• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers inside*

Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid

Poor Janeway. She dies fighting the Borg, and people lay 60 billion deaths at her feet. In The Needs of the Many, she's a widely dispised figure for having made first contact with the Undine, and failing to forge a lasting peace. Cut her a little slack!

And besides, going by STXI's time-travel retcon (although it wasn't the first to do it), all the time travellers would do is create a new, seperate timeline where the Borg didn't attack or perhaps even exist. From the POV of Destiny, whoever went back would simply disappear, like the 23rd century Klingon assault fleets mentioned in DS9's Millenium, or Spock and Nero in Countdown, and the timeline would go on.
 
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid

Trek featured both time travel that creates a new timeline, existing in parallel with the old one AND time travel that erases the previous past and rewrites it.
'Endgame' was intended to feature time travel of the second type.

Janeway's actions most definitely DID cause the borg attack and the new 'kill, don't assimilate' strategy of the borg.
Whoever blames her for causing the massive invasion/genocide from 'Destiny' - frankly, he's right.
 
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid

And besides, going by STXI's time-travel retcon (although it wasn't the first to do it), all the time travellers would do is create a new, seperate timeline where the Borg didn't attack or perhaps even exist. From the POV of Destiny, whoever went back would simply disappear, like the 23rd century Klingon assault fleets mentioned in DS9's Millenium, or Spock and Nero in Countdown, and the timeline would go on.

Not necessarily... ;)
 
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid

And besides, going by STXI's time-travel retcon (although it wasn't the first to do it), all the time travellers would do is create a new, seperate timeline where the Borg didn't attack or perhaps even exist. From the POV of Destiny, whoever went back would simply disappear, like the 23rd century Klingon assault fleets mentioned in DS9's Millenium, or Spock and Nero in Countdown, and the timeline would go on.

Not necessarily... ;)

exactly, depending on their actions they could very well alter the timeline.
 
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid

The point would be that nobody has the right to decide which timeline is better. But there should be the obligation to restore the natural flow of time. If someone goes back and prevents World War II, that would be a good thing. BUT nobody has the right to do this. So the time police would prevent any time travelers from altering the time line. It's the same principle as the Prime Directive. Why isn't the Federation giving replicators, warp drive, medical supplies to every race they encounter? Because they do not want to interfer in the natural development of things.

Why Riker in BobW? Did he travel through time? Riker's actions in BobW are part of the naturally developing timeline. There's no violation.

That's irrelevant. The issue is not the Temporal Prime Directive, the issue is whether or not someone's defeating the Borg makes them in some way responsible for subsequent attacks from the Borg.

The Collective's decision to invade and exterminate in 2381 was not simply the result of Janeway's destruction of their transwarp network in 2377. It was the result of the cumulative defeats of the Borg by the Federation; it was undertaken because the fact that the Federation defeated their cube in 2367 and liberated several cubes with Hugh's individuality in 2368 and defeated their cube in 2373 and prevented them from assimilating Voyager in 2374 and rescued Seven of Nine from under the Queen's nose in 2375 and liberated hundreds of drones from Unimatrix Zero in 2377 and destroyed Unimatrix 01 and the transwarp network and in 2377.

In other words -- it wasn't retaliation for just one defeat, it was retaliation for the cumulative defeats of ten years.

So, logically, if you're going to blame Janeway for the Borg Invasion of 2381 as a result of the destruction of the transwarp network and of Unimatrix 01 in 2377, you have to hold every single Federation captain who defeated them before then responsible, too.

LOL, Sci, this is not irrelevant, because that wasn't my point. I was speaking about the responsibility of time travelers for their actions, not about responsibility of normal people for their actions. So Riker's actions in BobWs (or anybody's actions not influenced by time travel) have nothing to do with my argument.
 
Last edited:
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid

And besides, going by STXI's time-travel retcon (although it wasn't the first to do it), all the time travellers would do is create a new, seperate timeline where the Borg didn't attack or perhaps even exist. From the POV of Destiny, whoever went back would simply disappear, like the 23rd century Klingon assault fleets mentioned in DS9's Millenium, or Spock and Nero in Countdown, and the timeline would go on.

Not necessarily... ;)

exactly, depending on their actions they could very well alter the timeline.

No, that's not what I meant at all. You missed the point of what KingDaniel was saying. Try reading it again.
 
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid

i did. and i came to the same conclusion. but very well, you know better what you meant anyway... disregard my quote of your post then.
 
