Section 31’s plan (S7 spoilers)
- Thread starter Captrek
- Start date
Exactly. He was trying to kill the creature because of the clear and present danger it posed to his crew.
In the same way, the Founders were intent on toppling the UFP Government and mercilessly killing citizens of the Federation--which escalated in the war.
By your logic, the M-113 creature should have been allowed to do whatever it wanted and kill everyone it wanted to kill, just because it might have been the last of its species.
No, not by my logic, per se. By the logic of anyone who claims that the wiping out of a race is always inherently unjustifiable. Effectively, DevilEyes/ElfEars, I was demonstrating absurdity by being absurd.
You may recall from "The Die Is Cast" that one of the effects of being prevented from reverting to their liquid form is that the solid form begins to change, becoming discolored and flakey.
And he was wrong to do that. Killing the creature should only have been a last resort, not a first one. There's no reason at all for him to have set the goal as "Kill the alien" rather than, "Capture the alien."
Yes, and they were also not succeeding at that goal even before they began to be affected by any virii. There was no justification for genocide; the Federation was capable of defeating the Dominion with conventional means, and, even if it wasn't, that still doesn't justify genocide. Amongst other things, it would have only resulted in the Vorta taking control of Dominion forces and/or in a Dominion civil war -- which would have been even WORSE for the Federation and its allies.
Which is, quite frankly, the effects of the virus.
And frankly...by the time the Founder is that far gone, I would think that constitutes torture, by your standard....
We dealt with this possibility earlier in this thread. To the contrary, the Vorta taking control wouldn't exactly turn the scales in their favor--after all, the Vorta could not infiltrate like the Founders could.
...I'm curious...how on earth would a Dominion civil war have been worse for the Allies? If their focusing on fighting amongst themselves, that would surely give the Allies sufficient opportunities to build up defenses--maybe contribute a bit to the further crumbling of the Dominion....Indeed.
I refer you to "Statistical Probabilities", in which Julian Bashir, and the Jack Pack, run through every possible scenario (which they know of), and conclude the the Allies can not beat the Dominion.
Note Bashir's lines to Sisko:
"Oh, but Rush, but Rush--the Romulans joined the war, giving us the manpower the Allies needed."
Well...observe this exchange, earlier in the episode:
So...they took the Romulans into account--as well as the Cardassian resistance.
At the end of the episode...Bashir made it clear to Jack and Co., that maybe something will happen that they did not think to enter into their equations.
Now...WHAT happened by the end of the war, which they did not predict, which tilted the scales in the favor of the Allies? What crippled the Founders, so that they could not lead the Dominion forces as efficiently as they had before?
Remember: Bashir did not know of Section 31 at this point--and I'm willing to bet Jack and Co. didn't know of them either.
Indeed....
So, let me get this straight. You would be so willing as to allow the Dominion to defeat the Federation and its Allies--over 900 Billion casualties, mind you--rather then get one's hands a little dirty, so that those lives would have a chance to be saved?
Amongst other things. But of course, the effects of the virus do not instantly end once a switched is flipped, nor are they confined to only a specific area. And, of course, the inhibition field is not communicable.
No, because the Founder can end the field's effects at any point by leaving the affected area. I would consider it more akin to a passive weapon being wielded against an un-captured enemy who is not supposed to be in a secure area but which the enemy can protect itself against by leaving the secure area.
Now, if the Founder is sitting in a holding cell and being forced to suffer the field's effects, then it's being tortured. It's like the difference between using a taser against a suspect whom you are attempting to subdue and using it against a man who's already sitting in jail.
You keep harping on the infiltration thing, but you have yet to present evidence that Founder infiltration was actually still a significant threat following the First Battle of Deep Space Nine. And even if it were, that doesn't mean that you want the kind of political instability that would result from the deaths of the Dominion's masters.
And the violent crumbling of the Dominion would not be a good thing. Could you imagine the kind of chaos that would be produced by its fall? The refugee crisis? Can you imagine the number of civilian deaths that would result? The potential blowblack -- what if major Dominion weapons fall into the hands of the Vorta, who are now unchecked by the Founders? Or what if a faction of fanatical, Founder-worshipping Jem'Hadar gain control of major Dominion fleets and decide to use them against those who committed deicide? What if Dominion technology falls into the hands of politically unstable factions from the Gamma Quadrant?
