Ethical paths of Federation war
- Thread starter Ocanain
- Start date
The prime directive is about non-interference with other cultures not rules of war. It was generally invoked when it came to potentially exposing a pre-warp civilisation to more advanced technology and cultures and to prevent the Federation becoming involved in political squabbles of their allies. We never saw any evidence during the Dominion war that the prime directive was a consideration.
Other things of interest:
1) The Federation doesn't believe in war crimes. That is, it's quite ready to do amazing stuff in order to win, but it doesn't believe in the concept of making any of it illegal, or at least never mentions such an idea. Only aliens ever speak of war crimes as a concept.
2) The Federation still adheres to specific interstellar treaties about specific ways of fighting: we don't see it using subspace weapons, say. But no such treaty is quoted as outlawing biological warfare, especially not when it is shown that the UFP is engaged in this type of warfare.
3) The Federation does approach war in certain ways we could consider humane. Kirk wages his wars on stun, which may in fact be a better way of defeating the enemy than using the apparently less reliable kill setting of the hand phaser. And neither the heroes nor the villains engage in planeticide much, despite clearly having the capacity (the Klingons do it in Burnham's War, and get accused of an aimless and incoherent campaign).
4) Perhaps the assassination of enemy leaders with biological weapons is one of those humane ways? While the heroes are appalled that their friend Odo is collateral damage, they never refer to it being objectionable that the enemy leaders are targeted. And they personally undertake an assassination mission in "Apocalypse Rising", again without fundamental objections. Makes plenty of sense.
5) It's not a consistently monotonic path, though. In "Project Daedalus", the Feds say they have disavowed mine warfare; it is fully back in fashion in DS9.
6) Genocide is all in a day's work. As it ought to be, considering the scale of things in Trek. Single planets being utterly destroyed is akin to single cities being leveled in Earth's wars, but it has the potential of removing a genus (well, a sapient species) from the universe, too. We don't hear of our heroes condemning genocide as a concept, just like we never get dialogue of them condemning war crimes. Whether this is significant or just a statistical fluke in the discussions we get to hear, there's no telling.
Ultimately, the Feds don't seem to think that war as a thing would be a crime, and are willing to start ones often enough. And they fight wars of all sizes, from quadrants-spanning to village-vs-village ones. It's in those latter sorts of proxy wars in TOS where we learn that the Prime Directive probably wouldn't be an issue after all: the Feds aren't afraid of getting caught helping primitives fight wars in their stead, in "Errand of Mercy" any more than in "A Private Little War".
Timo Saloniemi
1) The Federation doesn't believe in war crimes. That is, it's quite ready to do amazing stuff in order to win, but it doesn't believe in the concept of making any of it illegal, or at least never mentions such an idea. Only aliens ever speak of war crimes as a concept.
2) The Federation still adheres to specific interstellar treaties about specific ways of fighting: we don't see it using subspace weapons, say. But no such treaty is quoted as outlawing biological warfare, especially not when it is shown that the UFP is engaged in this type of warfare.
3) The Federation does approach war in certain ways we could consider humane. Kirk wages his wars on stun, which may in fact be a better way of defeating the enemy than using the apparently less reliable kill setting of the hand phaser. And neither the heroes nor the villains engage in planeticide much, despite clearly having the capacity (the Klingons do it in Burnham's War, and get accused of an aimless and incoherent campaign).
4) Perhaps the assassination of enemy leaders with biological weapons is one of those humane ways? While the heroes are appalled that their friend Odo is collateral damage, they never refer to it being objectionable that the enemy leaders are targeted. And they personally undertake an assassination mission in "Apocalypse Rising", again without fundamental objections. Makes plenty of sense.
5) It's not a consistently monotonic path, though. In "Project Daedalus", the Feds say they have disavowed mine warfare; it is fully back in fashion in DS9.
