Let's say that you're right, and that 'Fire everything' indicates that the torpedo bays are empty and the Narada has no shot left in the locker. I don't agree that we can infer that reliably, but for the sake of argument let's stipulate that. It doesn't change things from Kirk's POV because Kirk didn't hear Nero say "Fire everything". Chekov tells Kirk the Narada is losing power and that her shields are down. He doesn't mention a loss of weapon capacity. So even if in fact Nero has no weapons, Kirk doesn't know that he has no weapons. I answered that question: Any amount of time is fine so long as the conditions can be expected to remain the same if the events are allowed to play out without pulling the trigger. It's a complicated issue that in general involves questions of what can be known and what can be reasonably foreseen, as well as what it means to do 'harm' to someone. In real life, these questions almost universally remain too complex and too difficult to resolve for any kind of certain response It is ethically permissible to kill this person to come about. The movies are different from real life, however, and the situation is one where we have much more information and much greater certainty than can usually be obtained IRL. We know the following about Nero: His death is imminent and inevitable It can be avoided with Kirk's help Given the exhaustive and compulsory choice 'Die or accept Kirk's help' Nero prefers death Kirk can reasonably suppose that attempting to forcibly rescue Nero represents an unacceptable risk to him or to his crew or to his ship, or to all of the above No-one currently exists who will mourn Nero What the above facts do is remove, one by one, every objection I can raise to Kirk pulling the trigger. As I said, I already answered the time question. Yes, we are still 'robbing them of their life'. From my point of view, all the reasons that it is typically wrong to do that are absent here. A) No, it doesn't matter. His rescue by Romulans is a counterfactual - something that manifestly is not the case. Nero would also be happy not to be in a black hole - but he is. Given that fact, his only options are to die or to be rescued by Kirk and he knows this to be true. B) Of course it has to do with his actual options. If he had viable options for rescue acceptable to him, he wouldn't be telling Kirk anything except 'Get off the line, I'm arranging my rescue'. But he doesn't, so given the only two options available to him, he makes his choice very clear. C) He chooses death rather than to be rescued. He is sufficiently indifferent to his death to make a choice that he knows will lead to it. No, that has no bearing whatsoever on anything, in the slightest degree, and here is why: What if there's a crazed Vulcan on board the Enterprise who can and will blow the Enterprise up if Kirk doesn't pull the trigger? Will you allow that it doesn't matter if the crazed Vulcan is actually there? Of course not. Counterfactuals are indeed theoretical exercises, but they operate by the assumption of their being the case - and I agree that if it were possible for Romulans to rescue Nero and if he were prepared to accept that then Kirk would be wrong to pull the trigger. Counterfactuals do not serve as some phantom objection to any given action, however, as I trust the example above makes clear.