It would be the equivalent of the Soviet Union crumbling into violent civil war like the Balkans, with thousands of nuclear missiles suddenly up for grabs amongst dozens of different violent factions, rather than the peaceful breakup it experienced.
And yet they were still wrong; the Federation Alliance still defeated the Dominion using conventional military forces.
Actually, there is no evidence that the virus prevented the Female Shapeshifter from leading Dominion forces as effectively as she had before. Remember, she had almost always left the conduct of the war on the hands of Damar and Weyoun; you can't say that her judgment was so harmed by the virus that she couldn't conduct the war properly when she was never the person making the majority of the tactical decisions in the first place.
First off, it's not "a little dirty." Genocide is the single most horrific violation of the rights of other beings imaginable. You are talking about following in the footsteps of Adolf Hitler, Jean Kambanda, and Slobodan Milošević. You're talking about doing the most immoral thing possible; the only way it could be more immoral is if the Federation Council voted to rape a small child as followup.
Secondly, remember that Section 31 chose to commit genocide long before the war began; they engaged in an act of unmitigated aggression against the Dominion by doing that.
Thirdly, yes, I think that genocide is just so fundamentally wrong that the Federation has no right to do it. Ever. It's easy to invent apocalyptic scenarios in an attempt to justify what is obviously wrong, but the fact of the matter is that if the United Federation of Planets is going to claim that it's a decent polity, then it has no right to do it. Ever. It's just that immoral. What is the point of preserving the Federation if it finds itself behaving just like the Dominion?
Fourthly, I reject the notion that attempting to commit genocide would actually protect -- and did actually protect -- the Federation. At best, all that the genocide of the Founders would have done is make the Vorta the Federation's new masters rather than the Changelings. It would not have affected Jem'Hadar or ship production levels, it would not have harmed those Jem'Hadar or ships already present, it would not have affected Dominion supply lines, it would not have stopped the Dominion fleet. And at worst, it would have led to absolute astropolitical chaos as the Federation would find it overwhelmed by a refugee crisis of unparalleled size and the unexpected consequences of Dominion technology falling into the hands of power-mad Vorta, fanatical and vengeful Jem'Hadar, or someone else even more uncontrollable.
And finally, I absolutely reject your contention that the choice is only between committing genocide on one hand and certain defeat on the other. There is an entire range of options, up to and including conventional victory.
I refer you to "Change of Heart", in which Worf and Jadzia are to save a spy who has information on the changeling infiltrators. This is during the sixth season--after the re-taking of DS9. As such a big deal was made about this--and Worf's faliure--I think we can safely conclude that it still was a "significant threat".
Let's go over your claims one by one:
1) The Vorta: Note how contemptuous the Female Changeling is of Weyoun's skills as tactician. She constantly behaves as if he is incompetent compared to her. Thus, it is not that they are checked by the Founders--they are guided by them.
You are assuming that the Vorta are somehow violent, and are reigned in by the Founders during the war. However, that is illogical--the Founders had the specific and declared intention of wiping out the "solid" powers--all percieved "threats" to their cause. The Vorta simply follwed this mandate.
Now...an overview of the Vorta throughout the series reveals them to be negotiators and "salesmen". And if they were driven to desperation--I refer you to Keevan, who offered to surrender as a POW.
2) The Jem'Hadar: That's a big if. Surely, if their gods were dead, there would be no reason to continue existence. After all...what would be the purpose of killing for one's gods if the gods are already dead?
Even if they would do so...the Ketracel-White supply would only last for so long. Should such instabiliy occur...the supplies in the Alpha Quadrant would thus be easy targets to hit. As those "fanatics" you speak of would require the White in order to live--depriving them of this would finish them off.
3) Terrorist Factions: As these factions would be smaller than the Dominion, and less unified, and much less stable, they would therefore be a lesser threat to the Allies than the giant, unified Dominion--which was, again, bent on the total destruction and enslavement of the Allies.
And besides--Starfleet could always mine the entrance to the wormhole again.
