Star Trek's Five Most Devastating Sci-Fi Environmental Disasters

[jefferiestubes8]

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country

When Praxis, the Klingon moon explodes, it throws the alien race into an ecological nightmare. BP oil spill damage parallels are clear. Praxis was a Klingon energy provider. It blew up from insufficient safety precautions -

Homeward - Star Trek: The Next Generation

Worf's adoptive brother violates the Prime Directive by saving a group of villagers from a doomed planet.

The Mark Of Gideon - TOS

the populace of severely overcrowded Gideon don't die because of an ecological miracle - a germ free atmosphere. Kirk's transport was rerouted so he'd materialize on a replica starship - knowing he'd expose his germs to the woman. She'd in turn infect more, thereby restoring nature's balance of life and death.

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

After an enormous probe orbits Earth, it shuts off all energy generators, even space ships in proximity. Only Kirk and crew - ...still pilot a fully energized ship

Homeward - TNG
Worf tangle with his human foster brother Nikolai Rozhenko. It's a family squabble caused by an environmental disaster.

Force of Nature - TNG

speed kills, or rips up the fabric of space.
When sister and brother scientists warn against over use of warp drive, the Federation prohibits ships traveling past warp five - except in emergencies

by comparing fictional warp drive to a real combustion engine of Earthly origin, one sees a pollution potential metaphor for our own dependence on fossil fuels.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/ar...ks_five_most_devastating_scifi_pg2.html?cat=2

Are there any from VOY or ENT you can think of?



Let's try to keep this Star Trek-related and not the politics around BP plc the global energy company. There are half a dozen threads in TNZ about the oil spill and BP.

 

[Shatnertage]

Wasn't there a planetary disaster in Pen Pals? And near-misses in A Matter of Time and the Q-becomes-human episode?

And surely the instantaneous demise of the billions of Husnock in The Survivors has some kind of effects on those planets' ecologies.

I think in ENT Shockwave a whole planet's atmosphere got fried. But it wasn't the crew's fault. It was gazelles.

 

[Myasishchev]

No "Trek 11: superluminal "supernova" threatens galaxy"? I agree, it does suck, but so did the superluminal lunarnova that was Praxis.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I would say what the Malons did in VOY was an environmental disaster.

 

[Luther Sloan]

Sisko destroys an entire planet.

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/74019

 

[StarryEyed]

The Klingon in TNG The Chase destroys an entire planet.

The Klingons supposedly wiped out the Tribble homeworld.

 

[F. King Daniel]

The Star Trek XI supernova that destroyed Romulus (and presumably Remus).

Nero destroyed Vulcan.

The Doomsday Machine destroyed worlds.

The Ocampa homeworld in the Voyager pilot has a backstory of ecological decay.

Do the flying pancake parasites from "Operation: Annihilate!"count? They destroyed life on many worlds.

In Voyager's "Friendship One" an old Earth probe's warp technology turns a happy little planet into a radioactive dump in the perpetual darkness of a nuclear winter.

Space Amoeba from TOS.

The Borg have probably done the most ecologocal damage to the most worlds over the millenia (we got a brief glimpse at Borgified Earth in First Contact)

 

[Finn]

And surely the instantaneous demise of the billions of Husnock in The Survivors has some kind of effects on those planets' ecologies.

That depends on how he killed them. For all we know, he simply vapored every single one of them. Perhaps it led an unmanned craft with radioactive material to crash on their planet.

 

[DonIago]

Sisko destroys an entire planet.

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/74019

I don't know why people insist on generalizing this...

All Sisko did was render the planet uninhabitable to humans (and possibly some other species).

Hell, it's specifically said at the end of the episode that the Cardassians and Maquis are going to swap their poisoned planets.

I wish people would stop being such drama queens about this.

 

[Timo]

Indeed, Sisko essentially just cardassiformed a world, while Eddington terraformed one...

Which makes me suggest another entry into the list of stupefying environmental disasters: humans colonize the galaxy.

No "Trek 11: superluminal "supernova" threatens galaxy"? I agree, it does suck, but so did the superluminal lunarnova that was Praxis.

