Federation Foreign Policy

[propita]

Chamberlaine appears strict in comparision.

I think he's getting re-evaluated lately in the news. Something about Britain not being ready for a prolonged war with Germany at that time, so he was basically stalling while Britain prepared for war.

If that's true, it must suck to go down in history for 60 years as an appeaser when it was actually a long-term strategy dictated by necessity.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^And why the heck didn't he say something, to redeem himself?

 

[TerraUnam]

While he sold out Czechoslovakia, which had put a great deal of resources into raising a modern, well-equipped army with which to resist Germany. Unfortunately their defences were centred on the Sudetenland.

 

[Nerys Myk]

^And why the heck didn't he say something, to redeem himself?

Because he died in 1940.

 

[Sci]

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

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

Huh? What?

Who said either of them were supposed to be that?

No one. I was satirizing the idea that "accomodation" is a legitimate means of maintaining the peace, as Robert DeSoto maintained.

The actual term for what Chamberlain did is "appeasement." And appeasement is defined as conceding all of the other country's goals while demanding nothing from them in return.

And Sci, your clip actually proves my point. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war. But a superpower MUST be prepared to use force against those who attack it. Both Leo and Bartlett agree in that vid that force was completely neccesary against the enemy in question.

Sure. Just like the Federation does when it, for instance, destroys a Romulan bird-of-prey that crosses the Neutral Zone.

The point was, it uses proportional force. It doesn't start a war every damn time a minor skirmish breaks out. It doesn't start a war over every single act of aggression it suffers, because it recognizes that not all acts of aggression are created equally.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Again, no one contests that point.

 

[Admiral Shran]

I agree that proportional force should be what is used. The Federation had Kirk deliver just that in BoT.

But take "Chain of Command." The Cardassians are preparing a full scale invasion with the goal of seizing and occupying Federation terrority. The Cardassians are willing to do this because they don't believe the Federation will actually go to war over one system. This isn't a single Bird-of-Prey crossing the Neutral Zone. It would be like Canada invading the U.S. and occupying the state of Maine. This is a case where full scale war is the correct proprotional response. Yet, the Federation seems to be of the opinion that this wouldn't be enough for war.

The Federation needs to stand up in situations like this with a Mutually Assured Destruction stance. That would stop a war.

 

[Sci]

I agree that proportional force should be what is used. The Federation had Kirk deliver just that in BoT.

But take "Chain of Command." The Cardassians are preparing a full scale invasion with the goal of seizing and occupying Federation terrority. The Cardassians are willing to do this because they don't believe the Federation will actually go to war over one system. This isn't a single Bird-of-Prey crossing the Neutral Zone. It would be like Canada invading the U.S. and occupying the state of Maine.

Would it?

Or would it be more like Canada invading the City of Blaine, Washington?

The Federation is huge. 150 Member States, several of which cover multiple star systems in their own right, spread out across 8,000 light-years.

Is it really a proportional response to go to war over a single star system?

 

[Admiral Shran]

I agree that proportional force should be what is used. The Federation had Kirk deliver just that in BoT.

But take "Chain of Command." The Cardassians are preparing a full scale invasion with the goal of seizing and occupying Federation terrority. The Cardassians are willing to do this because they don't believe the Federation will actually go to war over one system. This isn't a single Bird-of-Prey crossing the Neutral Zone. It would be like Canada invading the U.S. and occupying the state of Maine.

Would it?

Or would it be more like Canada invading the City of Blaine, Washington?

The Federation is huge. 150 Member States, several of which cover multiple star systems in their own right, spread out across 8,000 light-years.

Is it really a proportional response to go to war over a single star system?

Yes it would. Like I said, this isn't single Bird-of-Prey crossing the Neutral Zone or violating Federation space. This is a direct attack upon the soverignety of the Federation. It doesn't matter if it's only a small amount of land. You don't allow an enemy to invade and occupy your terrority.

If the Federation allowed the Cardassians to conquer a single system, what would stop them from doing it again? For that matter, what would stop other powers (Romulans, Breen, Gorn, Talarians, etc.) from doing the same thing? How many invasions does it take until the Federation would be justified in fighting back with force? Would they have to wait until the whole Federation was occupied except for the core worlds of Earth, Vulcan, Andoria, and Tellar?

And besides, I think the people of Blaine, Washington would certainly feel it justifies a war.

 

[Anwar]

Well, that the Cardassian force never made it there and was in fact used as a hostage to get Picard back may have changed things a bit. Would it have been totally justified since the invasion never happened in the first place? Possibly their invasion force being used like that WAS the proportional response since they never violated Federation sovereignty in the first place.

 

[Admiral Shran]

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.

 

[Sci]

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.

 

[Xerxes1979]

The invasion of Minos Korva would have been a total Cardassian failure.

Anything Nebula class or heavier has always been shown or implied to beat the crap out of the ubiquious Galor class the Cardies always field.

The Federation even operating under "weak sauce" rules of engagement would have unhesistantly thrown Starfleet personel into the grinder for the large number of coloniest canonically stated to reside there. Whatever strategic or political goal would have to be massive given the almost certain and dire level of disproportionate casualities that the operation would have sustained.

Remember the Cardassians didn't force the Federation to a stalemate in the conflict of the 2350s, they tried to act tough and got beaten back by a remarkably ethical and restrained opponent. Barring some level of Pakled like mental handicap the message would have eventually set in.

 

[stonester1]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[stonester1]

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.

Exactly.

Thoroughly destroying any Cardassian assets you find in or near that system, but otherwise, all out war just for that would be unwise.

 

[Xerxes1979]

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.

.

well said

"He will triumph who knows when to fight and when not to fight."
You are being tested, Riker. What is the answer?
How do you know my name?
You are facing fate with composure.
But what is the answer to my challenge?
Fear is the true enemy, the only enemy.
Unlike these little ones who close their minds,
your mind holds interesting thoughts.

 

[Robert DeSoto]

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.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

The invasion of Minos Korva would have been a total Cardassian failure.

Anything Nebula class or heavier has always been shown or implied to beat the crap out of the ubiquious Galor class the Cardies always field.

Not necessarily. If you get Galor-class starships in packs, they can be pretty dangerous. The Klingons found that out during the Dominion War--they may be weaker starships technologically, but with smart strategy, they can become extremely deadly. It's up to the commander to wield what he has wisely, and if he does...watch out.

 

[Robert DeSoto]

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.

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.)

 

[Admiral Shran]

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.

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.