Almost always. While the normal, day-to-day operations were overseen by Weyoun in Damar, yes--nonetheless, the major decision were overseen by the Founders. This becomes obvious when you consider the ideas of alliance and treaties. Every time Weyoun offers diplomatic proposals, one need only ask one's self, "On whose authority?" to see the Founders' hands at work.
Odo noted, after learning of the virus, that the Founders would now be driven to desperation. This, again, is obvious. Note how short-tempered the F.C. becomes in the latter episodes. Clearly, the pain and stress caused by the virus is affecting her psycologically.
In desperation, then, the Founders lashed out, making strikes when it would have been better to wait. Under stress, one's judgement is thus affected by desperation.
Murder is immoral too, Sci. And yet, killing to defend one's country--one's family, one's friends, one's self--is not.
In the same way, the examples of genocide you mentioned were not justified--they were simply mass murder. Hitler, for example, commited genocide due to his lust for power, as well as a desire to "cleanse" the world of "inferior" races.
Section 31 engaged in this act to defend the Federation against an enemy bent on destroying it. I hardly think it's the same thing.
Need I remind you of the infiltration of the Federation by the Founders, especially in "Homefront" and "Paradise Lost".
The Dominion was hardly an innocent bystander. They constantly engaged in actions with the clear and explicit intent to de-stabilize the Alpha and Beta Quadrants. Whatever one might say about Section 31's actions, it was not "unmitigated".
I refer you to "In The Pale Moonlight", in which Sisko lied, cheated, bribed, etc.--because he, and Starfleet, felt that without the Romulans, they would have absolutely no chance whatsoever.
Was what he did immoral and unjustifiable? Aren't those the tactics of the Dominion--dishonesty and manipulation?
Let me bring up an incident in history: Hiroshima.
How many innocent civilians died when that A-bomb was dropped?
There was an alternative--more conventional methods of winning against the Japanese. But it was agreed that using these methods would have resulted in even more deaths.
But again, surely dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was a "horrific violation of the rights of other beings". If not, what makes that action any different?
I don't know that I agree. That was literally the only time after Season Five that anyone expressed any concern over the possibility of Changeling infiltration behind Allied lines. Given how little concern was paid to the issue, I think the strong implication is that Starfleet and/or the Klingon Defense Force developed adequate counter-measures.
But there's no actual evidence that they're guided by her. She leaves the conduct of the war almost entirely in Weyoun's hands prior to deciding to withdraw Dominion forces behind Cardassian lines in "The Dogs of War." Yeah, she has an attitude, but she has an attitude about all solids. She still constantly refers to the conduct of the war dismissively in the DS9 Occupation arc, and we almost never see her setting any particular goal other than "win the war."
No, I'm assuming that they are self-interested and desire power -- which is fully supported by the behavior of Weyoun (who is deeply upset upon discovering that the Female Shapeshifter has promised the Breen the right to rule Earth after a Dominion victory) and Keevan (who betrays his entire Jem'Hadar unit to ensure his own survival).
And what, exactly, makes you think that the Jem'Hadar are going to think rationally about this issue? Or that all Jem'Hadar will think alike? Jem'Hadar are just as prone to factionalism as any other species -- they even divide themselves on the basis of whether they were bred in the Alpha Quadrant or the Gamma Quadrant ("One Little Ship"); they are more than capable of irrational behavior.
And it's hardly unheard of for people to seek violent vengeance against those who murder loved ones.
Dude, the Ketralcel-White supplies in the AQ weren't easy targets to hit just because the Female Shapeshifter happened to be staying on Cardassia. What makes you think that all the defenses of those supply lines would just magically disappear because she croaks?
Once again, killing the Founders does nothing to actually affect the Dominion's economic and military infrastructure, and leaves the Dominion open to political instability.
Maybe. Maybe not. You've got to ask yourself which is more dangerous: A Dominion that's been defeated militarily and negotiated into a truce, or five dozen rogue factions running around with supernova-causing weapons.
To make a real-world comparison, which is more dangerous: A defeated Soviet Union that peacefully transforms itself into the Russian Federation, or a chaotic Soviet Union whose nuclear weapons fall into the hands of terrorist organizations?