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid

The Collective's decision to invade and exterminate in 2381 was not simply the result of Janeway's destruction of their transwarp network in 2377. It was the result of the cumulative defeats of the Borg by the Federation; it was undertaken because the fact that the Federation defeated their cube in 2367 and liberated several cubes with Hugh's individuality in 2368 and defeated their cube in 2373 and prevented them from assimilating Voyager in 2374 and rescued Seven of Nine from under the Queen's nose in 2375 and liberated hundreds of drones from Unimatrix Zero in 2377 and destroyed Unimatrix 01 and the transwarp network and in 2377.

Cumulative defeats? The Federation's 'defeats' barely count as skirmishes for the borg:

The collective has HUNDREDS OF THOUSAND OF CUBES - as established in Voy: 'Scorpion'.
At this scale, one cube destroyed barely even counts as a skirmish for the collective; the one-cube expeditions sent into the alpha quadrant were small-scale reconnaissance missions, indicating limited interest in said quadrant, at best.

And how many cubes did the federation destroy/incapacitate?
One in 'BOBW' and ~one in 'I, Hugh'.
The borg indicate their interest in the alpha quadrant remains minimal by sending another one-cube mission in 'First contact'.
This one is destroyed, too.

Janeway's victories against the collective, until 'Endgame', were minor (even the 'Unimatrix 0' one - the borg's interest in the alpha quadrant remained minimal, as established at the beginning of 'Endgame', where the queen didn't even bother assimilating Voyager).

'Endgame' - Janeway destroys one borg transwarp hub. Result - a major change in the borg's attitude toward the alpha quadrant:
At the first opportunity, the borg send a massive fleet in the alpha quadrant, not to assimilate, but to kill everyone (highly atypical for them).

Janeway's actions in 'Endgame' directly caused the massive borg invasion from 'Destiny'.
 
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid

The point would be that nobody has the right to decide which timeline is better. But there should be the obligation to restore the natural flow of time. If someone goes back and prevents World War II, that would be a good thing. BUT nobody has the right to do this. So the time police would prevent any time travelers from altering the time line. It's the same principle as the Prime Directive. Why isn't the Federation giving replicators, warp drive, medical supplies to every race they encounter? Because they do not want to interfer in the natural development of things.

Why Riker in BobW? Did he travel through time? Riker's actions in BobW are part of the naturally developing timeline. There's no violation.

That's irrelevant. The issue is not the Temporal Prime Directive, the issue is whether or not someone's defeating the Borg makes them in some way responsible for subsequent attacks from the Borg.

The Collective's decision to invade and exterminate in 2381 was not simply the result of Janeway's destruction of their transwarp network in 2377. It was the result of the cumulative defeats of the Borg by the Federation; it was undertaken because the fact that the Federation defeated their cube in 2367 and liberated several cubes with Hugh's individuality in 2368 and defeated their cube in 2373 and prevented them from assimilating Voyager in 2374 and rescued Seven of Nine from under the Queen's nose in 2375 and liberated hundreds of drones from Unimatrix Zero in 2377 and destroyed Unimatrix 01 and the transwarp network and in 2377.

In other words -- it wasn't retaliation for just one defeat, it was retaliation for the cumulative defeats of ten years.

So, logically, if you're going to blame Janeway for the Borg Invasion of 2381 as a result of the destruction of the transwarp network and of Unimatrix 01 in 2377, you have to hold every single Federation captain who defeated them before then responsible, too.

LOL, Sci, this is not irrelevant, because that wasn't my point. I was speaking about the responsibility of time travelers for their actions, not about responsibility of normal people for their actions. So Riker's actions in BobWs (or anybody's actions not influenced by time travel) have nothing to do with my argument.

Going back in time and preventing WW2 would indeed be a "good thing", I do believe, especially for those nations who suffered direct invasion/occupation during the war...but something else we need to consider is that times of war and strife also lend themselves to technical innovation and advances in weaponry that prove useful at that time, and in the future.

We have made more technological advances in the past one hundred years than we have in the entire recorded history of our species. The way I see it, we owe the bulk of that to the three major wars fought in the 20th century...World Wars I and II, and the Cold War (and not to sound like some kind of conspiracy nut, but that's just the shit we know about...).

