Recent Real Life event reminicent of TrekLit Event *SPOILERS*

[Rush Limborg]

And let's not forget this, either:

The easiest way to turn someone into an enemy is to assume that they have hostile intent.

Which is exactly what I keep saying to the readers who hear about the Typhon Pact and insist the Federation needs to react to them militarily.

Well, Chris and Sci, I'm curious: what would you say about the UFP adopting a stronger policy of defense--i.e. defense shields around its border, etc.? Not aggresive postures (more torpedoes aimed at the Pact powers, etc.), but defensive.

That could hardly be considered an act of hostility--the Federation would just be protecting itself from threats in general, not specifically the Typhon Pact. They could point to the Borg invasion as a reason for the neccesity of such policies.

Or would you prefer some kind of disarming, as a show of good faith?

 

[Sci]

And let's not forget this, either:

The easiest way to turn someone into an enemy is to assume that they have hostile intent.

Which is exactly what I keep saying to the readers who hear about the Typhon Pact and insist the Federation needs to react to them militarily.

Well, Chris and Sci, I'm curious: what would you say about the UFP adopting a stronger policy of defense--i.e. defense shields around its border, etc.? Not aggresive postures (more torpedoes aimed at the Pact powers, etc.), but defensive.

That could hardly be considered an act of hostility--the Federation would just be protecting itself from threats in general, not specifically the Typhon Pact. They could point to the Borg invasion as a reason for the neccesity of such policies.

Or would you prefer some kind of disarming, as a show of good faith?

I'm not sure that something like that would really be a viable option, from a purely technical standpoint. You're talking about putting defensive shields around entire planets? I don't think we've ever seen defensive shields to be capable of so functioning. And there would almost certainly be questions about how to make that work without hurting the natural environments of M-Class planets, and of how to make that work without inhibiting civilian traffic. That's the sort of thing that could devastate an economy.

Having said that, I might have some concerns about whether or not it would provoke the other powers by convincing them that the Federation is planning a first strike and "armoring up" to protect from foreign retaliation. But I wouldn't consider the idea of defector shields around Federation planets to be inherently hostile or an idea to be automatically written off.

 

[Christopher]

Living under a siege mentality isn't living. Most people don't put barbed wire around their yards and live in terror of their neighbors. They engage with their neighbors, talk to them, make friends. The best defense is good diplomacy.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Living under a siege mentality isn't living. Most people don't put barbed wire around their yards and live in terror of their neighbors. They engage with their neighbors, talk to them, make friends. The best defense is good diplomacy.

And if the "potiential allies" attack--what then? Would you have no lines of defense?


It's not a seige mentality, to be honest. Most people do have fences--not barbed-wire fences, but fences nonetheless.

Many folks have electronic security systems. This is by no means an expression of living in terror--it is an expression of a desire to protect what is yours.

Defence policies do not neccesarily result in living in terror. If used rationally, they result in living in comfort.


And...Sci, I wasn't quite talking deflector shields, per se--although that may be a GREAT idea, if it could be pulled off. As you say, it may cost too much. But recall that Earth has a "Mars Defense Perimeter".

Thus, planetary defense IS technologically feasible for the UFP. I'd think the fact that most members DON'T have something like that would be cause for their "living in terror" of their neighbors.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Having said that, I might have some concerns about whether or not it would provoke the other powers by convincing them that the Federation is planning a first strike and "armoring up" to protect from foreign retaliation.

So...then, it is the other powers which are living in terror, not the UFP.


And if those powers get all edgy...President Bacco could always offer to share that defense technology, for purposes of maintaining peace and trust.

A show of good faith--in the name of Good Diplomacy.

 

[Sci]

And...Sci, I wasn't quite talking deflector shields, per se

Okay. I wasn't sure what you meant.

But recall that Earth has a "Mars Defense Perimeter".

True. Though I question how effective the Mars Defense Perimeter is -- from what we saw of it, its drones basically flew up to the Borg cube in what looked like the most absurd, please-come-and-kill-me-now maneuver ever developed.

Thus, planetary defense IS technologically feasible for the UFP. I'd think the fact that most members DON'T have something like that would be cause for their "living in terror" of their neighbors.

Actually, we don't know that most Federation Member worlds lack something like the MDP.

Having said that, I might have some concerns about whether or not it would provoke the other powers by convincing them that the Federation is planning a first strike and "armoring up" to protect from foreign retaliation.

So...then, it is the other powers which are living in terror, not the UFP.

Right. And, again, a really good way to turn someone into a hostile power is to convince them that they should be living in terror of you. The Federation's goal should not be to strike fear in the hearts of its neighbors.

