Federation Foreign Policy

[Rush Limborg]

What I was saying was that if they invaded and took control of that one star system, then the Federation would be justified in going to war.

I think the situation in "Chain of Command" was handled very well. They found a way to avoid an all-out war and kept the Cardassians from invading.

However, if the invasion had actually happened, the time for talk and half-measures would be over.

Really? A single star system out of a Federation of hundreds is worth starting an all-out war over?

You're sure that's a proportional response? Because, to me, a proportional response would be re-capturing that star system and re-enforcing existing border defenses to deter retaliatory Cardassian incursions, not actively going to war with the Cardassian Union.

Think about it this way:

If "one star system is not worth defending with force", than that doesn't bode well for new members of the UFP. What incentive is there to join a state that does not guarantee protecting you against invaders?

Ours is a universe governed by the agressive use of force.

It's hard to face...but it's true. The vast majority of those enemies of the Federation are not bound by the rules and principles the UFP lives by. Now, you can talk about "It's the rules that makes us better" all you want...but in the end, all that High-Horse won't matter when you see dying around you the people you were entrusted to protect.

This "rule" is thrown around by a chicken hawk who avoided service with an ass cyst.

Some of the most hawkish rhetoric thrown around today is done by lots of people who have never served and never been near a battlefield.

It's easy to talk tough when it probably won't be you to bear the harsh costs of war.

Spare me the ad hominem argument, sir.

To suggest that you cannot legitimately support a strong line of defense without having served yourelf is, quite frankly, inherently ridiculous.

Our universe is governed by MANY things, only ONE of which is the aggressive use of force.

But even in the use of force, one must be wise and smart.

The Federation has fought (successfully, I might add), wars with several potent military powers. But it is ALSO successful because it has managed to avoid squandering it's resources on unnecessary wars as well as living up to the ideals it presents to the rest of the galaxy.

Note that last bit, it's a lesson worth learning.

...The UFP not only tries to live up to it's ideals, but it takes that fundamental lesson all great powers need to learn from history.

Pick your battles carefully. You can't just kick everyone's ass all the time who annoys you.

Which I do not contest. Kindly refrain from the "straw man" argument as well, if you please.

Now, has sometimes this been presented in a bit of a Pollyanna sort of way? Yes. But on the other hand, if the Federation responded disproportionately to every crisis on it's borders, it would lose resources that it didn't need to, and make itself weaker.

But you admit that it far too often leans to a naive side--one which makes itself weaker, even more so than in your theoretical situation, because it is weaking from within, as well as without.

 

[Rush Limborg]

But here's the thing, if the Romulans know for sure that the Federation's response to an act of war is, well, actually going to war, then maybe they won't have to keep testing the Federation.

If a foreign power attacked your nation and killed your fellow citizens, would you not expect your government to respond with the full resources of your country's armed forces? (e.g Pearl Harbour)

Not necessarily.

There is a such thing as a proportional response. I'm sorry, but a couple of outposts are not worth the costs of an interstellar war if the immediate threat can be neutralized.

The West Wing argues it fairly well. The set-up: The President of the United States, Jed Bartlet, is about to go on national TV to announce that the U.S. has destroyed the headquarters of Syrian Intelligence in retaliation for Syria's having shot down a U.S. Air Force plane. The President was friends with a man aboard, and he wants to launch a full-scale war in retaliation for the attack. Leo, his chief of staff, is talking him down.

Man that was a good scene. I rmb watching that episode years ago when it first aired.

Anyway, what's a proportional retaliatory strike is debatable. You and a few others think that the destruction of the Bird of Prey is sufficient. I disagree.

I think if the Romulans attacked a couple of outposts in the middle of nowhere (like Amargosa Observatory and one of those little relay stations with like 2 ppl on it), I'd agree that pursuing and destroying the Romulan ship responsible is sufficient reprisal.

But I think the loss of a strategically important outpost that is clearly in Federation or allied space is sufficient cause for war (Neutral Zone Outposts, Deep Space 9) I also think that Federation security has to be compromised at least temporarily until those outposts are rebuilt.

The map in "Balance of Terror" showed seven outposts along the Neutral Zone. Three of them were destroyed. If North Korea crossed the DMZ and wiped out 3/7ths of the US-South Korean troops guarding the DMZ, I think they would go to war over that too.

Also, the West Wing episode is slightly different in that the Federation is not the only superpower. The United States clearly has much greater military strength than Syria. But Starfleet is probably on par with the Romulan military. The Federation can't afford to show weakness to enemy like that.

When Picard dropped his shields in "The Enemy", he warned Tomalok that destroying the Enterprise would plunge the Empire into war. The Romulans have to believe that the Federation is willing to go to war over the destruction of a single starship, the Enterprise-D, just as they have to believe that the Federation would go to war over the destruction of Neutral Zone outposts.

Just as the Klingons had to believe that capturing or destroying DS9 would plunge their Empire into a war with the Federation at the same time they were fighting the Cardassians.

Tomolok believed it. So did Gowron. Both of them did not carry through with their attacks.

But the Romulans in the Tomed Incident probably didn't. Neither did the Cardassians planning to invade Minos Korva.

Really? A single star system out of a Federation of hundreds is worth starting an all-out war over?

You're sure that's a proportional response? Because, to me, a proportional response would be re-capturing that star system and re-enforcing existing border defenses to deter retaliatory Cardassian incursions, not actively going to war with the Cardassian Union.

By trying to re-take that system by force, is that not a war?

I'm pretty sure the Cardassian invasion fleet is no small force. Plus they'll have ground troops entrenched on the planet. It's going to take a large Federation fleet plus security forces to retake that system.

It's going to be like another Organia. Where the Federation and Klingon fleets met to "decide the fate of the galaxy" (or at least that one part of the galaxy.)

Exactly. Having to retake a system by force is the definition of a war. And I doubt that if the Federation destroyed all Cardassian assets near that system, that the Cardassian Union would let it stay at that.

I'm confused about the counter-argument begin made here. Are you saying the Federation should be willing to give up terrority if an invasion comes, without fighting to get the terrority back? If you are saying they should fight to reclaim that terrority, how is that not a war? I'll grant you, it would be a "small" war, nothing like the Dominion War. However, it would still involve two states engaging in open combat with each other, i.e. a war.

Great points, both of you!

 

[stonester1]

To suggest that you cannot legitimately support a strong line of defense without having served yourelf is, quite frankly, inherently ridiculous.

It does suggest two things...