Now, before you go rolling your eyes at me over what you may percieve as typical American self-importance, consider what you're doing right here, right now...reading the BBS on a computer. Or an iPhone. Or some other form of PDA. Or what-have-you. And ask yourself if we'd have this ability without two devastating world wars and a decades-long clash of cultures to drive this type and speed of innovation, this need to create and improve, with much on the line. Would we have achieved this point if great innovation had not been militarily or politically necessary? Or would we still be farting around with early internal combustion engines, UNIVAC computers the size of a basketball court, early rocketry? If Nazi Germany had bided their time and not invaded Poland rather prematurely, would they have had crude atomic weapons to assist their advance, given four or five more years of preparation?

I am thinking that no time travel agency (which, by the time of the DTI, would probably also include similar organizations established by the Romulans, Cardassians, Klingons, etc) stepped in to prevent Admiral Janeway from doing what she did because, in the history of the DTI and similar agencies, it already happened and was part of their subjective past, and recognized (as we should also recognize the aforementioned 20th century wars) as having been necessary for the Federation to get to where they needed to be at that point in time. And hope something like that is addressed in Christopher's upcoming work (Christopher, that's your cue, pardner).
 
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid

^ Oh, while we're on the topic of cumulative defeats over ten-plus years here in TrekLit, has there been any writing about USS Endeavour's conflict with the Borg in "Strange New Worlds" or any other book? In "Scorpion, Part 1", Janeway spoke of the logs of a Captain Amasov of the Endeavour who, as far as we knew, survived his encounter with them.

Unless the log entry Janeway quoted was his final entry into the log buoy before Endeavour was wiped out, that is.
 
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid

...You are always the one responsible for your own actions, your own choices. If you lash out at someone who wronged you and say they're responsible because they wronged you, that's a lie, because you could've chosen to react differently.

And yet, turning the other cheek frequently only results in bruises on both cheeks. Disproportionate responses are subjective. Ask the Israelis and the Palestinians, but I'd advise you to do it fairly quickly. You might think me harsh for, say, advocating someone burning down a supervisor's house with him in it, but from your point of view you don't see that, subjectively speaking, the employee believed that the heartless bastard deserved it. For me, I'd never, ever, ever DO such a thing, but I can certainly see it occuring in these trying economic times with people losing jobs left and right due to management incompetence. I'm just sayin'.

Even so, right or wrong, the responsibility for your decision to act should be your own. You shouldn't hide from it by trying to blame the other guy for your own actions. I'm not saying it's impossible for an act of retaliation to be ethical; I'm saying that part of being ethical is accepting responsibility for your own actions and choices. (Consider the principle of Civil Disobedience advocated by Thoreau and practiced by Gandhi, Dr. King, and others: if you decide a law is unjust and are morally compelled to break the law, nonetheless you do not try to deny that you broke the law but admit that you did so and accept the penalties freely. Deny your responsibility, try to hide from it, and you compromise your own integrity.)

I think a couple of folks here are missing the point because they're equating "responsibility" with "blame," thinking of it as something bad that should be avoided. That's not true. Responsibility isn't a negative. Responsibility is what mature people choose to take upon themselves, an acknowledgment that their decisions are their own.

See, that's just it...you're looking at it in terms of black or white. Taking responsibility or dodging said responsibility, one or the other. It's not always black or white, much as we'd all like it to be that way; indeed, it would be an easier world to live in. It's all shades of grey. It's morally ambiguous. There are millions of Americans out of work at the moment, millions more around the world, and it's not all due to the crappy economy. A lot of it can be laid at the feet of senior management who did bad things, intentionally or unintentionally, and dodged responsibility for their actions...or, worse yet, deflected that responsibility down the chain of command. "Shit rolls downhill" is the saying that is appropriate here.

I love my job, but my industry is rife with errors ordered by well-meaning (and sometimes not-so-well-meaning) superiors who wanted something done but hadn't the slightest fucking clue how to get it done correctly within the parameters of how we do things in the field, but when the boss gives orders, if job security is something you value then you just do it and find a way to get it done. And inevitably, there are moral compromises in the process.

I agree with you in that responsiblity is something positive that should be embraced rather than shunned, but that's not how the real world operates. Responsiblity is something that is claimed when all goes well, but it's something that's enforced upon your underlings when your plans go to shit and you gotta hide the bodies. Are you responsible for the failure of your book to meet a deadline if it's something that your agent did, or did not do? Last guy I saw who accepted responsibility for failure and acted with honor was Secretary of State Colin Powell, when he resigned. Everyone since then have been ass-covering bastards.