And if those powers get all edgy...President Bacco could always offer to share that defense technology, for purposes of maintaining peace and trust.

That doesn't sound like an awful idea to me.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Living under a siege mentality isn't living. Most people don't put barbed wire around their yards and live in terror of their neighbors. They engage with their neighbors, talk to them, make friends. The best defense is good diplomacy.

And if the "potiential allies" attack--what then? Would you have no lines of defense?


It's not a seige mentality, to be honest. Most people do have fences--not barbed-wire fences, but fences nonetheless.

Many folks have electronic security systems. This is by no means an expression of living in terror--it is an expression of a desire to protect what is yours.

Defence policies do not neccesarily result in living in terror. If used rationally, they result in living in comfort.

This is well-stated, and a good answer to both the comments about the Typhon Pact and the real-life examples we have been discussing. We DO have to remain vigilant at all times and take measures to make sure that we are able to answer any threat should it arise. That does NOT mean I advocate an attack. It does not mean I advocate taking over my neighbors' property (be that on a local or national stage). But you bet I'm going to be watching very carefully what goes on in my neighborhood.

Of course, on the world stage you can't move if you have trouble with the neighbors--so the only strategy is deterrence. You don't have to do this by parading your troops and nukes in the street or by shouting threats...it just has to be known what you can do, and that has to be maintained. This isn't a rosy, idealistic world where everybody's looking out for everybody else's best interests, I'm afraid, and I worry that pretending it is will just get us all hurt.

 

[Rush Limborg]

This isn't a rosy, idealistic world where everybody's looking out for everybody else's best interests, I'm afraid, and I worry that pretending it is will just get us all hurt.

Well said, Nerys!

As Spock would say...it is most illogical to assume that neglecting to adequately protect oneself against a short-tempered potential adversary would result in one being spared said party's wrath. Logically, such an angry party would search for the most vulnerable target to attack--so as to provide the clearest avenue for success on their part.

Case in point: Saddam attacking Quwait in the early '90s. Or Germany attacking Belgium during WWI.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Exactly. To think that presenting your belly to everyone, including your potential enemies, is going to make them curl up and go to sleep makes no sense at all. You don't have to be overtly aggressive, but you can have your defenses and have your guard up.

I would also add that it is a severe mischaracterization to assume that someone who believes in vigilance looks at everyone else with disdain. Heck, I even think that the government of one's own nation bears watching to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. I appreciate other cultures and nations just fine--that's why I got a degree in Spanish. But that does not mean I'm going to stop paying attention to the fact that some governments cannot be trusted.

 

[Sci]

Exactly. To think that presenting your belly to everyone, including your potential enemies, is going to make them curl up and go to sleep makes no sense at all. You don't have to be overtly aggressive, but you can have your defenses and have your guard up.

I would also add that it is a severe mischaracterization to assume that someone who believes in vigilance looks at everyone else with disdain. Heck, I even think that the government of one's own nation bears watching to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. I appreciate other cultures and nations just fine--that's why I got a degree in Spanish. But that does not mean I'm going to stop paying attention to the fact that some governments cannot be trusted.

But you should also not approach situations with the automatic assumption that foreign governments cannot be trusted. Distrust should be earned. And, further, that distrust needs to be proportional.

Should we trust the government of Venezuela? No. Should, however, assume that they're a major threat? No. Frankly, Venezuela's never going to be a particularly major threat to the United States -- particularly if we undercut their ability to paint us as demons by making a real and genuine effort to build a friendship with them.

And should Venezuela's membership in UNASUR mean that we treat it just like we do Venezuela? Absolutely not.

No one's talking about showing your bellies to the world, and to say that we are is to assume a false choice between reasonable precautions and absolute vulnerability.

But precaution needs to be just that: Reasonable. Your first reaction, Nerys Dukat, to finding out that South American nations were forming a continental alliance was to speculate about how it will be hostile to us because of one of its members, and to then use language about how we won't be safe until the Chávez government is dead; you ignored the numerous moderating influences on UNASUR, including the numerous other governments that are not hostile to the United States in word or deed. That's a profoundly unreasonable level of precaution that borders on out-and-out hostility.

 

[Steve Roby]

That's a profoundly unreasonable level of precaution that borders on out-and-out hostility.

Yes, but you're discussing politics with a Cardassian.

 

[captcalhoun]

i think she's taking the persona too far.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Honestly, Sci?

I agree, that one should never automatically assume that a new power will be hostile.

Nonetheless, one should never underestimate a foreign power either. You simply can not dismiss a country with "Oh, they're no threat. We'll be nice to them--and they won't ever be a threat."

That's what the UK thought about Hitler--hence, Neville Chamberlain and "peace in our time".