6) Genocide is all in a day's work. As it ought to be, considering the scale of things in Trek. Single planets being utterly destroyed is akin to single cities being leveled in Earth's wars, but it has the potential of removing a genus (well, a sapient species) from the universe, too. We don't hear of our heroes condemning genocide as a concept, just like we never get dialogue of them condemning war crimes. Whether this is significant or just a statistical fluke in the discussions we get to hear, there's no telling.
Ultimately, the Feds don't seem to think that war as a thing would be a crime, and are willing to start ones often enough. And they fight wars of all sizes, from quadrants-spanning to village-vs-village ones. It's in those latter sorts of proxy wars in TOS where we learn that the Prime Directive probably wouldn't be an issue after all: the Feds aren't afraid of getting caught helping primitives fight wars in their stead, in "Errand of Mercy" any more than in "A Private Little War".
Timo Saloniemi
The Prime Directive is a protocol involving how to deal with alien races at a certain point of development and when or even if contact should be made with them. It has no bearing on the Federation's war stance.
Well, the Prime Directive is also a key component in how the Federation deals with the Klingon Empire and the Cardassian Union in matters of war and peace in "Redemption" and "The Homecoming/Circle/Siege". It probably would have a significant role in how to deal with the Dominion, too, until a specific point where it is apparently made moot by the onset of open war.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
The idea of the Federation as engaging in biological warfare without qualms troubles me. What example are you thinking of? Right now I can only think of the morphogenetic virus of Section 31, and that's an organisation so autonomous, secret and undercover I can hardly identify it with the Federation as a whole, even though those in the topmost levels of Starfleet must be in the know. (Haven't seen DIS or newer yet, though).
The S31 attack against the Founders is the relevant example where we don't actually hear the UFP would have outlawed bioweapons or would be going against treaties or interstellar conventions when using them.
However, when others use bioweapons, such as in "Armageddon Game" or "The Quickening", our heroes are suitably worried and perhaps appalled but specifically fail to refer to such things being illegal. Perhaps it just goes without saying. Or perhaps there never was any point in making a law against a horrible practice because the only ones making use of it would be untouchable by the law to begin with. Or then biological weapons are much like any other: they cause lots of suffering, which the UFP is ready to engage in, because it's felt necessary, just like the use of phasers to melt continents.
The funny thing here is, the DSC episode "Context Is for Kings" in 2257 does say that the Geneva Protocols of 1928 and 2155 outlawed bioweapons. But such protocols also outlawed the booby-trapping of corpses, and the DSC heroes then readily engage in the practice anyway. Perhaps the 2155 Protocol was outdated eventually, just like the one against mine warfare apparently was?
Timo Saloniemi
However, when others use bioweapons, such as in "Armageddon Game" or "The Quickening", our heroes are suitably worried and perhaps appalled but specifically fail to refer to such things being illegal. Perhaps it just goes without saying. Or perhaps there never was any point in making a law against a horrible practice because the only ones making use of it would be untouchable by the law to begin with. Or then biological weapons are much like any other: they cause lots of suffering, which the UFP is ready to engage in, because it's felt necessary, just like the use of phasers to melt continents.
The funny thing here is, the DSC episode "Context Is for Kings" in 2257 does say that the Geneva Protocols of 1928 and 2155 outlawed bioweapons. But such protocols also outlawed the booby-trapping of corpses, and the DSC heroes then readily engage in the practice anyway. Perhaps the 2155 Protocol was outdated eventually, just like the one against mine warfare apparently was?
Timo Saloniemi
^For The Quickening at least, such a comment would have been simply irrelevant beyond expressing general moral indignation. It's not as if the Dominion was bound by any treaty the Federation had been a signatory to in the last two centuries. Can't speak for the Armageddon Game species. And yes, I would expect things like these to be so fundamental and ingrained in the conscience of the average Federation Starfleet officer by the 24th century that it generally 'would go without saying'.