An aside...Gandhi was successful in what he did because the Brits didn't have him immediately shot; they left him well enough alone to the point where he built up some reknown and by the time they thought it through, shooting him would have created more hassles than solutions. If he had tried that crap with, say, the Soviet Union, he'd have been DX'd immediately or shipped off to some Siberian gulag, never to be heard from again. Civil disobedience might be percieved as an admirable principle only if those being disobedient are allowed to survive the act.
 
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid

She wasn't looking to stop or cripple the Borg. Destroying the trans-warp hub was to hopefully prevent the Borg from following Voyager.

No, Our!Janeway wanted to destroy the transwarp hub in an attempt to deal a crippling blow to the Borg Collective. Which, y'know, is pretty much a good thing, since the Collective had proven itself on numerous occasions as being out to assimilate the Federation and untold other cultures throughout the galaxy.

She upped the ante by killing trillions of drones. When the Borg responded in kind, it was their fault?

Who is "their?" You mean, is it the Collective's fault? Obviously it's not the drones' fault -- they're just slaves without control of their own bodies.

And we do not know that Janeway actually killed trillions of drones in "Endgame;" the only victims we can verify would be those drones manning the Borg sphere from which Voyager escaped and those drones manning the six transwarp hubs.



Of course the United States is responsible for its own decision to go to war with the Empire of Japan. The idea that it's not responsible for its decision to retaliate is absurd. That retaliation was perfectly justified, but that doesn't mean that the United States was not responsible for its own war decisions. "Responsibility" is not a concept that only applies to bad decisions.



Yes. The United States had every right to attack the German Reich because of its decision to declare war upon the United States first, but the decision to so attack remains the United States's responsibility.



I don't think that the Borg's decision to invade is consistent with prior behavior; the idea that the Borg would engaged in pure genocide, or invade en masse, is utterly new. And I don't I think the idea that they'd even be able to invade in the wake of the loss of their transwarp drive was anything anyone could anticipate. So I don't think it's reasonable to say that they should have anticipated a mass invasion.

EDITED TO ADD:

So, if Future!Janeway and Our!Janeway are both responsible for the Borg Invasion for their having defeated the Borg in "Endgame," does that mean that Picard is also responsible for having defeated the Borg in Star Trek: First Contact, and that Riker is also responsible for having defeated them in "The Best of Both Worlds?"

And meanwhile, in Future!Janeway's timeline -- which, by the way, let us remember is not our timeline, but is someone else's alternate future timeline -- how many billions more sentients than the 63 billion who died in 2381 would have died in the long run because the Borg Collective hadn't been dissolved?

Why Riker in BobW? Did he travel through time? Riker's actions in BobW are part of the naturally developing timeline. There's no violation.

That's irrelevant. The issue is not the Temporal Prime Directive, the issue is whether or not someone's defeating the Borg makes them in some way responsible for subsequent attacks from the Borg.

The Collective's decision to invade and exterminate in 2381 was not simply the result of Janeway's destruction of their transwarp network in 2377. It was the result of the cumulative defeats of the Borg by the Federation; it was undertaken because the fact that the Federation defeated their cube in 2367 and liberated several cubes with Hugh's individuality in 2368 and defeated their cube in 2373 and prevented them from assimilating Voyager in 2374 and rescued Seven of Nine from under the Queen's nose in 2375 and liberated hundreds of drones from Unimatrix Zero in 2377 and destroyed Unimatrix 01 and the transwarp network and in 2377.

In other words -- it wasn't retaliation for just one defeat, it was retaliation for the cumulative defeats of ten years.

So, logically, if you're going to blame Janeway for the Borg Invasion of 2381 as a result of the destruction of the transwarp network and of Unimatrix 01 in 2377, you have to hold every single Federation captain who defeated them before then responsible, too.

I think a couple of folks here are missing the point because they're equating "responsibility" with "blame," thinking of it as something bad that should be avoided. That's not true. Responsibility isn't a negative. Responsibility is what mature people choose to take upon themselves, an acknowledgment that their decisions are their own.

So, by that reckoning, are you suggesting that just because the Borg made the decision to destroy humanity (see below) rather than assimilate them, that Janeway and for that matter all Federation personnel who contributed to their earlier defeats were responsible for that decision? Or are you telling us that the BORG are single-handedly responsible for their decision to evaporate humanity?

I'm arguing the former, that the Borg invaded because the Federation had proved more of an irritant than they initially thought and instead of swatting the mosquito away they reached for a pistol; it sounds like you're advocating the latter, that all blame for the "Destiny" events can be laid at the feet of the Borg.