1. A lack of awareness of the reality about which you speak.

2. An unwillingness to go where you wish others to.

Sir, I have no respect for those who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. BTW, this is not directed at you, per se. Don't take it as such. But your namesake...I've no respect for those who actively avoided military service, who then come on and talk the talk, and often harsh others (Clinton) for apparently doing the same.

So it's not about you actually serving, Rush (Limbaugh?) It's about talking tough about it?

Now, has sometimes this been presented in a bit of a Pollyanna sort of way? Yes. But on the other hand, if the Federation responded disproportionately to every crisis on it's borders, it would lose resources that it didn't need to, and make itself weaker.

But you admit that it far too often leans to a naive side--one which makes itself weaker, even more so than in your theoretical situation, because it is weaking from within, as well as without.

How is it weakening from within?

 

[Sci]

Anyway, what's a proportional retaliatory strike is debatable. You and a few others think that the destruction of the Bird of Prey is sufficient. I disagree.

I think if the Romulans attacked a couple of outposts in the middle of nowhere (like Amargosa Observatory and one of those little relay stations with like 2 ppl on it), I'd agree that pursuing and destroying the Romulan ship responsible is sufficient reprisal.

But I think the loss of a strategically important outpost that is clearly in Federation or allied space is sufficient cause for war (Neutral Zone Outposts, Deep Space 9)

Really? 'Cause the thing is, a full-on war would cost the Federation millions of lives and endanger hundreds of worlds. Whereas, those outposts were very lightly staffed and look easy to re-establish (and to re-enforce defenses for). Seems to me that destroying the bird-of-prey, increasing starship patrols of the Neutral Zone, and re-establishing the outposts would be a lot better for Federation security and Federation lives than launching a retaliatory invasion of Romulan space.

The map in "Balance of Terror" showed seven outposts along the Neutral Zone. Three of them were destroyed.

"Balance of Terror" also established that the Neutral Zone was a light-year wide, and the Zone took up a large percentage of that map. That means that that map only displayed a small part of the larger Federation-Romulan border -- there are almost certainly dozens upon dozens of similar outposts along the Neutral Zone that went unharmed.

If North Korea crossed the DMZ and wiped out 3/7ths of the US-South Korean troops guarding the DMZ, I think they would go to war over that too.

Well, first off, as I just pointed out above, your comparison is inaccurate. It would be the equivalent of destroying three small, lightly-manned outposts along the DMZ out of dozens, not of killing three-sevenths of all DMZ-stationed troops.

As for whether that would lead to war, I think that that would depend on a lot of things, actually. A war in the Korean peninsula right now would be fairly disastrous for all sides -- frankly, nobody there has the military capacity for a full-scale war without guaranteeing themselves a pyrrhic victory, if that. Because of that fact, all three sides have powerful incentives to avoid full-scale war even if they engage in minor skirmishes.

Also, the West Wing episode is slightly different in that the Federation is not the only superpower. The United States clearly has much greater military strength than Syria. But Starfleet is probably on par with the Romulan military.

I don't think that's likely at all, especially after the Romulans had isolated themselves from the rest of the galaxy for nearly a century prior to that. Given the relative sizes of the various interstellar states as established in DS9 and later in Star Trek: Star Charts, I'd say a far fairer comparison to the modern day would be the United States (Federation) and the People's Republic of China (Romulans). China's an impressive military power, but it's still not as powerful as the U.S.

The Federation can't afford to show weakness to enemy like that.

Why do people always prattle on about how "we can't afford to show weakness?" It's always predicated on this notion that the enemy itself is irrationally hostile and belligerent rather than a rational political actor. Were the Romulans testing the Federation? Yes. Does that mean they planned to invade the Federation if they thought their cloaking and plasma energy cannon technologies were tactically superior? Not necessarily; it could just as easily be that they wanted simply to see if they were secure from what they perceived as a threat of Federation aggression. The enemy can be as paranoid about showing weakness to you for fear of your aggression as you can be of him.

That's why it's important not to jump to conclusions, not to decide that every enemy is another Adolf Hitler waiting in the wings, and to have proportional responses to acts of aggression. And I'm sorry, but destroying three lightly-manned recon outposts out of dozens is just not proportional to a large-scale invasion of Romulan space.

When Picard dropped his shields in "The Enemy", he warned Tomalok that destroying the Enterprise would plunge the Empire into war. The Romulans have to believe that the Federation is willing to go to war over the destruction of a single starship, the Enterprise-D

And all that requires is that Picard play on Romulan paranoia and fear of the Federation; it does not require that the Federation live up to their paranoia.

Just as the Klingons had to believe that capturing or destroying DS9 would plunge their Empire into a war with the Federation at the same time they were fighting the Cardassians.

Completely different scenario. Starbase Deep Space 9 was a heavily-manned, strategically vital outpost for the Federation and its Bajoran allies. The loss of DS9 would be far more devastating to Federation security than the loss of three lightly-manned recon outposts.

Like I said: Not all acts of aggression are created equal.

By trying to re-take that system by force, is that not a war?

Exactly. Having to retake a system by force is the definition of a war.

I think we're using different definitions. You two seem to be operating under a very liberal definition of "war," one that accepts as a "war" any form of open combat between states. I'm operating under a different definition: I'd define an interstellar war as a state of on-going (not limited) combat involving large-scale invasions (not single-system invasions or invasions of strategically unimportant systems) of enemy territory and the deliberate attempt to defeat the enemy's military apparatus and force the submission of the enemy government, usually via military occupation of the enemy's legitimately-owned territory.

I would describe a campaign on the Cardassians' part to capture a single solar system as not being inherently an act of war, provided that that star system lacks a heavy population or is not the home system of a Federation Member State. As such, I would describe the initial capture of a Federation colony's system by the Cardassians, and the re-capturing of that system from the Cardassians as a battle, not a war.

It would become a war if the re-capture was retaliated against by a Cardassian campaign to invade and occupy other Federation star systems, or if the Federation retaliated against the initial capture by seeking to invade and occupy other Cardassian systems. But so long as combat remains confined to a single minor star system, I would not define it as a full-scale war.

I'm pretty sure the Cardassian invasion fleet is no small force. Plus they'll have ground troops entrenched on the planet. It's going to take a large Federation fleet plus security forces to retake that system.

I don't think that's clear at all. It would really depend on how long the Cardassians had been in the system, what mechanisms they'd used to secure control of the colony's populace, and the number of ships they'd dedicated as a result of their calculation of how important the system was to them versus how important the system was to the Federation.