Last edited:
That was "The Principle of Non Interference" in Redemption, which google tells me is a real thing in current international law. I'd until 5 minutes ago thought that they were just talking about the Prime Directive using a different name, but if it's a real thing in the real world, then it's probably a real thing in the Star Trek world.
The prime directive has nothing to do with war.
And even if we played along with your idea, they wouldn’t be the Federation anymore. They would be the Terran Empire.
----
The Federation, while it does have rules about war – as observed by Garak, since the Federation is a human outfit at the core – doesn’t seem to mind engaging in genocide, as evidenced by the attempt to set off a hydro bomb on Qo’noS; the idea to send Hugh to wipe out the Borg; and the Founders virus. And it says a lot when:
Burnham – who’s actions made the Federation-Klingon Cold War turn hot – is opposed to the plot during a wartime situation when the Federation is losing the war.
Picard – who has no love for the Borg whatsoever – declines such a idea when proposed to him.
Sisko – after he poisoned a planet – first laughs it off not believing it to be a real plan before realizing how serious the situation is.
And as usual, those that are comfortable with genocide within the Federation are admirals in Starfleet. Starfleet admirals - not in general, but some of them - seem to be comfortable doing evil things to others, all while remaining opposed to biogenic weapons and the like.
And even if we played along with your idea, they wouldn’t be the Federation anymore. They would be the Terran Empire.
----
The Federation, while it does have rules about war – as observed by Garak, since the Federation is a human outfit at the core – doesn’t seem to mind engaging in genocide, as evidenced by the attempt to set off a hydro bomb on Qo’noS; the idea to send Hugh to wipe out the Borg; and the Founders virus. And it says a lot when:
Burnham – who’s actions made the Federation-Klingon Cold War turn hot – is opposed to the plot during a wartime situation when the Federation is losing the war.
Picard – who has no love for the Borg whatsoever – declines such a idea when proposed to him.
Sisko – after he poisoned a planet – first laughs it off not believing it to be a real plan before realizing how serious the situation is.
And as usual, those that are comfortable with genocide within the Federation are admirals in Starfleet. Starfleet admirals - not in general, but some of them - seem to be comfortable doing evil things to others, all while remaining opposed to biogenic weapons and the like.
Prime directive is not only no intereferince to pre warp planets.. It's noninterference in Any species.. As in.. They don't interfere in the internal workings of planets, even federation planets.. There may be common laws they have to follow being a fed member.. But everything else is there own business..
Exp. Klingon civil war.. It's on them to figure it out.. They only interfered when they saw the romulans interfering..
Exp. Klingon civil war.. It's on them to figure it out.. They only interfered when they saw the romulans interfering..
M
My line of thinking is not that the prime directive pertains to war but that as a result of interference some cultures are artificially accelerated to participants in potential conflicts. Since we cannot know any conditions present in the lack of the prime directive, it’s comprehensible that the advent of sudden warp technology, for instance would have an effect on weaponisation and that would also happen in the context of galactic presence. In this way the prime directive would have an effect on conflict in the sector.
My line of thinking is not that the prime directive pertains to war but that as a result of interference some cultures are artificially accelerated to participants in potential conflicts. Since we cannot know any conditions present in the lack of the prime directive, it’s comprehensible that the advent of sudden warp technology, for instance would have an effect on weaponisation and that would also happen in the context of galactic presence. In this way the prime directive would have an effect on conflict in the sector.
And note that Section 31 – as a part of the Starfleet Charter - predates the Prime Directive. And S31 tends to interfere in other cultures a lot anyways.
Picard didn't want to use Hugh as a weapon to destroy the Borg, instead, since he had been a Borg, he knew that Hugh's learned individuality would spread through the collective.
To be honest, I didn't get any of this from your original post. It would probably help in future to be clearer about what your line of thinking is. Having said that it is a really interesting line of thinking and one that I wish had of been explored in DS9. Like what if the Dominion conquered a primitive culture in or near Federation space to form a beachhead. How would the Federation respond? My assumption would be that due to the Dominions interference, the Prime directive would no longer apply and the Federation would commit forces to retaking the planet and make it a Federation protectorate. But there is a lot of permutations to this scenario that would make for some great star trek episodes.