Granted, the "Destroy, not assimilate" policy may have been overkill on the part of the Borg, big-time, but losing a handful of cubes/spheres/probes/drones over a span of years is one thing, losing the Queen (see below, also) and the entire Unimatrix One complex is another. The Federation had to expect some sort of a reaction, once Captain Janeway returned in "Endgame", and should have taken more steps to counter it.

Destroying humanity? It can be argued that the Borg didn't just consider "humanity" (i.e. Terrans, or even the entire Federation and its many species, for that matter) to be their enemy in "Destiny", for they also targeted the Klingon and Romulan Empires as well. I can't remember if Cardassian targets were also hit at the moment. And I don't know if they were only targeting starfaring civilizations or also considered, like, the Mintakans to be fair game. But clearly, the Borg were coming en masse with the intent to wipe out all life in the Alpha and Beta Quadrants within range of their emergence point in the nebula.

Didn't the Federation kill their Queen twice, you say? Once in "First Contact" and again in "Endgame"? Well, yeah, they did. But I am thinking that all the Borg Collective of 2375 knew was that their sphere containing the Queen vanished through a time warp during the battle, never to be heard from again. Thus, the events of "Destiny" didn't occur shortly after the events of "First Contact", as if the invasion was their typical response to the death of their Queen, we'd have seen that devastation occur a decade or so earlier.

I have not seen the episode of Enterprise in which the Borg appeared. From what I am given to understand, they attempted to contact the Borg Collective in the future, but were stymied in their efforts by Archer and company. If I am mistaken, and they successfully contacted the Collective in that episode and subsequent events ultimately gravitated to the Borg being in the Neutral Zone at the end of TNG Season One, let me know.
 
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid

Just imagine how advanced the Federation would be in the 24th century if those pesky Organians hadn't stepped in!
 
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid

I am thinking that no time travel agency (which, by the time of the DTI, would probably also include similar organizations established by the Romulans, Cardassians, Klingons, etc) stepped in to prevent Admiral Janeway from doing what she did because, in the history of the DTI and similar agencies, it already happened and was part of their subjective past, and recognized (as we should also recognize the aforementioned 20th century wars) as having been necessary for the Federation to get to where they needed to be at that point in time. And hope something like that is addressed in Christopher's upcoming work (Christopher, that's your cue, pardner).

My cue to do what? All I'm going to do is drop cryptic hints to whet people's curiosity about my book which comes out next May. ;)


See, that's just it...you're looking at it in terms of black or white. Taking responsibility or dodging said responsibility, one or the other.

I'm doing nothing of the kind, and you're taking this in a totally different direction from what I intended. All I was doing was refuting the specific allegation that Janeway was a mass murderer. That's wrong because it was the Borg who made the choice to murder all those people, and they would've killed or assimilated those people anyway given the chance. So it's just plain ridiculous to pin the blame for the Borg's actions on Kathryn Janeway. That's all I'm saying. This whole other tangent you've gone off on has nothing to do with any point I was actually trying to make. So please leave me out of it.


I think a couple of folks here are missing the point because they're equating "responsibility" with "blame," thinking of it as something bad that should be avoided. That's not true. Responsibility isn't a negative. Responsibility is what mature people choose to take upon themselves, an acknowledgment that their decisions are their own.

So, by that reckoning, are you suggesting that just because the Borg made the decision to destroy humanity (see below) rather than assimilate them, that Janeway and for that matter all Federation personnel who contributed to their earlier defeats were responsible for that decision?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaat?????? That is the diametric OPPOSITE of what I was saying. I think you've lost track of who's saying what.

Or are you telling us that the BORG are single-handedly responsible for their decision to evaporate humanity?

Don't overcomplicate this. I was responding to a single, specific post which contained the sentence that Janeway was a mass murderer. I was refuting that single, specific accusation. THAT'S ALL. And I have no interest in taking it any further than that.
 
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid

I am thinking that no time travel agency (which, by the time of the DTI, would probably also include similar organizations established by the Romulans, Cardassians, Klingons, etc) stepped in to prevent Admiral Janeway from doing what she did because, in the history of the DTI and similar agencies, it already happened and was part of their subjective past, and recognized (as we should also recognize the aforementioned 20th century wars) as having been necessary for the Federation to get to where they needed to be at that point in time. And hope something like that is addressed in Christopher's upcoming work (Christopher, that's your cue, pardner).

My cue to do what? All I'm going to do is drop cryptic hints to whet people's curiosity about my book which comes out next May. ;)

Fine I'll bite!

Can we have more than cryptic clues pweeeeeeeez?
 
