Federation Foreign Policy

[Sci]

Here's how I would do it:

The first time an enemy attacks a colony--and, heaven forbid, conquers it, re-capture it--and demand an official apology and reperation payments for the purpose of rebuilding said colony.

Wouldn't object to such demands, but I don't think it's necessary, either, since they're unlikely to give either.

Refusal constitutes an act of war.

Lovely. You'll end up losing millions, if not billions, of your own citizens unnecessarily. Good luck keeping the Federation from being overrun after Starfleet is severely weakened from numerous such wars and the other powers pounce on it.

I would also include an ultimatum: If said enemy power EVER attacks the Federation again...EVER...regardless of size...Starfleet would strike back with DOUBLE the force inflicted by the enemy.

Again, lovely idea. Of course, one of the problems there is that Starfleet is not militarily omnipotent. How seriously will anyone take your words if they can see that you've weakened Starfleet again and again by committing it to wars over small systems that weren't necessary to actually secure the safety of those systems?

When I was a child, my mother taught me an important lesson: You should never make a threat you're not prepared -- or physically capable -- of carrying out. Your proposed responses might work at first, but they would quickly render the Federation incapable of carrying such threats out again in the future.

 

[Rush Limborg]

You are assuming that there is a limited supply of defence resources.

To the contrary, any losses inflicted through such battles could easily be made up for via mass defence build-up and production.

And again, the fear of punishment deters attack, not encourages.



Quite frankly, I can quote "life lessons" too, Sci. Here's something my father told me, using his life experiences as an example:

The only thing bullies respect is strength. If you try to "appeal to their better nature", they'll just laugh at you, and beat you up.

It was only when he struck back, and hit them--hard--that they respected him, and stopped their attacks.

If you have bullies to face, stand up to them. When you're not facing them, work out at the gym--build up your strength--so that when they attack you, you will be ready for them. No bully attacks a man stronger than they are--not for long, anyway.

Provided, of course, said bully knows that the man is perfectly willing to use that strength.

 

[stonester1]

You are assuming that there is a limited supply of defence resources.

There is. Even with a buildup, you are limited. The graveyards of history are littered with the bones of great powers who overextended themselves.

In other words, as great as the Federation is, it can't kick the ass of the whole Alpha quadrant. And a war of conquest against any one of it's major foes WOULD leave it weakened to another, should they decide to take advantage of the situation.

So such a thing can't be decided upon but for the most grave of reasons. All others, you are wise to respond proportionally.

When you beat up said bully, it is usually unnecessary to kill him, or even put him in the hospital.

I know, I successfully dealt with several bullies growing up.

 

[Sci]

You are assuming that there is a limited supply of defence resources.

Yes, I am. Why? Because the canon established rather firmly that the Federation's supply of defense resources is limited -- witness the numerous times that it was feared the Federation would lose the Dominion War (an all-out war if ever Trek has done one) because of insufficient resources.

The Federation has a limited supply of resources, and that's a fact.

And again, the fear of punishment deters attack, not encourages.

That rather depends on the situation and on the enemy, doesn't it?

Say the Cardassians try to capture a small system near the DMZ and the Federation responds as you describe. Cardassia refuses to apologize or to give reparations, and the Federation invades Cardassia. Pretty soon, hundreds of starships are lost even after the Federation defeats the Cardassians.

The Romulans are watching this and decide that they want to get in on that dilithium action in the Benzar star system. So what do they do? They manipulate the Danteri into claiming another system by promising the Danteri that they'll ally with them against the Federation if the Federation invades in retaliation. The Federation, already weakened by the war with Cardassia, tries a similar invasion against the Danteri, only it doesn't go so well this time; the war ends in a stalemate (even though the Romulans double-crossed the Danteri by not allying with them). Meanwhile, now that Starfleet's down by entire fleets due to these two unnecessary wars, the Romulan Imperial Fleet moves in and captures Benzar; Starfleet tries to re-capture the system but roundly gets its ass kicked because they wasted their resources and haven't built them back up.

Sure, it deterred the Cardassians, and it would have deterred the Danteri, but to the Romulans, it was just a new opportunity to exploit now that they had a reliable way of manipulating Federation behavior.

The only thing bullies respect is strength. If you try to "appeal to their better nature", they'll just laugh at you, and beat you up.

Which is why I suggested re-capturing the Federation system and beefing up defenses, not demanding that they apologize as you did. Bullies rarely do such things.

 

[Penta]

The Federation has a limited supply of resources, and that's a fact.

But if the Federation has a limited supply of resources, how do they possibly have a moneyless economy/a post-scarcity economy?

(If by human(oid) resources, wasn't it established in TNG (I think) that O'Brien was a draftee during the Cardassian war? For some reason I could've sworn I heard that somewhere.)

 

[Sci]

The Federation has a limited supply of resources, and that's a fact.

But if the Federation has a limited supply of resources, how do they possibly have a moneyless economy/a post-scarcity economy?