And what happens when five dozen different Cardassian factions, or the Tzenkethi, or the Sheliak, or the Orion Syndicate get control of parts of the Dominion fleet? Do you keep the Wormhole mined when a huge flood of refugees comes trying to escape a Dominion civil war? What about all the civilian casualties that would result from the overthrow of the Founders?
Not until well after the virus had begun to affect the Female Shapeshifter, actually. We never saw her overseeing any damn thing before the Final Chapter arc.
Doing something legally in the Founders' name doesn't mean they're the ones making particular decisions. Every legal decision made by the government of the United Kingdom is done in the Queen's name, but Her Majesty is not the one deciding everything.
Yes. In fact, it prompted her to order Dominion forces to keep fighting well after the point where she normally would have ordered a Dominion surrender. It also prompted her to order the extermination of the Cardassian species in response to Damar's rebellion. So we can add all the Allied soldiers who were killed as a result of her desire for a pyrrhic victory and all the innocent Cardassian civilians killed to the list of people who died because of Section 31's virus.
We're not talking about murder. We're talking about genocide. You're talking about something that's far, far more extreme than that.
No shit, Sherlock. That's because there is no such thing as a justified genocide.
No, they were genocide. Genocide is far more extreme, far more evil, than even mere mass murder.
No, it is, because there was no need to do it, and because genocide is always wrong.
And there were spies in the U.S. all throughout the Cold War working for the Soviet Union. This does not mean that the United States would therefore have been justified in launching a campaign of extermination against all Russians.
Certainly. But the fact remains that the Dominion had not yet fired the first shot of the Dominion War, and if Section 31's virus had been detected upon its deployment, it would have qualified as an act of aggression on their part.
Once again, we're not talking about murder or dishonesty or manipulation. We're talking about genocide. It is far, far more extreme, far more serious, far more immoral than any of that.
Genocide is to mass murder, murder, dishonesty, or manipulation as murder is to assault, grand theft auto, shoplifting, and jaywalking. The scale of things just makes any comparison to anything else absurd. It's the supreme sin; there's just no comparison to any other act of immorality one can commit.
Again, the comparison just doesn't work. The Japanese people were not exterminated; Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of mass murder, not acts of genocide. Genocide is just so much farther on the scale of immorality than anything else that you just can't compare them, any more than you can compare murder to grand theft auto.
^As I look at our arguments on the practicality of Section 31's plan, it strikes me that we both seem to have valid points on whether it would make things better or worse.
(I still am not convinced that a Vorta-controlled Dominion would somehow be more dangerous that the one we're used to--nor am I conviced at all that the solid-hating Founders would have surrendered to the Allies earlier if they didn't have the disease. It seems to me that they would rather have died than submit to the solids anyway--until, of course, Odo did his thing.)
Practicality is one thing, though. We can never truly know whether one choice would've been more practical than the other--for the simple reason that we were never shown the results of both choices.
We can argue it left and right (no pun intended
), but we can never truly know, until and unless we're shown some kind of "Alternate Universe", or something....
Now...the center of your argument, and mine, appears to be based on the respective morality of their act.
I basically contend that, in times of war, a nation must be prepared to do anything and everything neccesary to protect its citizens and their rights--and that thus, in matters of defense, all options must be kept on the table, no matter how dirty they may seem. (Please, everyone--no politics. We don't want the mods to shut down this thing....)
You contend that there are some lines which must never, ever be crossed--no matter what.
Frankly, Sci, your argument is based on the assertion that genocide is the ultimate sin--and that it is somehow different than mass murder, which you agree was neccesary in the case of Hiroshima.
May I ask...what is it, in your mind, that sets genocide, wich you claim is never justified, in a different catergory than "mass murder", which you claim may be justified in certain scenarios?
To put it simply, how is genocide not mass murder, and for exactly what reasons is it more immoral?
(I still am not convinced that a Vorta-controlled Dominion would somehow be more dangerous that the one we're used to--nor am I conviced at all that the solid-hating Founders would have surrendered to the Allies earlier if they didn't have the disease. It seems to me that they would rather have died than submit to the solids anyway--until, of course, Odo did his thing.)