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid

It's clear that the massive borg attack on the alpha/beta quadrants and their change in their modus operandi from 'assimilate' to 'kill' were directly caused by Janeway destroying the borg transwarp hub.

Actually, the Queen's inner monologue during the destruction of Deneva makes it clear that it's the sheer number of defeats the Collective has suffered at the Federation's hand. Janeway's attack was just the final straw.
 
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid

It's clear that the massive borg attack on the alpha/beta quadrants and their change in their modus operandi from 'assimilate' to 'kill' were directly caused by Janeway destroying the borg transwarp hub.

Actually, the Queen's inner monologue during the destruction of Deneva makes it clear that it's the sheer number of defeats the Collective has suffered at the Federation's hand. Janeway's attack was just the final straw.

Even if everyone else has hacked away at the tree trunk until all it took was you flicking a coin at it to make the tree fall over, doesn't mean you didn't knock the tree over...

just saying!
 
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid

The point would be that nobody has the right to decide which timeline is better.

True. But since Future!Janeway died, there's not really anything anyone can do to punish her.

But there should be the obligation to restore the natural flow of time.

Whose "natural" flow of time? If I'm Captain Janeway and I encounter some alternate future version of me, who are you to say that that future version of me isn't a part of my natural flow of time even if she's not part of her natural flow of time?

If her history is changing, that's her problem. It's not my history, and I have no obligation to preserve it. The only obligation of a Starfleet officer under the Temporal Prime Directive is to preserve their own subjective history.

So the time police would prevent any time travelers from altering the time line.

If they are able to. And, yes, I'm sure that if they were able to detect Future!Janeway's temporal incursion in time, then Future!D.T.I. probably tried to stop it. But Our!D.T.I. has no obligation to preserve the timeline of Future!D.T.I.

It's the same principle as the Prime Directive. Why isn't the Federation giving replicators, warp drive, medical supplies to every race they encounter?

Because the Federation wants to preserve its own technological and military hegemony. :devil:

Why Riker in BobW? Did he travel through time? Riker's actions in BobW are part of the naturally developing timeline. There's no violation.

That's irrelevant. The issue is not the Temporal Prime Directive, the issue is whether or not someone's defeating the Borg makes them in some way responsible for subsequent attacks from the Borg.

The Collective's decision to invade and exterminate in 2381 was not simply the result of Janeway's destruction of their transwarp network in 2377. It was the result of the cumulative defeats of the Borg by the Federation; it was undertaken because the fact that the Federation defeated their cube in 2367 and liberated several cubes with Hugh's individuality in 2368 and defeated their cube in 2373 and prevented them from assimilating Voyager in 2374 and rescued Seven of Nine from under the Queen's nose in 2375 and liberated hundreds of drones from Unimatrix Zero in 2377 and destroyed Unimatrix 01 and the transwarp network and in 2377.

In other words -- it wasn't retaliation for just one defeat, it was retaliation for the cumulative defeats of ten years.

So, logically, if you're going to blame Janeway for the Borg Invasion of 2381 as a result of the destruction of the transwarp network and of Unimatrix 01 in 2377, you have to hold every single Federation captain who defeated them before then responsible, too.

LOL, Sci, this is not irrelevant, because that wasn't my point. I was speaking about the responsibility of time travelers for their actions, not about responsibility of normal people for their actions.

Yes, and I'm saying that you're wrong, and that the issue of temporal incursions is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Janeway is responsible for the Borg Invasion, because the Borg Invasion was a reaction to a combination of Federation actions, not just one.

And besides, why aren't you drawing a distinction between Future!Janeway and 2377!Janeway? They're entirely separate political actors.

The Collective's decision to invade and exterminate in 2381 was not simply the result of Janeway's destruction of their transwarp network in 2377. It was the result of the cumulative defeats of the Borg by the Federation; it was undertaken because the fact that the Federation defeated their cube in 2367 and liberated several cubes with Hugh's individuality in 2368 and defeated their cube in 2373 and prevented them from assimilating Voyager in 2374 and rescued Seven of Nine from under the Queen's nose in 2375 and liberated hundreds of drones from Unimatrix Zero in 2377 and destroyed Unimatrix 01 and the transwarp network and in 2377.

Cumulative defeats? The Federation's 'defeats' barely count as skirmishes for the borg:

And yet the actual text of the novel disagrees with you.

The Queen had emerged from her chrysalis with two mandates coded into her being: Destroy Earth, and crush the Federation.

