn't seem to learn a darn thing after the first time Kirk stole a cloaking device. Starfleet seems to be continually baffled by cloaking technology.

But isn't it vice versa? The female commander does not passively fall for an offensive of distraction. Her male XO spots Spock and sees tactical or strategic significance in the half-Vulcan, after which the commander engages in a seduction campaign that seems to be going fine - until it turns out Spock faked all his orgasms for patriotic reasons.

The commander being engaged in the seduction campaign should not matter as regards cloak thefts and the like: seducing is her chosen or assigned duty, while guarding the cloak is that of other officers and crew. Her being distracted does not in fact affect the dastardly theft one iota.

That the seduction was a double-cross just suggests that Spock well knew that the Romulans would see significance in him; the whole operation might have hinged on that. But it's not clear how it follows from the seduction plot that Spock would learn the exact whereabouts of the cloaking device. That is the weak part - not that the commander would be "distracted", but that it looks as if she started out their relationship by giving Spock a guided tour to the ship's most secretive facility!

Besides playing the seduction card, the Romulan commander also played the race card on Spock.

COMMANDER: You are a superior being. Why do you not command?
SPOCK: I do not desire a ship of my own.
COMMANDER: Or is it that no one has offered you, a Vulcan, that opportunity?
SPOCK: Such opportunities are extremely rare. ...
COMMANDER: Of course. It would be a great achievement for me to bring home the Enterprise intact. It would broaden the scope of my powers greatly. It would be the achievement of a lifetime. And it would open equal opportunities for you.

It was amusing to hear the Romulan commander talk about "equal opportunities". Who knew that she was a champion of civil rights for Vulcans. Unfortunately for her, Spock wasn't seduced by either card that she played.