...And both threatened the galaxy. Probably in the same way, too: by tilting the military-political balance of power, rather than by tilting the galactic axis or anything physical like that.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Luther Sloan]

I don't know why people insist on generalizing this...

All Sisko did was render the planet uninhabitable to humans (and possibly some other species).

Hell, it's specifically said at the end of the episode that the Cardassians and Maquis are going to swap their poisoned planets.

I wish people would stop being such drama queens about this.

DonIago:

No. Sisko was wrong to do this. Making the planet uninhabitable to humans most likely destroyed other forms of life on the planet, too. He even did this to play out the role of the villain, too. It says so in the episode that he wanted to be the bad guy. Also, that's why he didn't ask Starfleet for permission either. Because he knew it was wrong. He was just so bent on capturing Eddington that he lost perspective.

Oh, and lets say there was no other life on the planet besides the settlers. What happens if one of the transport ships can't make it off the planet or a group of people are trapped somewhere or some children get lost in a cave (and the transporters won't work)? Did Sisko make sure that everyone was out safely? No. He was willing to put people's lives at risk to capture one criminal at any cost and it was wrong.

 

[DonIago]

I wasn't debating the morality of his actions, only pointing out that to say he "destroys an entire planet" is a gross exaggeration unsupported by what's actually said during the course of the episode. In my response to you I acknowledged that what Sisko did -may- have also been toxic to other forms of life, though this isn't explicitly stated and hence can't be assumed.

 

[Timo]

Eddington and Sisko's handiwork certainly qualifies as a global-scale environmental disaster, and thus fits in the list next to, say, the Klingon torching of a planet in "The Chase".

The Klingons there didn't completely "destroy" the planet, either, they just destroyed its ability to support life. The poisons used by Eddington and Sisko did the same as regarded certain sentient species. And as already suggested, the effects probably extended to other roughly similar species in the biosphere, too.

We were told the trilithium poisoning will wear off in about 50 years. Did we learn anything about how long Eddington's poison was going to remain effective?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Colonel Midnight]

How about the Planet-Killer machine from TOS? If that's not an ecological disaster for any environs on what it targets, I don't know what is... Heck, you end up as lunch-meat for it!

Cheers,
-CM-

 

[LutherSloan]

The Voyager episode 'The Omega Directive' mentions an incident that occurred in the late 23rd century in Federation space where about 130 scientists died and subspace around the Lantaru sector was disrupted when a single Omega molecule was synthesized briefly before blowing up.

 

[DonIago]

The Genesis Device certainly had potential. Same with Vejur and the Whale Probe. The Borg are a gimme. There's also the Crystalline Entity.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

I don't know why people insist on generalizing this...

All Sisko did was render the planet uninhabitable to humans (and possibly some other species).

Hell, it's specifically said at the end of the episode that the Cardassians and Maquis are going to swap their poisoned planets.

I wish people would stop being such drama queens about this.

No. Sisko was wrong to do this. Making the planet uninhabitable to humans most likely destroyed other forms of life on the planet, too. He even did this to play out the role of the villain, too. It says so in the episode that he wanted to be the bad guy. Also, that's why he didn't ask Starfleet for permission either. Because he knew it was wrong. He was just so bent on capturing Eddington that he lost perspective.

Oh, and lets say there was no other life on the planet besides the settlers. What happens if one of the transport ships can't make it off the planet or a group of people are trapped somewhere or some children get lost in a cave (and the transporters won't work)? Did Sisko make sure that everyone was out safely? No. He was willing to put people's lives at risk to capture one criminal at any cost and it was wrong.

In that episode Sisko did much more than poison a colony full of federation citizens he was sworn to protect.


He also commited multiple counts of cold-blooded murder.
I'm talking about Sisko destroying that maquis ship at the beginning of the episode.

Sisko had the right to arrest the maquis in order for them to stand trial for the crime of terrorism. He most definitely DID NOT have the right to be judge, jury and executioner.
Apropos executioner - the death penalty is abolished in the federation - meaning NO federation institution has the right to execute those maquis regardless of their crimes. Obviously, Sisko didn't care about any of this.