Practicality is one thing, though. We can never truly know whether one choice would've been more practical than the other--for the simple reason that we were never shown the results of both choices.
We can argue it left and right (no pun intended
), but we can never truly know, until and unless we're shown some kind of "Alternate Universe", or something....Now...the center of your argument, and mine, appears to be based on the respective morality of their act.
I basically contend that, in times of war, a nation must be prepared to do anything and everything neccesary to protect its citizens and their rights--and that thus, in matters of defense, all options must be kept on the table, no matter how dirty they may seem. (Please, everyone--no politics. We don't want the mods to shut down this thing....)
You contend that there are some lines which must never, ever be crossed--no matter what.
Frankly, Sci, your argument is based on the assertion that genocide is the ultimate sin--and that it is somehow different than mass murder, which you agree was neccesary in the case of Hiroshima.
May I ask...what is it, in your mind, that sets genocide, wich you claim is never justified, in a different catergory than "mass murder", which you claim may be justified in certain scenarios?
To put it simply, how is genocide not mass murder, and for exactly what reasons is it more immoral?
Yep, I remember in "Ashes of Eden" when Admiral Drake was all for slaughtering the Klingons, and Kirk said, "If threats, deceat, and murder are what is needed for the Federation to survive, then the Federation does not deserve to survive."
It's like I hear people saying, "Terrorists torture our people, let's torture them!" No, that does nothing, if we are supposed to be the good guys, we gotta be above the the bad, not at or below their level.
Be nice to see some folks from Section 31 get some war crimes charges.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Well, there are worse scenarios for the federation - 900 billion federation citizens dead. I daresay a civil war within the dominion would have been less bloody.
That being said, the outcome of the war we saw, was, indeed, preferable to some scenarios pertaining to the dissolution of the dominion.
This outcome was caused by the cardassians changing sides which was caused by the Founder/Weyoun treating the cardassians idiotically oppressive. In other words, by luck being on the federation's part - or, perhaps, by the virus affecting the Founder's judgement?
That's more than a little hypocritical of you, Sci, considering you country's history - even recent history.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were already mentioned in this thread; it was genocide - mass-murder - and the status of these acts as being the "lesser evil", "the option that ensured the smallest number of deaths" is debatable at best.
I've been taking a break from this thread -- I was planning on posting a full reply to Rush either this weekend or on Monday -- but I'm going to chime in real quick here.
What on Earth makes you think that I approve of or excuse those aspects of my country's history?
Exactly where did I defend Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I said that they're mass murder rather than genocide and that genocide is an evil on a magnitude that does not compare to anything else, even mass murder. But I never argued that Hiroshima or Nagasaki were justifiable or excusable.
What on Earth makes you think that I approve of or excuse those aspects of my country's history?
Exactly where did I defend Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I said that they're mass murder rather than genocide and that genocide is an evil on a magnitude that does not compare to anything else, even mass murder. But I never argued that Hiroshima or Nagasaki were justifiable or excusable.
^But as I stated before, Sci, the alternative to Hiroshima and Nagasaki--conventional tactics--would have resulted in a much longer WWII--and therefore, an even greater loss of life--on both sides.
Either way, a lot of people die. Logically, the ideal way to win a war is to win it as quickly as possible, so as to minimize the loss of life--on both sides.
In this case, at least, "The needs of the many...outweigh the needs of the few"--especially if those few, in all probablility, would die anyway.
I agree with ProtoAvatar here. As chaotic as a civil war may have been to the Quadrant, the war continuing as it would have would have been far bloodier.
Also:
Hmm...I LIKE how you think, mate!
Yeah--what was it that caused the Dominion to be so stupid in its oppressive treatment of the Cardassians?
Now...as for The Castellan's argument, I think Kirk was right to oppose Drake--but the reason he gave was dead wrong. Drake was wrong because, at that time, the Klingons were weakened, and not hostile to the Federation. They were not a threat--at all. They still are not a threat in the TNG era--except during a brief period in DS9.
But as for Kirk's argument that you quoted, I feel like grabbing his shoulders, quite frankly, and asking, "So what are you saying--that you would rather have the UFP basically commit mass suicide, if there truly is no other way to survive in this universe?"
