Section 31

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Following that inaccurate description to an extremity, that would mean that marines are not stationed anywhere (permanently). Not starbases, starships, moons, or planets.

I'm sure Starfleet has dedicated troop transports which can transport entire regiments of marines to anywhere they're needed. This would be especially useful for large scale engagements, such as the Klingon or Dominion Wars.

I mean, they'd have to be stationed somewhere when they're not actively engaged in battle...

We're not likely to see marines in DSC, because Discovery would surely be too small to support a marine detachment, but I'm sure other, larger vessels such as the Constitution class could carry a company of troops. And of course DSC could always team up with another ship which carried them, if the episode requires it.

 

[Guy Gardener]

In Ensigns of Command, a second season TNG episode, a colony ship is referenced that can move 20,000 humans comfortably.

The Federation was moving millions of ground pounders around in the Dominion War, so they definitely had a class of ship available that could stow more than 400 passengers, above and beyond the crew.

Moving a million marines, would be easier if they are in stasis. And really once you put them under, does it really matter which war in which century you wake them up in to fight?

 

[fireproof78]

And really once you put them under, does it really matter which war in which century you wake them up in to fight?

Why not make them clones while we're at it. Then it will be a clone war.

No, that would never work.

 

[Lord Garth]

We're not likely to see marines in DSC, because Discovery would surely be too small to support a marine detachment, but I'm sure other, larger vessels such as the Constitution class could carry a company of troops. And of course DSC could always team up with another ship which carried them, if the episode requires it.

We have to see Hicks, Vazquez, Hudson, and Sargent Apone on the Enterprise! Bishop too, to throw the Canonistas a loop.

Then the ultimate scene: Michael Burnham meets Ellen Ripley.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Were humans allowed to legally fiddle with Jem'Hadar DNA during the Dominion war because of the antiEugenics laws?

Freeing the Jem'hadar from the white, will dramatically alter the course of their development, so it's obviously a prime Directive Issue... Which Vorta lawyers must have been arguing in the Federation courts, to save their own hides.

 

[Jayson1]

Were humans allowed to legally fiddle with Jem'Hadar DNA during the Dominion war because of the antiEugenics laws?

Freeing the Jem'hadar from the white, will dramatically alter the course of their development, so it's obviously a prime Directive Issue... Which Vorta lawyers must have been arguing in the Federation courts, to save their own hides.

It would also go against what Picard did in season one of TNG in the drug addicts, episode where he refused to help the aliens get off the addiction against their will. He also though refused to help keep it going by fixing their ships. I guess it depends on just how much of the drug they need to live. When Bashir and O'Brien crashed on that one planet with Jem-Haddar they main one had been on that planet for awhile without the drug and was able to keep on living.

Jason

 

[Guy Gardener]

Bashir thinks that it is legal to put his wiener inside some of his patients.

You cannot trust him.

 

[Noname Given]

As usual: It would have been better to invent a new organisation than to ret-con an already existing one.

Oh please had they done that SOMEONE would have said: "WoW! They're ignoring Section 31 from ENT and DS9 = NOT STAR TREK!..."

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't; but sorry, I myself can't fault them for using something that's been mentioned in two previous franchise series.

 

[Guy Gardener]

But we saw black badges in s01e03... Was there some state of indeterminism where black badges meant something else other than Section 31, until they were labeled as such in the youtube clip that is not canon?

 

[Lord Garth]

People who hate Section 31 should appreciate the Section 31 Series. Why? Because all things S31 will be diverted into that series once it's out. You won't see it in DSC (as much) and you won't see it in the Picard Series or whatever else they come up with. All the Section 31 ideas will go to the Section 31 series, if they want each new show to be different in some way from the others. It'll all be in one series you can ignore. Don't look a gift-horse in the mouth.

 

[Noname Given]

But we saw black badges in s01e03... Was there some state of indeterminism where black badges meant something else other than Section 31, until they were labeled as such in the youtube clip that is not canon?

^^^
For all we know Section 31 was involved with the initial development of the Crossfield Class and the Spore Drive. <--- That would make sense as it was one thing Starfleet really didn't want the Klingons to find out about.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Research and Development is not Section 31's mandate.

They exercise extraordinary measures in times of extreme threat.

It's weird that they sat back and did their own thing for 13 episodes.

 

[fireproof78]

Oh please had they done that SOMEONE would have said: "WoW! They're ignoring Section 31 from ENT and DS9 = NOT STAR TREK!..."

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't; but sorry, I myself can't fault them for using something that's been mentioned in two previous franchise series.

Exactly. No matter what this production team does they will be reviled. They could hire the Star Trek Continues crew, while hosting nightly chat sessions with the top contributors of Memory Alpha to address canon issues in scripts and they would still be accusations of "Not Real Star Trek!"