For too long, we have obsessed over Earth, she had directed her trillions of drones, attuning the Collective's will to her own. It has lured us, tempted us, thwarted us. No longer.

She had projected her murderous fury to the drones and adapted them to the lightning pace that she and the Collective now demanded of them. We offered them union. Perfection. They responded with feeble attempts at genocide. Earth and its Federation are not worthy of assimilation. They would add only imperfection. Since they offer nothing and obstruct our quest for perfection, they will be exterminated.

Right there, she makes it very clear: It's not any one thing, it's the entire history of Federation defeats of the Collective.

And, no, killing the Borg Queen four times is not something that "barely counts as a skirmish."

And how many cubes did the federation destroy/incapacitate?
One in 'BOBW' and ~one in 'I, Hugh'.

Actually, Greater Than the Sum seems to indicate that many cubes were affected by Hugh's individuality in "I, Borg" (not "I, Hugh"); the Liberated have far too many members to be just from one cube.

And let's not forget that by destroying the Borg cube in "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II," the Federation killed its first Borg Queen. Kind of a big deal, that.

Janeway's victories against the collective, until 'Endgame', were minor (even the 'Unimatrix 0' one - the borg's interest in the alpha quadrant remained minimal, as established at the beginning of 'Endgame', where the queen didn't even bother assimilating Voyager).

No, "Unimatrix Zero" makes it clear that thousands, if not millions, of drones have been liberated, and that, further, they've managed to capture ships of their own. That's a big deal.

Then there's the destruction of the Queen's ship in "Dark Frontier, Part Two," meaning that Voyager scored the Federation's third kill against a Borg Queen.

And "Endgame" makes it clear that the Queen's decision to spare Voyager has more to do with leftover affection for Seven of Nine than anything else.

'Endgame' - Janeway destroys one borg transwarp hub.

No, her destruction of the transwarp hub causes every other transwarp hub to collapse throughout the galaxy, which the later TNG relaunch novels establish has disabled Borg transwarp capability throughout the entire Milky Way. On top of that, Future!Janeway's virus also killed the Federation's fourth Borg Queen.

Two direct assimilation attempts thwarted, one indirect assimilation attempt thwarted ("Dark Frontier" 's bit about a nanoprobe virus), numerous cubes full of drones liberated by Hugh's individuality, numerous cubes full of drones liberated by Unimatrix Zero, the complete destruction of the transwarp network and disabling of transwarp capacity, and the death of four consecutive Borg Queens?

That's a big deal. That's not "barely more than a skirmish." It's clear that the Federation stood no chance in a direct military confrontation, but, like numerous guerilla movements throughout history, it was able to score major precision-strike victories, and it was technologically progressing rapidly. The Borg recognized that the Federation posed a long-term existential threat to the Collective.

Janeway's actions in 'Endgame' directly caused the massive borg invasion from 'Destiny'.

No, the Borg Collective's decision directly caused the Invasion. And since, as you noted, it's a very different behavior for them, I don't think it's reasonable to say that she could have anticipated it.

I think a couple of folks here are missing the point because they're equating "responsibility" with "blame," thinking of it as something bad that should be avoided. That's not true. Responsibility isn't a negative. Responsibility is what mature people choose to take upon themselves, an acknowledgment that their decisions are their own.

See, that's just it...you're looking at it in terms of black or white. Taking responsibility or dodging said responsibility, one or the other. It's not always black or white, much as we'd all like it to be that way; indeed, it would be an easier world to live in. It's all shades of grey. It's morally ambiguous.

There's a huge difference between moral ambiguity and the idea that a sentient individual is not responsible for his or her own choices.

The Borg Collective/Queen is responsible for the Borg Invasion, and no one else. Just like the German Reich was responsible for its decision to invade Europe, not the Allies (even if the Allies unfairly victimized the German Empire after World War I).

It's clear that the massive borg attack on the alpha/beta quadrants and their change in their modus operandi from 'assimilate' to 'kill' were directly caused by Janeway destroying the borg transwarp hub.

Actually, the Queen's inner monologue during the destruction of Deneva makes it clear that it's the sheer number of defeats the Collective has suffered at the Federation's hand. Janeway's attack was just the final straw.

Even if everyone else has hacked away at the tree trunk until all it took was you flicking a coin at it to make the tree fall over, doesn't mean you didn't knock the tree over...

just saying!

Trees can't make the choice to fall or stand. The Borg Collective/Queen is sentient. It could have chosen a different course of action.