It's going to be like another Organia. Where the Federation and Klingon fleets met to "decide the fate of the galaxy" (or at least that one part of the galaxy.)

False comparison. Organia was used as a strategic point in an on-going, multi-system cold-war-type conflict that was expected to flare up into a multi-system war. An invasion of a single system is hardly the same thing.

And I doubt that if the Federation destroyed all Cardassian assets near that system, that the Cardassian Union would let it stay at that.

Again, that depends on a lot of variables. If the Federation has destroyed or captured all Cardassian assets in that system but has not entered legitimately-held Cardassian systems in retaliation, but has instead significantly beefed up Federation patrols of the UFP side of the UFP/Cardassian border, the Cardassians may well be intimidated into refraining from engaging in further hostilities. That would, of course, depend on why the Cardassians launched the initial invasion of that system and on how important they viewed that system as being in comparison to how important they believed the Federation regarded the system as being.

I'm confused about the counter-argument begin made here. Are you saying the Federation should be willing to give up terrority if an invasion comes, without fighting to get the terrority back?

No. I already said the Federation should re-capture such territory.

What I'm arguing is that this does not automatically warrant further military escalation once Federation territory has been secured.

If you are saying they should fight to reclaim that terrority, how is that not a war?

Because a war is by definition something much larger than a battle over a single, small piece of territory lasting only a short time with only limited objectives.

Put it another way:

The State of Israel launched an invasion of Iraqi territory and attacked the Republic of Iraq in 1981 when they destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor. Open combat occurred between two states. Yet no reasonable person would call that a war, because combat was limited in time, territory, lives lost, and objective. It was hardly the same thing as, for instance, the Iran-Iraq War.

Really? A single star system out of a Federation of hundreds is worth starting an all-out war over?

You're sure that's a proportional response? Because, to me, a proportional response would be re-capturing that star system and re-enforcing existing border defenses to deter retaliatory Cardassian incursions, not actively going to war with the Cardassian Union.

Think about it this way:

If "one star system is not worth defending with force", than that doesn't bode well for new members of the UFP. What incentive is there to join a state that does not guarantee protecting you against invaders?

As I said above, that would depend on the system in question. If it's a system with a small Federation or Federation Member State colony, then, I don't think that the Member States themselves would consider it worth going to full-scale war over. In fact, the Member States would probably look at it this way: "If we're outside the Federation, and the system containing our 20,000-person colony is captured by the Cardassians, then that colony is well and truly fucked, since we won't even have the capacity to re-capture it, and the Cardassians have a beachhead to launch further invasions of our territory. If we're Federation Members, the Federation will help us re-capture it and protect us from future incursions."

If, on the other hand, that star system contains the homeworld, capital planet, or primary population centers of a Federation Member State -- if it's the Trill system or the Betazed system rather than a system containing only a small colony -- then, yes, certainly the Federation has a valid reason to engage in further retaliations in order to ensure the security of that Federation Member State's system. If the Cardassians were to invade the Trill system, for instance, then I'd say that the Federation has every right to capture unpopulated Cardassian territory and to force the Cardassians to give up that territory in retaliation for the invasion of Trill once Trill has been re-captured.

Once again: All acts of aggression are not created equal. The appropriate response will depend upon the individual act and the circumstances surrounding it.

 

[USS KG5]

Robert DeSoto's dead-on. A foreign power attacts UFP space and the UFP debates whether to consider this an "act of war"?

Well if you don't you would have, ya know a WAR.

Wars are bad and best avoided. What exactly would the Federation have to gain from this War with the Romulans? Revenge is a terrible motivation.

Sure, you can say WW2 turned out OK but millions died, and in this case the enemy was resolutely evil and genocidal. The Romulans have never been established as a terminal threat to the Federation, and achieving peaceful co-existence would be a more sensible aim.

No wonder the Dominion were so confident of success in their efforts to conquer the UFP. It behaves like the UN at it's worst!

The UFP don't let America do whatever it wants whenever it wants to do it to whichever bunch of middle-eastern nutters it wants to do it to? I missed that episode.

This is a foreign policy called "accomodation"--or, more appropriately, "appeasement". The idea is supposed to be, "If we give them enough, they'll be satisfied, and they won't attack us anymore." And then...they attack us again later, knowing we'll accomodate them again!

That is never what the UFP does. As stated Kirk destroyed the Romulan ship as necessary. Picard was perfectly entitled to do the same if engaged in a combat situation.

The only other option Kirk had was to keep going and wipe out some Romulan outposts in retaliation, but then of course you get escalation to full scale war and millions of deaths, why would he want that?

Think Neville Chamberlain. Was he "enlightened"? No--he was STUPID!

Chamberlain gets a LOT of flak but he was in a very difficult position. He did not know what we know now, that Hitler was in no position to fight Britain and France and he would have backed down if threatened.

He DID know that Britain and France were in no state to fight a war. His actions are difficult to commend in hindsight but they were understandable.

By contrast, was Winston Churchill "barbaric"? No--he was INTELLIGENT!

Churchill was often stupid as well, and disasters like Gallipoli were partly his fault, as well as many disasters in WW2.

Fortunately he usually listened to those around him, unlike Hitler, and therefore he did pretty well.

He was a master strategist, but a lousy tactician.

 

[stonester1]

Robert DeSoto's dead-on. A foreign power attacts UFP space and the UFP debates whether to consider this an "act of war"?

Well if you don't you would have, ya know a WAR.

Wars are bad and best avoided. What exactly would the Federation have to gain from this War with the Romulans? Revenge is a terrible motivation.

Sure, you can say WW2 turned out OK but millions died, and in this case the enemy was resolutely evil and genocidal. The Romulans have never been established as a terminal threat to the Federation, and achieving peaceful co-existence would be a more sensible aim.

No wonder the Dominion were so confident of success in their efforts to conquer the UFP. It behaves like the UN at it's worst!

The UFP don't let America do whatever it wants whenever it wants to do it to whichever bunch of middle-eastern nutters it wants to do it to? I missed that episode.



That is never what the UFP does. As stated Kirk destroyed the Romulan ship as necessary. Picard was perfectly entitled to do the same if engaged in a combat situation.

The only other option Kirk had was to keep going and wipe out some Romulan outposts in retaliation, but then of course you get escalation to full scale war and millions of deaths, why would he want that?

Think Neville Chamberlain. Was he "enlightened"? No--he was STUPID!

Chamberlain gets a LOT of flak but he was in a very difficult position. He did not know what we know now, that Hitler was in no position to fight Britain and France and he would have backed down if threatened.