Maybe...Kirk should have a talk with Sisko.
Indeed--and I'd like to see them respond as Jack Bauer did. To paraphrase:
"For a Starfleet Officer, in time of war, the difference between success and failure is your ability to adapt to your enemy. The enemies that we deal with, they don't care about your rules. All they care about is a result. Our job is to stop them from accomplishing their objectives. We simply adapted.
"In answer to your question, is Section 31 above the law? No, sir. We are more than willing to be judged by the people you claim to represent. We will let them decide what price we should pay. But please do not sit there with that smug look on your face and expect this bureau to regret the decisions that it has made.
"Because, sir, the truth is...we don't."
Either way, a lot of people die. Logically, the ideal way to win a war is to win it as quickly as possible, so as to minimize the loss of life--on both sides.
In this case, at least, "The needs of the many...outweigh the needs of the few"--especially if those few, in all probablility, would die anyway.
I agree with ProtoAvatar here. As chaotic as a civil war may have been to the Quadrant, the war continuing as it would have would have been far bloodier.
Also:
Hmm...I LIKE how you think, mate!
Yeah--what was it that caused the Dominion to be so stupid in its oppressive treatment of the Cardassians?
Now...as for The Castellan's argument, I think Kirk was right to oppose Drake--but the reason he gave was dead wrong. Drake was wrong because, at that time, the Klingons were weakened, and not hostile to the Federation. They were not a threat--at all. They still are not a threat in the TNG era--except during a brief period in DS9.
But as for Kirk's argument that you quoted, I feel like grabbing his shoulders, quite frankly, and asking, "So what are you saying--that you would rather have the UFP basically commit mass suicide, if there truly is no other way to survive in this universe?"
Maybe...Kirk should have a talk with Sisko.
Be nice to see some folks from Section 31 get some war crimes charges.
Indeed--and I'd like to see them respond as Jack Bauer did. To paraphrase:
"For a Starfleet Officer, in time of war, the difference between success and failure is your ability to adapt to your enemy. The enemies that we deal with, they don't care about your rules. All they care about is a result. Our job is to stop them from accomplishing their objectives. We simply adapted.
"In answer to your question, is Section 31 above the law? No, sir. We are more than willing to be judged by the people you claim to represent. We will let them decide what price we should pay. But please do not sit there with that smug look on your face and expect this bureau to regret the decisions that it has made.
"Because, sir, the truth is...we don't."
Last edited:
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Rush Limborg
I disagree with a number of your points:
Your assumption that genocide is the least bloody way to end a conflict.
About Hiroshima and Nagasaki:
As I already said in my previous post, "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were already mentioned in this thread; it was genocide - mass-murder - and the status of these acts as being the "lesser evil", "the option that ensured the smallest number of deaths" is debatable at best."
About DS9:
I pointed out in my previous post that a civil war within the dominion could be less bloody than a continued war in the alpha quadrant.
However, killing all founders could very well NOT lead to a civil war, but a continued war in the alpha quadrant - the founders most likely would leave orders regarding this.
And, of course, even if all S31 wishes for comes to pass and the dominion breaks up - an uncertain assumption at best - the backlash will be felt by the federation in the future (the gamma quadrant species would know who caused the dominion civil war and act accordingly) - and, keep in mind, this is the best case scenario about a dominion civil war.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, S31's virus was released long BEFORE the war, when a chance of peace existed - a chance the virus nullified; its discovery would have most certainly lead to war against the federation, even if the dominion initially would have agreed to peace.
And the benefic effects the virus had for the allied powers - giving the cure in exchange for a dominion retreat from the alpha quadrant, possible irrationality on the part of the founder due to the virus - could not be, in any case, predicted by S31.
That's what makes S31's actions impossible to justify, even by a "lesser evil" logic.
Releasing the virus can be - forcedly - argued to be justified after the war became hot. NOT before.
Why forcedly - due to the immorality of the act coupled with the insecurities in the plan's efficiency (a civil war within the dominion, even the virus working at all beyond agravating the founders already respectable xenophobia).