No, don't assume the worst. Hope for the best--but prepare for the worst, just in case.

If not...you may truly regret it, the day the hostile power you dismissed as "no threat" attacks. Case in point, 9/11....

 

[David cgc]

Nonetheless, one should never underestimate a foreign power either. You simply can not dismiss a country with "Oh, they're no threat. We'll be nice to them--and they won't ever be a threat."

That's what the UK thought about Hitler--hence, Neville Chamberlain and "peace in our time".

So that'll be something to bring up once the Typhon Pact annexes Bolarus. But until they, as a singular entity, do something as provocative as that, let's not shoot the dog before it contracts rabies (to mix a metaphor).

If not...you may truly regret it, the day the hostile power you dismissed as "no threat" attacks. Case in point, 9/11....

Which hostile power would that be? Describing al-Qaeda as a "power" seems to be to be vastly overstating their nature.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^They were apparently more powerful than we'd given them credit for....

And no, don't shoot the dog just yet. Just buy the gun and ammo (and lock it up good so the kids don't get it...but that's another story ).

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Honestly, Sci?

I agree, that one should never automatically assume that a new power will be hostile.

Nonetheless, one should never underestimate a foreign power either. You simply can not dismiss a country with "Oh, they're no threat. We'll be nice to them--and they won't ever be a threat."

That's what the UK thought about Hitler--hence, Neville Chamberlain and "peace in our time".

No, don't assume the worst. Hope for the best--but prepare for the worst, just in case.

If not...you may truly regret it, the day the hostile power you dismissed as "no threat" attacks. Case in point, 9/11....

Bingo.

And frankly, I do not have any reason to believe that sending gifts and saying nice words to dictators is going to change them. All that happens is they take the gifts you give them and use them to your detriment. That can happen if we do it, and it can happen if other South American nations do it. Better not to give regimes like that any openings or legitimacy.

 

[Sci]

Honestly, Sci?

I agree, that one should never automatically assume that a new power will be hostile.

Nonetheless, one should never underestimate a foreign power either. You simply can not dismiss a country with "Oh, they're no threat. We'll be nice to them--and they won't ever be a threat."

And no one has said any such thing.

The rational thing to do is to welcome the new Union of South American Nations, emphasize ways with which we can work with them to our mutual benefit (trade and so forth), and always make sure you have a good enough military that they can't threaten you if things go sour. But it's a very bad thing when one's first reaction to a new power is to associate them with hostility and warfare.

That's what the UK thought about Hitler--hence, Neville Chamberlain and "peace in our time".

You're severely over-simplifying things. It wasn't a matter of, "We'll be nice to them and they'll never be a threat." It was a matter of, "If we give them what they want, they will be satisfied; if we betray our allies and consign their people to tyranny, Germany won't continue to expand." It was a deliberate, calculated betrayal on the part of Chamberlain made in the mistaken belief that if you simply give a bully what he wants without demanding that he give you anything, he'll cease bullying you.

No one's advocating that.

No, don't assume the worst. Hope for the best--but prepare for the worst, just in case.

Sure. I've got no problem with that. But I've got a problem with jumping to the worst as the first thing one associates a new power with.

^They were apparently more powerful than we'd given them credit for....

To a point.

One of the things people tend to forget about 9/11 is that the death toll was as high as it was because of a huge fluke of luck on al Qaeda's part.

From what I understand, had American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into almost any other two skyscrapers in the United States, there's a good chance that attacks would not have been as successful. It was a unique feature of the Twin Towers' construction, with the supporting frame out towards the edges of the towers, that led to the floors all caving in on one-another.

The death toll would still, of course, have been horrific, but there's a good chance that it would have been lower, and the skyscrapers themselves surviving, had it been any other set of buildings than the Twin Towers.

[
And frankly, I do not have any reason to believe that sending gifts and saying nice words to dictators is going to change them.

Of course not. The goal is not to change the dictators; the goal is to create a peaceful relationship with them and to demonstrate that you are not a hostile foreigner to the populace, who might then see the superiority of your system and choose to overthrow the dictators themselves.

You know, sort of like how we won the Cold War.

All that happens is they take the gifts you give them and use them to your detriment. That can happen if we do it, and it can happen if other South American nations do it. Better not to give regimes like that any openings or legitimacy.

The United States tried that under the Bush Administration. It didn't work out too well for us -- or anyone. It led to international instability and a lot of unnecessary deaths.

The unfortunate fact of life is that we can't kill everyone who's bad, and so we have to live with them. We don't have the resources to go to war with everyone, nor do we have the ability to just cut them off -- especially since, frankly, we don't have the right to tell those countries how they ought to run themselves. We have to use diplomacy in dealing with them, because no other instrument of national defense works as primary resort.