He DID know that Britain and France were in no state to fight a war. His actions are difficult to commend in hindsight but they were understandable.

By contrast, was Winston Churchill "barbaric"? No--he was INTELLIGENT!

Churchill was often stupid as well, and disasters like Gallipoli were partly his fault, as well as many disasters in WW2.

Fortunately he usually listened to those around him, unlike Hitler, and therefore he did pretty well.

He was a master strategist, but a lousy tactician.

This.

 

[Mirror_Barclay]

Bartlett was initially unwilling, but eventually accepted, the status quo recommendation - the predictable, 'proportionate' response that Syria knew it was risking, but was willing to risk.

Therefore a response that will not deter Syria (or any actor that evaluates risk/reward in the same fashion) from further acts of aggression.

Bartlett succumbed to a classic bureaucratic play. "You don't like the 10% solution? Here's the 5,000% solution. Oh you like the first option better than the second one? Great!" But it's quite possible not to view either response as ideal.

And it's quite possible that the risks entailed when killing Federation citizens should be higher than they have been, although that doesn't mean they should be resurrecting the Genesis device and firing it off at enemy home worlds.

 

[Robert DeSoto]

Anyway, what's a proportional retaliatory strike is debatable. You and a few others think that the destruction of the Bird of Prey is sufficient. I disagree.

I think if the Romulans attacked a couple of outposts in the middle of nowhere (like Amargosa Observatory and one of those little relay stations with like 2 ppl on it), I'd agree that pursuing and destroying the Romulan ship responsible is sufficient reprisal.

But I think the loss of a strategically important outpost that is clearly in Federation or allied space is sufficient cause for war (Neutral Zone Outposts, Deep Space 9)

Really? 'Cause the thing is, a full-on war would cost the Federation millions of lives and endanger hundreds of worlds. Whereas, those outposts were very lightly staffed and look easy to re-establish (and to re-enforce defenses for). Seems to me that destroying the bird-of-prey, increasing starship patrols of the Neutral Zone, and re-establishing the outposts would be a lot better for Federation security and Federation lives than launching a retaliatory invasion of Romulan space.

The map in "Balance of Terror" showed seven outposts along the Neutral Zone. Three of them were destroyed.

"Balance of Terror" also established that the Neutral Zone was a light-year wide, and the Zone took up a large percentage of that map. That means that that map only displayed a small part of the larger Federation-Romulan border -- there are almost certainly dozens upon dozens of similar outposts along the Neutral Zone that went unharmed.



Well, first off, as I just pointed out above, your comparison is inaccurate. It would be the equivalent of destroying three small, lightly-manned outposts along the DMZ out of dozens, not of killing three-sevenths of all DMZ-stationed troops.

What gave you the idea that these are small, lightly manned outposts? Or that their presence wasn't strategically important to the Federation's defense?

I was under the impression that the Romulans, being one of the Federation's two main rivals during the 23rd century, would have a very well manned, well armed and well defended border between them.

We know that the outposts were armed with phasers and manned with a full weapons crew. They were also protected with armor made of "the hardest substance known to Federation science". It sounds like Starfleet built these with the possibility of a Romulan attack in mind.

In the 24th Century, the USS Berlin, the USS Enterprise-D and one Neutral Zone Outpost was considered enough of a show of force to scare off seven Romulan Warbirds. We know that the Enterprise can take on one Warbird at most, not two, and that's the most powerful ship in Starfleet. That means the outpost, at least by the 24th Century has more firepower than five Romulan Warbirds.

You considered Deep Space 9 heavily manned. DS9 was just a mining station. When Starfleet sent its contingent, it didn't even consider the station to be a strategically important military base.

But I suppose you could be right. This is a fictional universe, so we'll never really know how many people serve on a Neutral Zone outpost. It may just be two guys on a dinky subspace relay station. There may be 100 outposts, instead of just outposts 1 thru 7. But there's no point arguing about that.

If it is a dinky station with two people, I already said its not worth going to war.

But if I'm right and the Neutral Zone outposts are well manned, like DS9, or at least similar to a starship, then do you think its worth going to war?

As for whether that would lead to war, I think that that would depend on a lot of things, actually. A war in the Korean peninsula right now would be fairly disastrous for all sides -- frankly, nobody there has the military capacity for a full-scale war without guaranteeing themselves a pyrrhic victory, if that. Because of that fact, all three sides have powerful incentives to avoid full-scale war even if they engage in minor skirmishes.

I don't think that's likely at all, especially after the Romulans had isolated themselves from the rest of the galaxy for nearly a century prior to that. Given the relative sizes of the various interstellar states as established in DS9 and later in Star Trek: Star Charts, I'd say a far fairer comparison to the modern day would be the United States (Federation) and the People's Republic of China (Romulans). China's an impressive military power, but it's still not as powerful as the U.S.


Why do people always prattle on about how "we can't afford to show weakness?" It's always predicated on this notion that the enemy itself is irrationally hostile and belligerent rather than a rational political actor. Were the Romulans testing the Federation? Yes. Does that mean they planned to invade the Federation if they thought their cloaking and plasma energy cannon technologies were tactically superior? Not necessarily; it could just as easily be that they wanted simply to see if they were secure from what they perceived as a threat of Federation aggression. The enemy can be as paranoid about showing weakness to you for fear of your aggression as you can be of him.

That's why it's important not to jump to conclusions, not to decide that every enemy is another Adolf Hitler waiting in the wings, and to have proportional responses to acts of aggression. And I'm sorry, but destroying three lightly-manned recon outposts out of dozens is just not proportional to a large-scale invasion of Romulan space.

You know, it was Spock that was "prattling" about not showing weakness. Supported by Lt. Stiles. The fact that Kirk agreed to pursue the Romulans shows that he was convinced by Spock and Stiles.

And even you yourself agreed that destroying the Bird of Prey was an appropriate response. The whole point of that was to "not show weakness". so are we all just "prattling" now? lol

When Picard dropped his shields in "The Enemy", he warned Tomalok that destroying the Enterprise would plunge the Empire into war. The Romulans have to believe that the Federation is willing to go to war over the destruction of a single starship, the Enterprise-D

And all that requires is that Picard play on Romulan paranoia and fear of the Federation; it does not require that the Federation live up to their paranoia.

You do realize what happens when you do not live up to your reputation right?

