I’m looking out of my window and I don’t see atomic bombs falling.
Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 3x12 - "There Is A Tide…"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
There's always a war somewhere.
She wasn't expecting this turd of events.
yes, and a peace based on compromise is made to end them, usually.
There's always a war somewhere but there's only very rarely a war of global consequences.
If you discount low-level civil wars, there have been plenty of periods following World War 2 where there haven't been active military conflicts between sovereign states.
Well yeah if you discount the stuff that you don't want to include it's easy to claim virtually anything isn't it?
If I discount shoplifting, vehicle theft and assault there's no crime in my town!
If I discount shoplifting, vehicle theft and assault there's no crime in my town!
I’m sure that’s true if you discount any non street-level crime.
The Long Peace is something rather unprecedented in human history. Prior to World War 2, it was normal for sovereign states to use war as a means of achieving their strategic objectives. Now it is a true rarity. Since the Iraq War started in 2003, there's been only a handful of classic wars (Russia/Georgia, Russia/Ukraine, and the new flare up between Armenia and Azerbaijan). Even in those cases a lot of the fighting involved proxies on at least one side. Because, when it comes down to it, sovereign states generally respect international law and just don't invade one another any longer.
The problem with including civil wars is then you have to ask where you draw the line between a war and just crime. For example, thousands of people die in Mexico annually due to drug cartels. Does it count as a "war?" If it does, where do we draw the line between criminal activity and military conflict?
The Chain is wanting to become a part of the Federation. Not just an alliance but a full joining. Like, in your Soviet Union/America example that would become the United States of Russia and America. So there would need to be some recognition of baseline moral and legal agreement else such a union would not work.
I don't think your example is quite on point because it's two sovereign states joining together as one. Becoming one state would require concessions for past bad acts. Do I think it would have gone well? No, but rarely do such political discussions go well. In fact, I think Vance was being pretty realistic in terms of his demands and Osyrra was realistic in her rejection for not wanting to be in control.
The Hitler comparison is not as apt as the Internet thinks it is because Hitler grew up in a society that had moral philosophy of some kind that he could be held accountable to. Georgiou grew up in a much different state. One person knew these things were wrong, potentially, while another grew up in a place where it was considered right and normal.
Yup. That pretty much sums it up. And I don't think Vance would trust Osyrra without any form of concession on past behaviors.
As far as I understand, the two entities would still have kept some form of separation, hence the need of separate leaders. The details of such separation could have been worked upon until Vance was satisfied.
In any case, as far as I know, no real-world country leader ever stepped down willingly knowing they would have to face trial. Why would they?
Since when?
You might want to brush-up on early 20th century literature and political slogans: Hitler’s ideas about killing all the Jews and race superiority weren’t quite shocking back then, what was shocking was the methodic way he carried them out.
A good chunk of the population agreed with him and in fact I invite you to lurk a bit in any right-wing dominated discussion group even today to realize that a still significant number of people still talk about “burn all the inferior races” and so on.
As did Osyraa, then. She was born in the Chain, as far as we know, slavery was possibly legal and common since before her birth, now she’s trying to change the situation. How is this not encomiabile?
That's a fair point. It would have been nice to see more negotiation. But, since Osyrra didn't even counter it it seems that perhaps Vance is on to something that Osyrra's concessions were not sincere.
I mean, it would aid in creating a sense of good will and common ground.
I didn't say it wasn't shocking. No where is shocking the term I was looking for Simply the ability to recognize that it is wrong, morally so. Having the same moral reference points.
And, with due respect, I lean more right wing and participate in different discussions here and there. I see nothing about "inferior races" in those discussions. So, respectfully, while I am sure it exists it is not all right wing people or discussions. Otherwise, you would hear me saying such things, which you will not hear me say.
ETA: But, I don't want to delve down the political rabbit hole too far. Suffice to say I am aware of the historical aspects of Hitler's time. What I am referencing is the ability to reference a common moral standard, which Vance could not know that Georgiou would know.
Because Osyraa had the opportunity to learn, she had the capability of learning what was right and wrong from the Federation, or the Andorians, or others. They had a common reference point of morality. Vance could point to specific people that the Chain had wronged or Osyraa had wronged. In short, she had a standard that she could reference and Vance could hold her to account to. Vance has no such thing with Georgiou.
tl:dr-You need common ground.
Last edited:
You don't have to ask where the line is drawn the UN have a set of standards which decide.
For instance despite the UKs unhappiness about it the war in Northern Ireland was a war and soldiers on both sides had to be treated as such.
Post world war 2 has had loads of wars in the Middle East and Africa both civil and otherwise. Also in Europe in the Balkans
Yup, that would have been great to see. The writers could have used his homosexuality as a way of a 'protective mechanism' of sorts because the pheromones do affect brain chemistry, and homosexual brain chemistry is similar to females who are attracted to men... ergo, just like with Human females, the Orion pheromones wouldn't work.
But as I said, its highly likely that the Federation of the 23rd century and beyond has vaccinations against Orion pheromones (and numerous other things).
Unless they are going to a resort that is known for not including humanoid trafficking and slavery perhaps... and only to suppress it on a temporary basis... but, its also possible that they could lower its effectiveness a bit just enough to increase the arousal effect, but not enough to cloud ones judgment (think synthehol).
I honestly don't know enough about pheromones or brains but this kind of science is probably best kept away from
I think anything involving alien sex and pheromones is best avoided. Just awfully handled in most cases.
Well, I'm gay and I don't find that subject controversial.
Peer-review studies were released a while ago positing the possibility of male homosexuality being linked to brain chemistry and it being similar to the brain chemistry of heterosexual females.