Excellent question. Answer: They don't, they just like to say they do.

Seriously. I mean, as much as Picard likes to rant about humanity not using money, we see them using money throughout TOS. Federation Member States try to claim Coridan as part of their territory for economic reasons; people buy and sell things throughout "The Trouble With Tribbles." Miners are established to be working for money in "The Devil in the Dark;" Harry Mudd is trafficking in women in "Mudd's Women" for money.

And this continues into the TNG era. A Vulcan merchant jacks up the price on a lamp when he sees that Janeway and Tuvok are Starfleet officers ("The Gift"). Dr. Crusher charges a purchase to her Enterprise account in "Encounter at Farpoint." The Federation offers to pay billions of credits to get access to a wormhole in "The Price." Etc.

(If by human(oid) resources, wasn't it established in TNG (I think) that O'Brien was a draftee during the Cardassian war? For some reason I could've sworn I heard that somewhere.)

I don't remember any such reference. I do remember that "In the Pale Moonlight" has Romulan Senator Vreenak arguing against an alliance with the Federation because Starfleet is experiencing a manpower shortage.

 

[Penta]

Oh, okay. Thanks for the answers Sci (I even agree, which I didn't think would happen!).

As a side note...Maybe someone could answer this for me: I'm pondering sketching out Starfleet administration in detail. Not for anything, but just..."Here's a possible way it could look like, let's argue". Which forum should that go into?

 

[stonester1]

The Federation has a limited supply of resources, and that's a fact.

But if the Federation has a limited supply of resources, how do they possibly have a moneyless economy/a post-scarcity economy?

(If by human(oid) resources, wasn't it established in TNG (I think) that O'Brien was a draftee during the Cardassian war? For some reason I could've sworn I heard that somewhere.)

Not just humanoid resources, ships and weapons of war. They still have to be constructed. This takes time, to build them, to crew them, to get them to the front lines. Wars are won and lost on logistics as much as fighting acumen.

 

[Admiral Shran]

The problem with that line of reasoning IS:

If the UFP had that kind of attitude towards its members...it would discourage new membership. If potential newcomers got the idea that "oh, we won't do whatever we can to keep you safe, if it means war", do you really think they'll buy that?

I go you one better Rush. If the UFP had that attitude towards its members, what would stop Member Worlds from seceding from the Federation?

Suppose, for example, the Tellarites told the UFP government - "If you're not going to protect them, why should we believe you're going to protect us if the need arises? We'll be leaving now and seeing to our own defense. Don't expect our help anymore."

I have to say, in such a situtation, I would NOT blame the Tellarites one bit for wanting to leave the Federation.

 

[Anwar]

No one has said the Feds shouldn't protect their people, they're just saying that the Feds can't go around fighting bloody wars to the death with everyone who irritates them. What happens when they get so weak from all this that they end up militarily crippled? History looks back and says "Yeah, we shouldn't have overreacted so much to one minor incursion."

 

[Rush Limborg]

The only thing bullies respect is strength. If you try to "appeal to their better nature", they'll just laugh at you, and beat you up.

Which is why I suggested re-capturing the Federation system and beefing up defenses, not demanding that they apologize as you did. Bullies rarely do such things.

Oh, I'm aware of that. Understand, I would not expect results. The only reason I would demand an official apology is: so that they will be without excuse--and that the more pascifistic critics of my administraton would be silenced, in the knowledge that I did what I could, diplomatic-wise.

Oh, okay. Thanks for the answers Sci (I even agree, which I didn't think would happen!).

I know. Though we are usually at opposite sides of the aisle, even I admit that Sci does make some good points.

He's like Juan Williams. I don't agree with his politics...but at least he can be reasoned with.

As a side note...Maybe someone could answer this for me: I'm pondering sketching out Starfleet administration in detail. Not for anything, but just..."Here's a possible way it could look like, let's argue". Which forum should that go into?

Probably the fanfic forum. That's always the safe way to go.

The problem with that line of reasoning IS:

If the UFP had that kind of attitude towards its members...it would discourage new membership. If potential newcomers got the idea that "oh, we won't do whatever we can to keep you safe, if it means war", do you really think they'll buy that?

I go you one better Rush. If the UFP had that attitude towards its members, what would stop Member Worlds from seceding from the Federation?

Suppose, for example, the Tellarites told the UFP government - "If you're not going to protect them, why should we believe you're going to protect us if the need arises? We'll be leaving now and seeing to our own defense. Don't expect our help anymore."

I have to say, in such a situtation, I would NOT blame the Tellarites one bit for wanting to leave the Federation.

YES--exactly. Great point, Shran!

 

[Rush Limborg]

The Federation has a limited supply of resources, and that's a fact.

But if the Federation has a limited supply of resources, how do they possibly have a moneyless economy/a post-scarcity economy?

(If by human(oid) resources, wasn't it established in TNG (I think) that O'Brien was a draftee during the Cardassian war? For some reason I could've sworn I heard that somewhere.)