I think we're using different definitions. You two seem to be operating under a very liberal definition of "war," one that accepts as a "war" any form of open combat between states. I'm operating under a different definition: I'd define an interstellar war as a state of on-going (not limited) combat involving large-scale invasions (not single-system invasions or invasions of strategically unimportant systems) of enemy territory and the deliberate attempt to defeat the enemy's military apparatus and force the submission of the enemy government, usually via military occupation of the enemy's legitimately-owned territory.

I would describe a campaign on the Cardassians' part to capture a single solar system as not being inherently an act of war, provided that that star system lacks a heavy population or is not the home system of a Federation Member State. As such, I would describe the initial capture of a Federation colony's system by the Cardassians, and the re-capturing of that system from the Cardassians as a battle, not a war.

It would become a war if the re-capture was retaliated against by a Cardassian campaign to invade and occupy other Federation star systems, or if the Federation retaliated against the initial capture by seeking to invade and occupy other Cardassian systems. But so long as combat remains confined to a single minor star system, I would not define it as a full-scale war.



I don't think that's clear at all. It would really depend on how long the Cardassians had been in the system, what mechanisms they'd used to secure control of the colony's populace, and the number of ships they'd dedicated as a result of their calculation of how important the system was to them versus how important the system was to the Federation.

False comparison. Organia was used as a strategic point in an on-going, multi-system cold-war-type conflict that was expected to flare up into a multi-system war. An invasion of a single system is hardly the same thing.

I don't think its a false comparison. You don't think a war started at Minos Korva (or limited combat as u call it) has the same potential as the war at Organia to flare up and involve other star systems? Especially if the battle drags on for months like it did at Chintoka.

You're right in that we don't know the size and strength of the Cardassian invasion fleet. But the Central Command isn't stupid. If the invasion fleet is like two warships, Starfleet isn't going to hesitate to counter-attack. (and then yes, even I would call that "limited combat"). But I don't think Central Command is that dumb.
What we do know is that they redeployed the troops that had been occupying Bajor. Bajor isn't some small colony of 20,000 people. It has millions of people (maybe billions?) with a fierce resistance movement that engaged in 50 years worth of bombings, ground warfare, assassinations, etc. I'm sure the occupation force to deal with Bajor wasn't small.

Again, that depends on a lot of variables. If the Federation has destroyed or captured all Cardassian assets in that system but has not entered legitimately-held Cardassian systems in retaliation, but has instead significantly beefed up Federation patrols of the UFP side of the UFP/Cardassian border, the Cardassians may well be intimidated into refraining from engaging in further hostilities. That would, of course, depend on why the Cardassians launched the initial invasion of that system and on how important they viewed that system as being in comparison to how important they believed the Federation regarded the system as being.



No. I already said the Federation should re-capture such territory.

What I'm arguing is that this does not automatically warrant further military escalation once Federation territory has been secured.



Because a war is by definition something much larger than a battle over a single, small piece of territory lasting only a short time with only limited objectives.

Put it another way:

The State of Israel launched an invasion of Iraqi territory and attacked the Republic of Iraq in 1981 when they destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor. Open combat occurred between two states. Yet no reasonable person would call that a war, because combat was limited in time, territory, lives lost, and objective. It was hardly the same thing as, for instance, the Iran-Iraq War.

Really? A single star system out of a Federation of hundreds is worth starting an all-out war over?

You're sure that's a proportional response? Because, to me, a proportional response would be re-capturing that star system and re-enforcing existing border defenses to deter retaliatory Cardassian incursions, not actively going to war with the Cardassian Union.

Think about it this way:

If "one star system is not worth defending with force", than that doesn't bode well for new members of the UFP. What incentive is there to join a state that does not guarantee protecting you against invaders?

As I said above, that would depend on the system in question. If it's a system with a small Federation or Federation Member State colony, then, I don't think that the Member States themselves would consider it worth going to full-scale war over. In fact, the Member States would probably look at it this way: "If we're outside the Federation, and the system containing our 20,000-person colony is captured by the Cardassians, then that colony is well and truly fucked, since we won't even have the capacity to re-capture it, and the Cardassians have a beachhead to launch further invasions of our territory. If we're Federation Members, the Federation will help us re-capture it and protect us from future incursions."

If, on the other hand, that star system contains the homeworld, capital planet, or primary population centers of a Federation Member State -- if it's the Trill system or the Betazed system rather than a system containing only a small colony -- then, yes, certainly the Federation has a valid reason to engage in further retaliations in order to ensure the security of that Federation Member State's system. If the Cardassians were to invade the Trill system, for instance, then I'd say that the Federation has every right to capture unpopulated Cardassian territory and to force the Cardassians to give up that territory in retaliation for the invasion of Trill once Trill has been re-captured.

Once again: All acts of aggression are not created equal. The appropriate response will depend upon the individual act and the circumstances surrounding it.

It seems our real difference in opinion is how important Minos Korva is, or a Neutral Zone outpost. And the size of the Cardassian invasion force. None of which we can really find out in a fictional universe.

What we do agree on is that DS9 is both well manned and in allied space. So as I wrote earlier in this long ass post, is an outpost like DS9 worth going to war?

What about the loss of a Federation starship? (in Federation territory like when Picard dropped his shields in The Enemy)

 

[Rush Limborg]

To suggest that you cannot legitimately support a strong line of defense without having served yourelf is, quite frankly, inherently ridiculous.

It does suggest two things...

1. A lack of awareness of the reality about which you speak.

2. An unwillingness to go where you wish others to.

Sir, I have no respect for those who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. BTW, this is not directed at you, per se. Don't take it as such. But your namesake...I've no respect for those who actively avoided military service, who then come on and talk the talk, and often harsh others (Clinton) for apparently doing the same.

So it's not about you actually serving, Rush (Limbaugh?) It's about talking tough about it?

Uh-huh.

So what you're saying is...you can't honor our troops going out to war...if you haven't served? That if you haven't served, you should be a pacifist?

I'm sure that's not what you mean--but it IS an implication of what you have said.

Now, has sometimes this been presented in a bit of a Pollyanna sort of way? Yes. But on the other hand, if the Federation responded disproportionately to every crisis on it's borders, it would lose resources that it didn't need to, and make itself weaker.

But you admit that it far too often leans to a naive side--one which makes itself weaker, even more so than in your theoretical situation, because it is weaking from within, as well as without.

How is it weakening from within?

Because it weakens morale. If a people are not willing to fight for the things they believes in...why do they believe in those things?

 

[Rush Limborg]

Robert DeSoto's dead-on. A foreign power attacts UFP space and the UFP debates whether to consider this an "act of war"?