Or are you going to blame the Allies of World War I for Hitler's decision to try to conquer Europe, now?
 
Re: One thing that irked me about the Destiny trilogy. *spoilers insid

The point would be that nobody has the right to decide which timeline is better.

True. But since Future!Janeway died, there's not really anything anyone can do to punish her.

But there should be the obligation to restore the natural flow of time.

Whose "natural" flow of time? If I'm Captain Janeway and I encounter some alternate future version of me, who are you to say that that future version of me isn't a part of my natural flow of time even if she's not part of her natural flow of time?

If her history is changing, that's her problem. It's not my history, and I have no obligation to preserve it. The only obligation of a Starfleet officer under the Temporal Prime Directive is to preserve their own subjective history.



If they are able to. And, yes, I'm sure that if they were able to detect Future!Janeway's temporal incursion in time, then Future!D.T.I. probably tried to stop it. But Our!D.T.I. has no obligation to preserve the timeline of Future!D.T.I.



Because the Federation wants to preserve its own technological and military hegemony. :devil:



Yes, and I'm saying that you're wrong, and that the issue of temporal incursions is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Janeway is responsible for the Borg Invasion, because the Borg Invasion was a reaction to a combination of Federation actions, not just one.

And besides, why aren't you drawing a distinction between Future!Janeway and 2377!Janeway? They're entirely separate political actors.



And yet the actual text of the novel disagrees with you.



Right there, she makes it very clear: It's not any one thing, it's the entire history of Federation defeats of the Collective.

And, no, killing the Borg Queen four times is not something that "barely counts as a skirmish."



Actually, Greater Than the Sum seems to indicate that many cubes were affected by Hugh's individuality in "I, Borg" (not "I, Hugh"); the Liberated have far too many members to be just from one cube.

And let's not forget that by destroying the Borg cube in "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II," the Federation killed its first Borg Queen. Kind of a big deal, that.



No, "Unimatrix Zero" makes it clear that thousands, if not millions, of drones have been liberated, and that, further, they've managed to capture ships of their own. That's a big deal.

Then there's the destruction of the Queen's ship in "Dark Frontier, Part Two," meaning that Voyager scored the Federation's third kill against a Borg Queen.

And "Endgame" makes it clear that the Queen's decision to spare Voyager has more to do with leftover affection for Seven of Nine than anything else.



No, her destruction of the transwarp hub causes every other transwarp hub to collapse throughout the galaxy, which the later TNG relaunch novels establish has disabled Borg transwarp capability throughout the entire Milky Way. On top of that, Future!Janeway's virus also killed the Federation's fourth Borg Queen.

Two direct assimilation attempts thwarted, one indirect assimilation attempt thwarted ("Dark Frontier" 's bit about a nanoprobe virus), numerous cubes full of drones liberated by Hugh's individuality, numerous cubes full of drones liberated by Unimatrix Zero, the complete destruction of the transwarp network and disabling of transwarp capacity, and the death of four consecutive Borg Queens?

That's a big deal. That's not "barely more than a skirmish." It's clear that the Federation stood no chance in a direct military confrontation, but, like numerous guerilla movements throughout history, it was able to score major precision-strike victories, and it was technologically progressing rapidly. The Borg recognized that the Federation posed a long-term existential threat to the Federation.



No, the Borg Collective's decision directly caused the Invasion. And since, as you noted, it's a very different behavior for them, I don't think it's reasonable to say that she could have anticipated it.



There's a huge difference between moral ambiguity and the idea that a sentient individual is not responsible for his or her own choices.

The Borg Collective/Queen is responsible for the Borg Invasion, and no one else. Just like the German Reich was responsible for its decision to invade Europe, not the Allies (even if the Allies unfairly victimized the German Empire after World War I).

Actually, the Queen's inner monologue during the destruction of Deneva makes it clear that it's the sheer number of defeats the Collective has suffered at the Federation's hand. Janeway's attack was just the final straw.

Even if everyone else has hacked away at the tree trunk until all it took was you flicking a coin at it to make the tree fall over, doesn't mean you didn't knock the tree over...

just saying!

Trees can't make the choice to fall or stand. The Borg Collective/Queen is sentient. It could have chosen a different course of action.

Or are you going to blame the Allies of World War I for Hitler's decision to try to conquer Europe, now?

I call Godwin's Law!

Also

Destiny Established that the Borg aren't sentient. They're ruled by two things, hunger and anger.

The tree was a bad analogy i apologise...the Federation was poking a sleeping dragon...
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top