 

[F. King Daniel]

People who hate Section 31 should appreciate the Section 31 Series. Why? Because all things S31 will be diverted into that series once it's out. You won't see it in DSC (as much) and you won't see it in the Picard Series or whatever else they come up with. All the Section 31 ideas will go to the Section 31 series, if they want each new show to be different in some way from the others. It'll all be in one series you can ignore. Don't look a gift-horse in the mouth.

Nah, they'll constantly name-drop their characters in the other shows and do a yearly crossover special.

 

[Gonzo]

That's exactly the part I don't like - that very implication. Star Trek has maintained that someone doesn't need to do the dirty jobs. That the institutions of society can be above board, accountable, and driven by morality. Having something like section 31 undermines that fairly fatally because it says that it was always a naive fantasy. Picard is just blowing hot air, a pompous figurehead with no real power or real lesson to teach us. I find that quite sad.

Yeah its the usual hope vs reality, some things will never change.

There will always be those who don't want to be a part of the herd, some of them will protect but some of them just want to watch the world burn.

Its built into human nature and there is nothing that can be done about it.

 

[cultcross]

Yeah its the usual hope vs reality, some things will never change.

There will always be those who don't want to be a part of the herd, some of them will protect but some of them just want to watch the world burn.

Its built into human nature and there is nothing that can be done about it.

Star Trek pretty explicitly says that there is - not that problems go away, we certainly saw our fair share of those who want to watch the world burn - but that we can deal with those problems without compromising who we are. We can actually be what we say we are, if we commit to it. No cheats, no outs, no hidden state actors behind the curtain practising extraordinary rendition or waterboarding or funding terrorism. Trek rejects (or I should say usually rejects) that as a requirement to maintain a society. I like that aspect of Trek, and I don't think it is unrealistic either. It is one thing to have our characters wrestle with a moral dilemma, those often make for great Trek episodes, but it is another for the very existence and acceptance of a deep cover black ops division that doesn't play by the rules to put the lie to Star Trek's core ideas.

 

[StarMan]

^
When I started this thread I was going to compare 31 to The X-Files Syndicate. 31 obviously didn't want to wipe out humanity, but I felt they existed at that level of secrecy. They were the first comparison that sprang to mind so far as the level they operate at.

You should have started this thread.

 

[Gonzo]

Star Trek pretty explicitly says that there is - not that problems go away, we certainly saw our fair share of those who want to watch the world burn - but that we can deal with those problems without compromising who we are. We can actually be what we say we are, if we commit to it. No cheats, no outs, no hidden state actors behind the curtain practising extraordinary rendition or waterboarding or funding terrorism. Trek rejects (or I should say usually rejects) that as a requirement to maintain a society. I like that aspect of Trek, and I don't think it is unrealistic either. It is one thing to have our characters wrestle with a moral dilemma, those often make for great Trek episodes, but it is another for the very existence and acceptance of a deep cover black ops division that doesn't play by the rules to put the lie to Star Trek's core ideas.

That's fine when the sun is shining, there is plenty of resources and everyone is playing nice with each other, that doesn't last forever though, that's why I like films like the Matrix, Star Trek ID and even Terminator films, if no enemy exists you can bet someone somewhere will create one.

Section 31 hasn't really put the lie to those ideas, its just shown that there are many layers to the Federation, they were always there even if they were never shown before, after seeing the Romulan and Cardassian secret services its pretty much a guarantee that the Federation would have its own, plus its entirely understandable that Section 31 would have to come out of the shadows more when dealing with such a dangerous shapeshifting enemy like the Founders.

I feel that it adds depth to the Star Trek universe and doesn't have to be seen as a bad thing, the good team will of course win but it ensures that no one takes the status quo for granted and keeps everyone's feet firmly on the ground, there is great value in that, my view is more on the realistic side than the idealistic so others views will be different.

 

[Rahul]

Oh please had they done that SOMEONE would have said: "WoW! They're ignoring Section 31 from ENT and DS9 = NOT STAR TREK!..."

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't; but sorry, I myself can't fault them for using something that's been mentioned in two previous franchise series.

I have NEVER seen such a reaction to something not showing up in favour of a new element being introduced - except as a strawman used by people who see any type of criticism - even legitimate one - as a personal attack against themselved.

Where was the outrage of the Romulans not showing up in DIS? The Borg not showing up? By your logic, fanst must have been vivid about that!

Really, that is just one lousy excuse of a long-debunked talking point to silence all legitimate criticism of a show once and for all. You don't like it? Well, you must be the embodiement of toxic fan culture then! No chance the latest iteration just... wasn't that good to begin with, right? The fault must be with the other people!

 

[The Wormhole]

Discovery would surely be too small to support a marine detachment

I don't know, that ship is huge and only has a crew of 130. There should be plenty of room to fit a MARDET aboard.

We have to see Hicks, Vazquez, Hudson, and Sargent Apone on the Enterprise! Bishop too, to throw the Canonistas a loop.

Vazquez was on board the Enterprise B.