 

[Rush Limborg]

and always make sure you have a good enough military that they can't threaten you if things go sour.

Exactly! Which what I've been trying to say all along.

Of course not. The goal is not to change the dictators; the goal is to create a peaceful relationship with them and to demonstrate that you are not a hostile foreigner to the populace, who might then see the superiority of your system and choose to overthrow the dictators themselves.

You know, sort of like how we won the Cold War.

Well...some might say that the final big surge of instability in the Soviet Union was a direct result of the Soviets struggling to spend money to keep up with us in the Arms Race--money they didn't have, with their system and all.

They didn't have the ecomomic stability to keep up with our buildup--and thus the ecomony collapsed, giving the people the freedom to revolt.


No, I am not suggesting the UFP do the same thing (as of now, anyway). I'm just saying...some times call for agressive postures, other times call for more peaceful measures. The key is to know when to use each.

It makes sense, either way, to be as strong as the bear.

If there is a bear.

 

[Sci]

and always make sure you have a good enough military that they can't threaten you if things go sour.

Exactly! Which what I've been trying to say all along.

And I've never objected to the idea of maintaining a strong enough military that one stays safe.

What I'm criticizing is the mindset one holds while maintaining that strong military. If you have the mindset that sees something like the Union of South American Nations first and foremost as a new potential threat, then that's the wrong mindset. It's a mindset that inevitably leads to mutual hostility; you see them as a potential enemy, so they feel threatened and think you have hostile intent, and pretty soon neither side can see past their noses for all the red in their eyes.

If, on the other hand, one first sees a new power like UNASUR as a new potential ally, then you have a mindset that is much more conducive to forging productive relationships, avoiding war, and protecting your country. That doesn't mean that you don't acknowledge that a foreign power can be a threat or can become an enemy -- but it does mean that you don't see them as a potential enemy first and a potential ally second. And I think that a change in mindset like that does wonders for preventing them from becoming enemies.

Of course not. The goal is not to change the dictators; the goal is to create a peaceful relationship with them and to demonstrate that you are not a hostile foreigner to the populace, who might then see the superiority of your system and choose to overthrow the dictators themselves.

You know, sort of like how we won the Cold War.

Well...some might say that the final big surge of instability in the Soviet Union was a direct result of the Soviets struggling to spend money to keep up with us in the Arms Race--money they didn't have, with their system and all.

I'm aware. They're wrong.

The Soviet Union fell apart because it was a political union that existed without the consent of its populace. Gorbachev tried to create a more politically open and liberal Soviet Union upon coming to power, apparently with the intention of gradually transforming the Soviet Union into a Scandinavian-style socialist-capitalist hybrid liberal democracy, but almost as soon as censorship and state violence stopped being a way of life, the peoples of the various Soviet republics made it clear that they didn't want to be part of the USSR, and popular discontent spread. When the hardliners tried to launch a coup against Gorbachev and Yeltsin stood up to them, that was it and the USSR was finished.

The USSR fell because it lacked the consent of those over whom it governed, and because its people saw that the West's way was better. It failed because it was an inferior political system.

 

[Malleus]

I just noticed an interesting parallel between the events of recent TrekLit and a recent event from real life… I heard a news story about how the countries of the southern hemisphere are trying to create a SATO – like NATO, but for the south… Anyway, it really reminded me of the creation of the Typhon Pact in ASD and novels onward… Neat huh

You're sixty or so years late there partner, NATO was created in response to the Warsaw Pact which was created by the USSR and it's satellite states, so technically the Typhon Pact and the United Federation of Planets and there relationship is similar to that.

NATO was created in response to the Soviet presence in Eastern Europe, not the Warsaw Pact formed 6 or 7 years later.

The Soviet Union fell apart because it was a political union that existed without the consent of its populace. Gorbachev tried to create a more politically open and liberal Soviet Union upon coming to power, apparently with the intention of gradually transforming the Soviet Union into a Scandinavian-style socialist-capitalist hybrid liberal democracy, but almost as soon as censorship and state violence stopped being a way of life, the peoples of the various Soviet republics made it clear that they didn't want to be part of the USSR, and popular discontent spread. When the hardliners tried to launch a coup against Gorbachev and Yeltsin stood up to them, that was it and the USSR was finished.

The USSR fell because it lacked the consent of those over whom it governed, and because its people saw that the West's way was better. It failed because it was an inferior political system.

It was actually taken down from above and not below. Polls at the time suggested that, outside the Baltics, the majority wanted to retain the Union Treaty. The coup merely provided those above with the opportunity to dissolve the treaty. The optimal solution at that time was to simply let go of the Baltic states.