Well if you don't you would have, ya know a WAR.

Wars are bad and best avoided. What exactly would the Federation have to gain from this War with the Romulans? Revenge is a terrible motivation.

Sure, you can say WW2 turned out OK but millions died, and in this case the enemy was resolutely evil and genocidal. The Romulans have never been established as a terminal threat to the Federation, and achieving peaceful co-existence would be a more sensible aim.

Fortunately, Kirk did the right thing. He entered the Neutral Zone, and beat the heck outta the Bird-of-prey. With this sufficient show of force, the Romulans were deterred.

The UFP don't let America do whatever it wants whenever it wants to do it to whichever bunch of middle-eastern nutters it wants to do it to? I missed that episode.

Of course not. It doesn't exist.

Chamberlain gets a LOT of flak but he was in a very difficult position. He did not know what we know now, that Hitler was in no position to fight Britain and France and he would have backed down if threatened.

He DID know that Britain and France were in no state to fight a war. His actions are difficult to commend in hindsight but they were understandable.

Except for this: he SHOULD have known that Hitler was building up his army--and that Hitler was ranting and raving about the establishment of a Third Reich, etc.

Churchill, BTW, warned England about the consequences of appeasement. Chamberlain couldn't say they had no way of seeing it coming.

By contrast, was Winston Churchill "barbaric"? No--he was INTELLIGENT!

Churchill was often stupid as well, and disasters like Gallipoli were partly his fault, as well as many disasters in WW2.

Fortunately he usually listened to those around him, unlike Hitler,

--and Chamberlain--

and therefore he did pretty well.

He was a master strategist, but a lousy tactician.

He was human. He made mistakes. But he was the leader Britain need--and, fortunately, got.

 

[stonester1]

Uh-huh.

So what you're saying is...you can't honor our troops going out to war...if you haven't served? That if you haven't served, you should be a pacifist?

I'm sure that's not what you mean--but it IS an implication of what you have said.

No, that is absolutely not what I mean. What I DO mean is threefold, re chickenhawks...

1. You never served, but don't just support the troops, but engage in highly belligerent rhetoric that is incongruous with your own actions.

2. In some cases, you used dubious means to avoid military service, especially in wartime.

3. Most hypocritical, while you are doing all of the above, you denigrate others who do the same thing...often people whose rhetoric is not nearly as fiery as yours.

So it's not a matter of not having served. Not serving in itself is not an indicator of a lack of honor. And those who served should be honored.

The people I'm talking about, Rush being one, doesn't stop at merely honoring the troops. He uses the rhetoric as a sledgehammer, one that his background and actions do not qualify him to wield.

Because it weakens morale. If a people are not willing to fight for the things they believes in...why do they believe in those things?

As has been discussed here, there are proper and proportional responses.

What if you leap into a fray due to a burst of jingoism and little else and said war gets you into a years long quagmire that weakens you militarily, morally and leadership-wise?

I think we can see from real world examples that it's not exactly good for the home front morale.

 

[DarthPipes]

Entering the Romulan Neutral Zone is considered an act of war. So a Romulan Bird of Prey crosses the neutral zone and destroys several Federation outposts. Kirk does the right thing and chases those Romulans down and blows them up. (well technically they self destructed).
But shouldn't the Federation declare war on the Romulans for this? No wonder they kept violating the Neutral Zone again even in the 24th century (which the Federation never declared war either)

What's mind-boggling about this is at first the Enterprise's orders were to just pursue and let them go if they crossed the Neutral Zone. A Romulan ship has just crossed the border (violating a peace try) and murdered 1000 Federation citizens and they were willing to let both the Romulan Bird of Prey and the Romulan Empire get away with it. This seems to be Kirk's thinking at first as well.

EDIT: I remember the casualty count being mentioned as 1000 but I could be wrong here. Whether or not the Neutral Zone outposts were lightly staffed or not, the Romulans crossed the Neutral Zone and murdered Federation citizens, two acts of war. And the Federation is fine with that.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Uh-huh.

So what you're saying is...you can't honor our troops going out to war...if you haven't served? That if you haven't served, you should be a pacifist?

I'm sure that's not what you mean--but it IS an implication of what you have said.

No, that is absolutely not what I mean. What I DO mean is threefold, re chickenhawks...

1. You never served, but don't just support the troops, but engage in highly belligerent rhetoric that is incongruous with your own actions.

"Highly beligerant rhetoric"? Indeed.

2. In some cases, you used dubious means to avoid military service, especially in wartime.

Uh-huh.

3. Most hypocritical, while you are doing all of the above, you denigrate others who do the same thing...often people whose rhetoric is not nearly as fiery as yours.

So it's not a matter of not having served. Not serving in itself is not an indicator of a lack of honor. And those who served should be honored.

The people I'm talking about, Rush being one, doesn't stop at merely honoring the troops. He uses the rhetoric as a sledgehammer, one that his background and actions do not qualify him to wield.

"Sledgehammer"? Sure....

Because it weakens morale. If a people are not willing to fight for the things they believes in...why do they believe in those things?

As has been discussed here, there are proper and proportional responses.

What if you leap into a fray due to a burst of jingoism and little else and said war gets you into a years long quagmire that weakens you militarily, morally and leadership-wise?

I think we can see from real world examples that it's not exactly good for the home front morale.

And, once again, no one contests this!



This is my problem, with the foreign policy we see all too often in TNG:

Those leaders of the Federation who consider themselves intellectually superior to the rest of the UFP have claimed they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accomodation", and they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll...forget his evil ways, and learn to love them. All who oppose this policy...are indicted as "warmongers". They are accused of offering simple answers to complex problems.

Well, perhaps there is a simple answer. Not an easy answer, but simple...if the citizens of the Federation have the courage to tell their elected officials that they want a national policy based on what they know in their hearts is morally right.

The Federation cannot buy their security--their freedom from the threat of destruction--by commiting an immorality so great...as saying to a billion sentient beings enslaved behind enemy borders (re: the Bajorans), "Give up your dreams of freedom...because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slavemasters."

Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation (or, "multinational state", whatever) which can prefer disgrace to danger...is prepared for a master...and deserves one."

Now, let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace--and you can have it in the next second: surrender.

Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this--but every lesson in history tells us...that the greater risk lies in appeasement. And this is the specter the well-meaning leaders of the UFP refuse to face--that their policy of accommodation...is appeasement--and it gives no choice between peace and war: only between fight and surrender.