I disagree with a number of your points:
Your assumption that genocide is the least bloody way to end a conflict.
About Hiroshima and Nagasaki:
As I already said in my previous post, "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were already mentioned in this thread; it was genocide - mass-murder - and the status of these acts as being the "lesser evil", "the option that ensured the smallest number of deaths" is debatable at best."
About DS9:
I pointed out in my previous post that a civil war within the dominion could be less bloody than a continued war in the alpha quadrant.
However, killing all founders could very well NOT lead to a civil war, but a continued war in the alpha quadrant - the founders most likely would leave orders regarding this.
And, of course, even if all S31 wishes for comes to pass and the dominion breaks up - an uncertain assumption at best - the backlash will be felt by the federation in the future (the gamma quadrant species would know who caused the dominion civil war and act accordingly) - and, keep in mind, this is the best case scenario about a dominion civil war.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, S31's virus was released long BEFORE the war, when a chance of peace existed - a chance the virus nullified; its discovery would have most certainly lead to war against the federation, even if the dominion initially would have agreed to peace.
And the benefic effects the virus had for the allied powers - giving the cure in exchange for a dominion retreat from the alpha quadrant, possible irrationality on the part of the founder due to the virus - could not be, in any case, predicted by S31.
That's what makes S31's actions impossible to justify, even by a "lesser evil" logic.
Releasing the virus can be - forcedly - argued to be justified after the war became hot. NOT before.
Why forcedly - due to the immorality of the act coupled with the insecurities in the plan's efficiency (a civil war within the dominion, even the virus working at all beyond agravating the founders already respectable xenophobia).
^As you know, the Founders were commiting acts of sabotage against the Federation LONG before the war, as well.
First, the changeling that Odo was forced to kill--who tried to start a war between the Federation and the Tzenkethi.
Second, the infiltration of the Tal Shiar and the Obsidian Order, to lure them into the Gamma Quadrant, destroy them, and thus cripple two major powers in "our side" of the wormhole, in order to make our side easier to conquer.
Third--the terrorist acts in "Homefront"--and the plan to cause Earth society to, in effect, collapse in on itself.
By all counts, these are acts of war. Again, I theorized that Section 31 first coined the virus as a weapon against the infiltrators--which would only make sense.
As you pointed out, it would have been illogical to infect the Founders at a time when peace was possible. However, the Founders effectively demonstrated with these acts that they had no intentions of making peace--unless, of course, the Federation would surrender--which, of course, it would not.
Now, to contest another point you made: I do not think that genocide is neccesarily the least bloody way to end a conflict. I do think that all options must be kept on the table, for the express purpose of defense.
If a nation is unwilling to do what is neccesary to defend itself--quite frankly, that nation might as well give up its arms and surrender.
First, the changeling that Odo was forced to kill--who tried to start a war between the Federation and the Tzenkethi.
Second, the infiltration of the Tal Shiar and the Obsidian Order, to lure them into the Gamma Quadrant, destroy them, and thus cripple two major powers in "our side" of the wormhole, in order to make our side easier to conquer.
Third--the terrorist acts in "Homefront"--and the plan to cause Earth society to, in effect, collapse in on itself.
By all counts, these are acts of war. Again, I theorized that Section 31 first coined the virus as a weapon against the infiltrators--which would only make sense.
As you pointed out, it would have been illogical to infect the Founders at a time when peace was possible. However, the Founders effectively demonstrated with these acts that they had no intentions of making peace--unless, of course, the Federation would surrender--which, of course, it would not.
Now, to contest another point you made: I do not think that genocide is neccesarily the least bloody way to end a conflict. I do think that all options must be kept on the table, for the express purpose of defense.
If a nation is unwilling to do what is neccesary to defend itself--quite frankly, that nation might as well give up its arms and surrender.
But there is no circumstance under which genocide is necessary for a nation to survive.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
First, the virus was obviously designed and used (using Odo to infect the great link) to exterminate ALL the founders.
Secondly, before DS9:"Call to arms", there existed a chance of peace with the dominion - there were sporadic negociations, even a joint mission. S31's virus nullified this possibility - when the founders would have discovered the virus, war would have broken out.