In such a case, the federation could only attack the Dominion world as a whole and not address the occupation, since they are, however so recently, naturalized Dominion citizens, which is messing with the principle of non interference... Even if Col. Kira wore a Starfleet Uniform to occupied Cardassia.
I didn’t want to direct the question from my view at the onset. The question itself came from my considerations of the butterfly effect that is quite often explored in time travel episodes. All the various permutations that would lead from the non existence of the prime directive seemed numerous so I didn’t consider further clarification.
Of course a glance at these comments shows that you have a fair point. Most answers are simply saying that the prime directive has nothing do with war as if I think the prime directive is a mandate to not invade other cultures and one even suggested that the lack of the prime directive would be the difference between the Federation being federate and empirical. At any rate, thanks for your post.
^ Interesting thoughts.
I think the Federation wouldn't hesitate to get involved in case the Dominion took over a primitive planet, and that planet was really important for whatever reason. That's because in other episodes, once it is clear they are already involved, it is doubtful whether the Prime Directive applies from that point on (in Caretaker, for example, Janeway suggests something to that effect). And in a way this situation is no different; even if they are not involved directly, the Dominion still took over that planet with the express purpose to deny the Federation that planet, so one could argue even if it was not their doing, they are involved in creating the occupation on that planet.
We also know there are circumstances that rescind the PD, for example the presence of Omega Particles. And why would that be the only circumstance for which an exception has been made? I'd argue that the necessities of a ferocious war probably would be another ground for rescinding it.
Finally, there is the case of a private little war, where Kirk apparently is free to supply the technologically primitive inhabitants with weapons, after the Klingons have already done the same, to 'level the field' again.
I think these examples make it clear that in circumstances like these, the Federation most likely wouldn't feel held back by the PD.
I think the Federation wouldn't hesitate to get involved in case the Dominion took over a primitive planet, and that planet was really important for whatever reason. That's because in other episodes, once it is clear they are already involved, it is doubtful whether the Prime Directive applies from that point on (in Caretaker, for example, Janeway suggests something to that effect). And in a way this situation is no different; even if they are not involved directly, the Dominion still took over that planet with the express purpose to deny the Federation that planet, so one could argue even if it was not their doing, they are involved in creating the occupation on that planet.
We also know there are circumstances that rescind the PD, for example the presence of Omega Particles. And why would that be the only circumstance for which an exception has been made? I'd argue that the necessities of a ferocious war probably would be another ground for rescinding it.
Finally, there is the case of a private little war, where Kirk apparently is free to supply the technologically primitive inhabitants with weapons, after the Klingons have already done the same, to 'level the field' again.
I think these examples make it clear that in circumstances like these, the Federation most likely wouldn't feel held back by the PD.
...TOS already provides examples of interaction with primitives in circumstances that are not particularly dire nor related to an open and heated conflict. The Capellans can be contacted for their valuables, say. So it's pretty easy to argue that the Prime Directive is an indulgence the Federation can and will do without, only applying when there is no practical, economical or realpolitik reason for it not to. Thus, inter arma, it quite probably would not even get lip service.
Except when it's convenient, that is. The PD can be a tool of conflict management as well, as seen in "The Circle" where it provides an excuse for staying out of a fight at Bajor. Usually, it appears the PD exists to tie the hands of Starfleet, which is logical considering those are the hands holding the most frightening weapons. But sometimes it can work in Starfleet's favor, too.
Timo Saloniemi
Except when it's convenient, that is. The PD can be a tool of conflict management as well, as seen in "The Circle" where it provides an excuse for staying out of a fight at Bajor. Usually, it appears the PD exists to tie the hands of Starfleet, which is logical considering those are the hands holding the most frightening weapons. But sometimes it can work in Starfleet's favor, too.
Timo Saloniemi