And Sisko's murders were NOT in self-defense - the episode repeatedly establishes that the maquis ship was no threat whatsoever to defiant.

 

[DonIago]

You mean the Maquis ship that sabotaged the Defiant, or the Maquis ship(s) that disabled an Excelsior-class vessel?

IIRC after the latter incident the Maquis' threat level was officially reclassified.

Picard used phasers on Maquis vessels in "Preemptive Strike" as well. What was Sisko supposed to do? Ask them politely to turn themselves in? Use harsh language?

Also, call it whatever you want, but we all know that at least in the US, if there's a known terrorist ship headed for our soil the military has the authority to shoot them down.

 

[Timo]

The Federation certainly hasn't abolished killing - all our heroes kill left and right. All we know about the death penalty is that there was only one offense "in the books" that warranted such penalty in "The Menagerie", and again in "Turnabout Intruder" - supposedly a different offense in both. But we don't know what those "books" were. Possibly just Starfleet rulebooks of some sort, with the civil law covering the rest (and including death penalty for murder, according to "Ultimate Computer").

Really, you seem to have a truly perverse urge to blame people for the offense of not doing something: "He didn't do X, so millions died!". The real world doesn't work like that. If you fail to do something that would protect millions, you get a promotion and increased resources so that you might be able to do something next time. There is no penalty on inaction, and no moral obligation for acting. People just die, shit happens, and it's not your fault.

Or is it? Shouldn't you be rotting in jail (or, rather, Hell) for not saving anybody during 9/11? Not even trying? You disgusting traitor - you saw it all on TV, and you did nothing?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[ProtoAvatar]

You mean the Maquis ship that sabotaged the Defiant, or the Maquis ship(s) that disabled an Excelsior-class vessel?

I'm not referring to Eddington's maquis ship, Don Iago.

I'm talking about the maquis ship which Sisko blew out of the sky at the beginning of the episode.
The one which just proved it had no chance of ever scratching defiant and was retreating.

Picard used phasers on Maquis vessels in "Preemptive Strike" as well. What was Sisko supposed to do? Ask them politely to turn themselves in? Use harsh language?

Picard never killed maquis in cold blood.

As for Sisko, I can tell you what he did NOT have the RIGHT to do - kill human beings.
You see, a policeman doesn't have the right to kill thiefs that pose no threat to him, just because they are running away.

Really, you seem to have a truly perverse urge to blame people for the offense of not doing something: "He didn't do X, so millions died!". The real world doesn't work like that. If you fail to do something that would protect millions, you get a promotion and increased resources so that you might be able to do something next time. There is no penalty on inaction, and no moral obligation for acting. People just die, shit happens, and it's not your fault.

Timo, in my last post I blamed Sisko for comitting multiple murders (an action) and for poisoning a federation colony, inhabited by his people (another action).

Or is it? Shouldn't you be rotting in jail (or, rather, Hell) for not saving anybody during 9/11? Not even trying? You disgusting traitor - you saw it all on TV, and you did nothing?

I'm assuming you're referring to my comments regarding the federation's actions during 'blaze of glory'.

If so, it's a straw-man argument.
For one, I had no obligation to protect someone during 9/11.
For another, I had no means whatsoever to protect.
None of these can be said about the federation during 'blaze of glory'.

The Federation certainly hasn't abolished killing - all our heroes kill left and right. All we know about the death penalty is that there was only one offense "in the books" that warranted such penalty in "The Menagerie", and again in "Turnabout Intruder" - supposedly a different offense in both. But we don't know what those "books" were. Possibly just Starfleet rulebooks of some sort, with the civil law covering the rest (and including death penalty for murder, according to "Ultimate Computer").

'Our heroes' are supposed to ONLY kill in self-defence.

In early TNG, Picard stated that the death punishment had been abolished by the 24th century.
Even IF the death punishment still exists, it can only be given and executed at the end of a legal trial. Or has the right to due trial been abolished in the federation?

In 'for the uniform', Sisko killed tens of humans in cold blood. He played judge, jury and executioner, condemned those maquis to death and executed the sentence - and he had no right to do it. This MAKES him a murderer.