If they continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat...eventually the Federation will have to face the final demand--the ultimatum. And what then?

 

[Rush Limborg]

Really? A single star system out of a Federation of hundreds is worth starting an all-out war over?

You're sure that's a proportional response? Because, to me, a proportional response would be re-capturing that star system and re-enforcing existing border defenses to deter retaliatory Cardassian incursions, not actively going to war with the Cardassian Union.

Think about it this way:

If "one star system is not worth defending with force", than that doesn't bode well for new members of the UFP. What incentive is there to join a state that does not guarantee protecting you against invaders?

As I said above, that would depend on the system in question. If it's a system with a small Federation or Federation Member State colony, then, I don't think that the Member States themselves would consider it worth going to full-scale war over. In fact, the Member States would probably look at it this way: "If we're outside the Federation, and the system containing our 20,000-person colony is captured by the Cardassians, then that colony is well and truly fucked, since we won't even have the capacity to re-capture it, and the Cardassians have a beachhead to launch further invasions of our territory. If we're Federation Members, the Federation will help us re-capture it and protect us from future incursions."

If, on the other hand, that star system contains the homeworld, capital planet, or primary population centers of a Federation Member State -- if it's the Trill system or the Betazed system rather than a system containing only a small colony -- then, yes, certainly the Federation has a valid reason to engage in further retaliations in order to ensure the security of that Federation Member State's system. If the Cardassians were to invade the Trill system, for instance, then I'd say that the Federation has every right to capture unpopulated Cardassian territory and to force the Cardassians to give up that territory in retaliation for the invasion of Trill once Trill has been re-captured.

Once again: All acts of aggression are not created equal. The appropriate response will depend upon the individual act and the circumstances surrounding it.

So let me get this straight, Sci:

You would allow those people of the colony to die--and give them up as canon fodder--because it's not worth fighting for those lives if they don't reach a certain population level?

How many people does it take, Sci...before it becomes worth fighting for, hmm?

30,000?

100,000?

A million?

How many people does it take, Sci?

 

[Xerxes1979]

Picard nearly went to war over the presumed abduction of ambassador T'Pel in Data's Day.

 

[indolover]

The Federation is built on the idea of peaceful co-existence. to be aggressive and belligerent goes against its core ethos.

I also think that Starfleet is based on the ideal of "a good defence is a strong offence". Whilst the Federation does not start wars as such, Starfleet is probably the strongest military (or quasi-military in Starfleet's case) force in the Quadrant. Perhaps only the Klingons, the pre-Obsidian Order fall Cardassians, and the Romulans, could be of any serious threat to it.

At least ship for ship, the Federation could match any other major Alpha Quadrant power. The Defiant class were built for war, which is unusual for the Federation to do. Even the Galaxy and Sovereign class were heavily armed, and only could not be deemed warships since they had science labs, families, schools and research centres on board.

 

[Sci]

Think about it this way:

If "one star system is not worth defending with force", than that doesn't bode well for new members of the UFP. What incentive is there to join a state that does not guarantee protecting you against invaders?

As I said above, that would depend on the system in question. If it's a system with a small Federation or Federation Member State colony, then, I don't think that the Member States themselves would consider it worth going to full-scale war over. In fact, the Member States would probably look at it this way: "If we're outside the Federation, and the system containing our 20,000-person colony is captured by the Cardassians, then that colony is well and truly fucked, since we won't even have the capacity to re-capture it, and the Cardassians have a beachhead to launch further invasions of our territory. If we're Federation Members, the Federation will help us re-capture it and protect us from future incursions."

If, on the other hand, that star system contains the homeworld, capital planet, or primary population centers of a Federation Member State -- if it's the Trill system or the Betazed system rather than a system containing only a small colony -- then, yes, certainly the Federation has a valid reason to engage in further retaliations in order to ensure the security of that Federation Member State's system. If the Cardassians were to invade the Trill system, for instance, then I'd say that the Federation has every right to capture unpopulated Cardassian territory and to force the Cardassians to give up that territory in retaliation for the invasion of Trill once Trill has been re-captured.

Once again: All acts of aggression are not created equal. The appropriate response will depend upon the individual act and the circumstances surrounding it.

So let me get this straight, Sci:

You would allow those people of the colony to die--and give them up as canon fodder--because it's not worth fighting for those lives if they don't reach a certain population level?

What the hell are you talking about? Did you miss the part where I said, numerous times, that the Federation should re-capture any systems captured by the enemy?

Did you miss the part where I said that I wouldn't consider a limited engagement to re-capture and secure Federation space the same thing as going to war because I define war as meaning a much broader scale and timeframe for combat, and that this is why I say it's not worth going to war for even though it is worth going to battle for?

Did you even read anything I said?

Because I never said that the colonists aren't worth fighting for; I said the incursion isn't worth retaliating against with a full-scale war.

 

[Admiral Shran]

This is my problem, with the foreign policy we see all too often in TNG:

Those leaders of the Federation who consider themselves intellectually superior to the rest of the UFP have claimed they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accomodation", and they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll...forget his evil ways, and learn to love them. All who oppose this policy...are indicted as "warmongers". They are accused of offering simple answers to complex problems.

Well, perhaps there is a simple answer. Not an easy answer, but simple...if the citizens of the Federation have the courage to tell their elected officials that they want a national policy based on what they know in their hearts is morally right.

The Federation cannot buy their security--their freedom from the threat of destruction--by commiting an immorality so great...as saying to a billion sentient beings enslaved behind enemy borders (re: the Bajorans), "Give up your dreams of freedom...because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slavemasters."

Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation (or, "multinational state", whatever) which can prefer disgrace to danger...is prepared for a master...and deserves one."

Now, let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace--and you can have it in the next second: surrender.

Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this--but every lesson in history tells us...that the greater risk lies in appeasement. And this is the specter the well-meaning leaders of the UFP refuse to face--that their policy of accommodation...is appeasement--and it gives no choice between peace and war: only between fight and surrender.

If they continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat...eventually the Federation will have to face the final demand--the ultimatum. And what then?

This sums it up perfectly for me. You can't let an enemy take your terrority and kill your citizens without responding with military action, i.e. a war. If the UFP did that, it would shortly find itself backed into a corner, with only the Federation Core Worlds left, and then they'd be screwed.

As Sisko said.... There's a word for that, "surrounded."

However, Rush, I have my problems with Alexander Hamilton, so I'll add some quotes from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

"A great empire is most easily diminished at the edges."

"As our enemies have found we can reason like men, so now let us show them we can fight like men also."