If anything, there is no 'gay gene', so brain chemistry (or how its structured due to various environmental factors in gestation and post birth) is a factor which shapes human sexual orientation (among other things).
Besides, it was stated on-screen that Orion females produce pheromones which affect male physiology... but it had no effect on females... so it wouldn't be a stretch to apply the premise that similar brain chemistry in male homosexuals and heterosexual females would give gay men same 'immunity' to Orion female pheromones like it does in heterosexual females (except lesbians of course) - it actually makes more real life science sense than a lot of 'science' that's been proposed in Trek.
But as I said, its highly unlikely that Starfleet would rely on those factors, so they would probably just include an immunity in whatever immunizations SF officers and Federation citizens at large get at birth in the 23rd century and onward.
Last edited:
Furthermore, on the subject of Emerald Chain economic prowess... well, I didn't get the impression it had a real upper hand compared to the Federation.
If anything, they may have achieved some level of parity in that regard mainly due to the Burn and the Federation being drastically reduced in size, dilithium shortage, not knowing if the Burn would happen again, and of course Warp capability (though you can't really beat 'no money'/Resource based economy approach to be fair).
Osyraa simply wanted the Federation 'acknowledging' that C{r}apitalism was already occurring in Emerald Chain space and that previous Federation starbases participated in 'trade'.
I suspect the arrangement would have necessitated a quazi-merger of RBE the Federation probably employs and Capitalism ... or at least to retain existing economic measures as the Chain implements them in some parts of space while leaving RBE type practices (aka, no money) in others.
It would also give Osyraa a great deal of power (or at least the ability to retain what power she has) and eventual possibility of extending her reach once she's nested/merged into the Federation.
Obviously, Vance wanted peace and was willing to do so since Osyraa did manage to pass the abolition of slavery and retrieval from 50 pre-warp planets - I do have to say that Osyraa did think things through.
However, Vance obviously didn't want Osyraa to not answer for her crimes (which were numerous).
Also, Osyraa needed the Federation to cooperate, because she knew that the Chain could probably lose (or withstand massive losses) if she engaged in a full on conflict with what's left of the Federation.
Could the Federation lose in an all out conflict?
Possibly, but one shouldn't underestimate the technological and resource capacity of even 38 member species (all of which would share same technological base most likely, construction facilities and resources... not to mention massive technical efficiency).
So, the Chain did grab hold of about 50 pre-warp civilizations and their resources. That gives them an edge of about 12 more planets... but if they're pre-warp and without needed infrastructure, they'd be useless - unless of course the Chain set up numerous construction facilities in those star systems.
Asteroids alone contain massive amounts of resources, so its not the pre-warp planets that are of particular interests, but the resources their star systems contain/provide.
Regardless, the Chain had to build that up over time... and the Federation simply had to maintain what it had left... so, they'd probably be roughly equal to each other and why the Chain/Osyraa might not want to risk an all out war with the Federation if she can avoid it.
Problem is, if I was in Vance's shoes... I don't think I would agree to Osyraa's terms. The economic aspects I could probably live with for peace yes... but to not have her accept responsibility for her actions... eh... that probably wouldn't sit well with the remainder of the Federation especially not after centuries of upholding the ideals and principles it set out.
If anything, they may have achieved some level of parity in that regard mainly due to the Burn and the Federation being drastically reduced in size, dilithium shortage, not knowing if the Burn would happen again, and of course Warp capability (though you can't really beat 'no money'/Resource based economy approach to be fair).
Osyraa simply wanted the Federation 'acknowledging' that C{r}apitalism was already occurring in Emerald Chain space and that previous Federation starbases participated in 'trade'.
I suspect the arrangement would have necessitated a quazi-merger of RBE the Federation probably employs and Capitalism ... or at least to retain existing economic measures as the Chain implements them in some parts of space while leaving RBE type practices (aka, no money) in others.
It would also give Osyraa a great deal of power (or at least the ability to retain what power she has) and eventual possibility of extending her reach once she's nested/merged into the Federation.
Obviously, Vance wanted peace and was willing to do so since Osyraa did manage to pass the abolition of slavery and retrieval from 50 pre-warp planets - I do have to say that Osyraa did think things through.
However, Vance obviously didn't want Osyraa to not answer for her crimes (which were numerous).
Also, Osyraa needed the Federation to cooperate, because she knew that the Chain could probably lose (or withstand massive losses) if she engaged in a full on conflict with what's left of the Federation.
Could the Federation lose in an all out conflict?
Possibly, but one shouldn't underestimate the technological and resource capacity of even 38 member species (all of which would share same technological base most likely, construction facilities and resources... not to mention massive technical efficiency).
So, the Chain did grab hold of about 50 pre-warp civilizations and their resources. That gives them an edge of about 12 more planets... but if they're pre-warp and without needed infrastructure, they'd be useless - unless of course the Chain set up numerous construction facilities in those star systems.
Asteroids alone contain massive amounts of resources, so its not the pre-warp planets that are of particular interests, but the resources their star systems contain/provide.
Regardless, the Chain had to build that up over time... and the Federation simply had to maintain what it had left... so, they'd probably be roughly equal to each other and why the Chain/Osyraa might not want to risk an all out war with the Federation if she can avoid it.
Problem is, if I was in Vance's shoes... I don't think I would agree to Osyraa's terms. The economic aspects I could probably live with for peace yes... but to not have her accept responsibility for her actions... eh... that probably wouldn't sit well with the remainder of the Federation especially not after centuries of upholding the ideals and principles it set out.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