And about S31's attempted genocide being illogical and making "no sense" - I take it you wish to retreat your arrogant Jack Bauer-esque speech that justifies commiting genocide by some unrepentant sociopath who thinks he's the peak of creation.
Are you a prophet by any chance? You can't make such statements and expect them to be taken seriously.
Rush Limborg, genocide is a most ineffective and immoral way to end a conflict - and a most bloody one.
For example - in DS9, S31's plan came with a prayer - "Please, God, make the founder genocide cause a civil war within the dominion!"
More often than not, genocide will NOT end a conflict, but EXACERBATE it.
The exceptions:
- you do have the ability to kill most of your enemies (civilian and military alike) - in which case, militarily speaking, you're stronger to the point that genocide is not necessary for you to win the war;
- highly improbable events come to pass because you're just really really lucky.
But, Rush Limborg, feel free to prove me wrong - come up with a situation - if you can - in which the extermination of all sentient life on a planet - genocide - is necessary for self-defense.
One condition - this situation should be plausible for this universe, not some uncoherent fantasy worldbuilding.
Last edited:
Be nice to see some folks from Section 31 get some war crimes charges.
Indeed--and I'd like to see them respond as Jack Bauer did. To paraphrase:
"For a Starfleet Officer, in time of war, the difference between success and failure is your ability to adapt to your enemy. The enemies that we deal with, they don't care about your rules. All they care about is a result. Our job is to stop them from accomplishing their objectives. We simply adapted.
"In answer to your question, is Section 31 above the law? No, sir. We are more than willing to be judged by the people you claim to represent. We will let them decide what price we should pay. But please do not sit there with that smug look on your face and expect this bureau to regret the decisions that it has made.
"Because, sir, the truth is...we don't."
When did Jack say that?
To play devil's advocate (read: I'm not neccessarily contesting this point, but), how, exactly, is this obvious?
Frankly, such emotional outbursts and name-calling hardly helps your case, ProtoAvatar.
And, if you actually read the speech, you will note that Jack himself made clear that he would be perfectly willing to be tried and judged by the people he was entrusted to protect--just so long as they do not expect him to regret what he did.
Fascinating...you would rebuke me for making such a prediction, when you yourself would predict that the Founders would, inevitably, discover who was responsible for the virus, and expect that prediction to be taken as a given....
NOW--as to exactly when Section 31 put the virus into effect, I refer you to this entry from Memory Beta:
This, of course, was during the war.
"But Rush, but Rush--books aren't canon--"
I know...but in this case, it does answer an important question.
In effect, they create the virus in response to the changeling infiltrations of "Homefront", etc.--but they do not infect the Founders, per se, until after it is clear who the enemy is.
Again, you are making an assumption--an assumption that a civil war was neccessarily what they intended to occur.
So you admit that the virus is efficient--because, as Sci pointed out, that is what it does to the Founders.
Also, do not assume that because a military force is strong in one are, it is strong in all areas.
As you have pointed out, the virus could well have been what caused the Founders to, out of stress, irrationally treat the Cardassians like dirt.
"The Man Trap", for one. "A Taste of Armageddon", for another.
Also...I refer you to the situations we all discussed in the first two pages of this thread.
Be nice to see some folks from Section 31 get some war crimes charges.
Indeed--and I'd like to see them respond as Jack Bauer did. To paraphrase:
"For a Starfleet Officer, in time of war, the difference between success and failure is your ability to adapt to your enemy. The enemies that we deal with, they don't care about your rules. All they care about is a result. Our job is to stop them from accomplishing their objectives. We simply adapted.
"In answer to your question, is Section 31 above the law? No, sir. We are more than willing to be judged by the people you claim to represent. We will let them decide what price we should pay. But please do not sit there with that smug look on your face and expect this bureau to regret the decisions that it has made.
"Because, sir, the truth is...we don't."
When did Jack say that?
It's in the first episode of Season 7, when he's getting grilled by Senator Mayer for having tortured Ibrahim Hadad--who, BTW, had targeted a bus carrying 45 people--ten of which were children.
Jack stopped that attack from happening, "By doing what I deemed neccessary to protect innocent lives."