What the hell are you talking about? Did you miss the part where I said, numerous times, that the Federation should re-capture any systems captured by the enemy?

Did you miss the part where I said that I wouldn't consider a limited engagement to re-capture and secure Federation space the same thing as going to war because I define war as meaning a much broader scale and timeframe for combat, and that this is why I say it's not worth going to war for even though it is worth going to battle for?

Did you even read anything I said?

Because I never said that the colonists aren't worth fighting for; I said the incursion isn't worth retaliating against with a full-scale war.

Here's what he's talking about....

As I said above, that would depend on the system in question. If it's a system with a small Federation or Federation Member State colony, then, I don't think that the Member States themselves would consider it worth going to full-scale war over. In fact, the Member States would probably look at it this way: "If we're outside the Federation, and the system containing our 20,000-person colony is captured by the Cardassians, then that colony is well and truly fucked, since we won't even have the capacity to re-capture it, and the Cardassians have a beachhead to launch further invasions of our territory. If we're Federation Members, the Federation will help us re-capture it and protect us from future incursions."

If, on the other hand, that star system contains the homeworld, capital planet, or primary population centers of a Federation Member State -- if it's the Trill system or the Betazed system rather than a system containing only a small colony -- then, yes, certainly the Federation has a valid reason to engage in further retaliations in order to ensure the security of that Federation Member State's system. If the Cardassians were to invade the Trill system, for instance, then I'd say that the Federation has every right to capture unpopulated Cardassian territory and to force the Cardassians to give up that territory in retaliation for the invasion of Trill once Trill has been re-captured.

You're implying that if the system in question is just a colony, or small population center, and not a home system of a Federation Member, than the UFP shouldn't do all that is necessary to 1.) reclaim that system and 2.) ensure that such a violation of Federation terrority, as well as the rights and liberties of those colonists, never happens again.

Look at World War I. The Allies agreed to end the war with a peace that didn't include total victory or the unconditional surrender of Germany. As a result, many people (the Kaiser, Hitler, and the vast majority of the German public) always believed they could have won the war. This belief simmered away until it exploded into another war which was larger and more destructive than the last one.

If an enemy invades your terrority with the intention of annexing that terrority by force and occupation, you go to war. That's a no-brainer for me. And you go to "full scale war," as you call it. It's the only way to ensure that such an invasion won't happen again and the only way to safeguard the lives of your citizens.

Now, does that mean I think the Federation acted wrongly in "Chain of Command"? No. They acted perfectly. They found a non-violent solution to the situation without needing to go to war. However, my point is, if their peaceful solutions didn't work, and the Cardassian Union invaded and occupied Minos Korva, the time for talk, dipolmacy, and non-violent measures would be over.

 

[Sci]

You're implying that if the system in question is just a colony, or small population center, and not a home system of a Federation Member, than the UFP shouldn't do all that is necessary to 1.) reclaim that system and 2.) ensure that such a violation of Federation terrority, as well as the rights and liberties of those colonists, never happens again.

No, I'm not. In fact, part of why I'd argue that it's a disproportionate response to launch a full-scale war in retaliation for the invasion of a single, small colony, is that the relative smallness of the target indicates to me that the enemy is not as dedicated to capturing it. If the enemy targets a major population center or homeworld, it has by definition adopted a "total war" mindset; if, on the other hand, the enemy has chosen a less prominent target, that indicates that the enemy is probably less bold and less dedicated to the idea of gaining the territory, and that, as such, smaller measures are all that is required to reclaim the territory and ensure that future such violations won't happen again.

In other words -- if the enemy is bold enough to try to capture Trill, then that means they're in it to win, they've put all their chips on the table, and a full-scale war is necessary to prevent them from keeping up that behavior. If, on the other hand, the enemy is targeting a minor colony, the enemy is probably considerably less bold, has devoted considerably fewer resources to the acts of aggression, and the enemy can most probably be deterred by re-capture and re-enforcement of existing border defenses.

And, yes, I absolutely reject the idea that the endangerment of the lives of a small population center automatically warrants the certain deaths of millions or billions.

Look at World War I. The Allies agreed to end the war with a peace that didn't include total victory or the unconditional surrender of Germany. As a result, many people (the Kaiser, Hitler, and the vast majority of the German public) always believed they could have won the war. This belief simmered away until it exploded into another war which was larger and more destructive than the last one.

But that wasn't the primary reason for German resurgence. The primary reason was that the economic conditions imposed upon Germany by the Allies in the Treaty of Versailles were so economically devastating to Germany that it produced huge, long-simmering hatred for the Allies and a desire for a German nationalist movement that would re-establish Germany as a powerful and wealthy state.

That's not to say that we-coulda-won-ism didn't play a role in things, too, but the major problem were the economic punishments endured by the Germans.

 

[stonester1]

"Highly beligerant rhetoric"? Indeed.

So...you going to honestly tell me that Limbaugh doesn't engage in this. Because I'm betting I can do a search which brings up examples within seconds.

Uh-huh.

Indeed, don't let hero worship blind you to the reality of matters.

"Sledgehammer"? Sure....

And I'm sticking to it.

As has been discussed here, there are proper and proportional responses.

What if you leap into a fray due to a burst of jingoism and little else and said war gets you into a years long quagmire that weakens you militarily, morally and leadership-wise?

I think we can see from real world examples that it's not exactly good for the home front morale.

And, once again, no one contests this!

If you, like Rush, backed the Iraq war, you sure as hell contested it.

Those leaders of the Federation who consider themselves intellectually superior to the rest of the UFP have claimed they have a utopian solution of peace without victory.

When have you seen a Federation representative present this as offcial policy of their government?

Well, perhaps there is a simple answer. Not an easy answer, but simple...if the citizens of the Federation have the courage to tell their elected officials that they want a national policy based on what they know in their hearts is morally right.

Please don't equate war with morality. It is sometimes necessary, even just, but never say that killing, especially en masse, is a "moral" thing. It never is. And win or lose, right or wrong, no matter where you are on that continuum, war costs, materially, morally, spiritually.

Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this--but every lesson in history tells us...that the greater risk lies in appeasement. And this is the specter the well-meaning leaders of the UFP refuse to face--that their policy of accommodation...is appeasement--and it gives no choice between peace and war: only between fight and surrender.

If they continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat...eventually the Federation will have to face the final demand--the ultimatum. And what then?

How has the Federation "backed up and retreated"? They just haven't used every provocation as a reason to exercise all out war.

Sometimes, there are better solutions available.