Not just humanoid resources, ships and weapons of war. They still have to be constructed. This takes time, to build them, to crew them, to get them to the front lines. Wars are won and lost on logistics as much as fighting acumen.

Which is why a wise state will strive for the strongest defence force possible at all times--building up resources during times of peace, so as not to run out in times of war.

 

[stonester1]

But if the Federation has a limited supply of resources, how do they possibly have a moneyless economy/a post-scarcity economy?

(If by human(oid) resources, wasn't it established in TNG (I think) that O'Brien was a draftee during the Cardassian war? For some reason I could've sworn I heard that somewhere.)

Not just humanoid resources, ships and weapons of war. They still have to be constructed. This takes time, to build them, to crew them, to get them to the front lines. Wars are won and lost on logistics as much as fighting acumen.

Which is why a wise state will strive for the strongest defence force possible at all times--building up resources during times of peace, so as not to run out in times of war.

Doesn't matter. If you don't pick your battles wisely, you WILL run out.

There is not a single example in history of any nation with a bottomless logistical pool.

And again, there is example after example after frakkin' example of great powers killed due to military overextension.

Those are the facts.

 

[stonester1]

No one has said the Feds shouldn't protect their people, they're just saying that the Feds can't go around fighting bloody wars to the death with everyone who irritates them. What happens when they get so weak from all this that they end up militarily crippled? History looks back and says "Yeah, we shouldn't have overreacted so much to one minor incursion."

Exactly. There is a middle ground between doing nothing and complete conquest of a foe. Big ass middle ground with plenty of room.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Spare me the straw man, sir. NO ONE--I repeat, NO ONE--is talking about "conquest", or "full-scale war", as a catchall answer!

Doesn't matter. If you don't pick your battles wisely, you WILL run out.

There is not a single example in history of any nation with a bottomless logistical pool.

And again, there is example after example after frakkin' example of great powers killed due to military overextension.

Those are the facts.

What is ALSO a fact is that fear is a deterrent to the enemy attacking us, not an encouragement.

Again, as Sun Tzu said:

What causes opponents to come of their own accord is the prospect of gain. What discourages opponents from coming is the prospect of harm.

All the Federation needs to do to keep itself safe is to build and maintain a strong defence force--Starfleet, planetary defense systems, intelligence, etc.--and, when it is neccesary to fight, fight strong and quick.

How strong? Well, enough so that the risk will outweigh the gain for an enemy, so that the odds decrease of an enemy attacking!

 

[stonester1]

^Spare me the straw man, sir. NO ONE--I repeat, NO ONE--is talking about "conquest", or "full-scale war", as a catchall answer!

If you are rejecting the mere retaking of a taken colony or so as "appeasement", it sure sounds like it.

What is ALSO a fact is that fear is a deterrent to the enemy attacking us, not an encouragement.

Again, as Sun Tzu said:


What causes opponents to come of their own accord is the prospect of gain. What discourages opponents from coming is the prospect of harm.

And that prospect is dampened if

A. You overextend yourself.

B. Utter predictability they can use.

All the Federation needs to do to keep itself safe is to build and maintain a strong defence force--Starfleet, planetary defense systems, intelligence, etc.--and, when it is neccesary to fight, fight strong and quick.


How strong? Well, enough so that the risk will outweigh the gain for an enemy, so that the odds decrease of an enemy attacking!

Well, yes. But also, fight wise, fight smart. Take action in proportion and appropriate to the offense.

Sun Tzu would never advocate an all out war of conquest for a border incursion.

 

[Rush Limborg]

No, he would not. But neither would he advocate the foolisness of "Just take it back, and leave no disincentive for the enemy to attack again."

If you can strike few with many, you will thus minimize the number of those with whom you do battle.

And,

To unfailingly take what you attack, attack where there is no defense. For unfailingly secure defense, defend where there is no attack.

Also, the key to "unpredictability" is a strong intelligence force. With assistance of spies, we know how they think, and how to deal with them.

So only a brilliant ruler or a wise general who can use the highly intelligent foe espionage is sure of great success. This is essential for military operations, and the armies depend on this in their actions.

 

[stonester1]

Well, the key to "unpredictability" is a strong intelligence force. With assistance of spies, we know how they think, and how to deal with them.

Agreed.

 

[Sci]

Well, the key to "unpredictability" is a strong intelligence force. With assistance of spies, we know how they think, and how to deal with them.

But there is no such thing as an omniscient or infallible spy network. You cannot operate under the assumption that you know everything or that there may not be a vital piece of information you're missing.

 

[stonester1]

But there is no such thing as an omniscient or infallible spy network. You cannot operate under the assumption that you know everything or that there may not be a vital piece of information you're missing.

No, but he's correct in saying that if you want unpredictabily in your operations and have those operations be successful, rather than merely random, you DO need a well funded, well staffed and well trained intelligence apparatus.