Starfleet General Orders
- Thread starter jgdst
- Start date
No, not whatever I say. Whatever basic decency and morality says.
No, I'm fairly certain that the basic principles of the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Trials established quite firmly that genocide=evil long before I was born.
False logic. There's no reason to think that the survival of the Federation is put at stake by the continued existence of any species it has yet encountered.
Even if you supposition is true, there's no telling what might be encountered in the future, or what steps might need to be taken to prevent it from wiping out life and civilization as we know it. Just because its an option doesn't mean it has to be used.
*shrugs* The Enterprise commited genocide in Operation Annihilate!. Did you weep for the flying pancakes?
It shouldn't even be an option.
1) I don't object to an artistic depiction of the Federation as growing to lose some of its early immoral policies.
2) Were the parasites sentient? If not, then it's extermination of a non-sentient threat to sentient life, which can hardly be equated to genocide -- the deliberate destruction of an entire race of sentient creatures.
ETA:
According to Memory Alpha: The neural parasites were not native to Deneva. Further, Spock theorizes that each individual parasite is likely not itself sentient; at best, the parasites may have been part of a larger organism that was sentient. Nonetheless, the parasites were not native to Deneva, and each individual parasite was probably not sentient.
Ergo, no genocide occurred.
The parasites as a whole were a sentient being - evidently the whole of the species. It traveled as one, killed as one. Had they been individuals and individually sentient, the outcome would likely have been the same. Whether or not they were native to Deneva doesn't matter in the least.
The Star Trek universe is full of incredible dangers. To me it makes sense that planetary destruction should be an option all starship captains should have. I'm sure they have to stand before a board on inquiry if they ever use it, and face very harsh penalties if ever misused. But to me the order is sound, given the circumstances. Don't like it? Too bad. Starfleet does.
As for the order being rescinded, it happened in a novel. Its non-canon. Though if you chose to make it a part of your own personal canon, that is of course your right. Its my right to see the sense in having the order, and to be glad its there as an option.
Why is it so important to you that I see this as you do? Its a damn TV show. Lighten up.
The Star Trek universe is full of incredible dangers. To me it makes sense that planetary destruction should be an option all starship captains should have. I'm sure they have to stand before a board on inquiry if they ever use it, and face very harsh penalties if ever misused. But to me the order is sound, given the circumstances. Don't like it? Too bad. Starfleet does.
As for the order being rescinded, it happened in a novel. Its non-canon. Though if you chose to make it a part of your own personal canon, that is of course your right. Its my right to see the sense in having the order, and to be glad its there as an option.
Why is it so important to you that I see this as you do? Its a damn TV show. Lighten up.
Part of it is because within the narrative consistency of that very TV show, there have been several stories in which our heroes or the Federation survives because they didn't compromise their beliefs in order to save their hides. The TNG crew had the option of destroying the Borg (or maybe so) and voted not to. They also defended the nanites from genocide even though at the time they thought the nanites themselves were hostile. DS9 made the Romulan/Cardassian forces who were sent to destroy the Founders out to be villains, and furthermore Section 31 was always consistently seen as villains who came close to genocide, despite the fact that they always worked for the survival of the Federation.
Where is the evidence that the entire parasite population was on Deneva?
Or did. If that sort of thing was still a legal option, I rather imagine we would have heard of it by some time during, say, the Dominion War.
And was approved by Paramount Pictures. And it's not like it's going to be contradicted any time soon.
I get disturbed when I see people enjoying the concept of mass genocide, even as a fiction. That's a very dangerous mental path to walk down.
*wades in* I actually had the impression from the episode that Genral Order 24 was more of a war time order or one to be made during a dire and I mean DIRE situation. As a sterilization to contain the spread of a virus that has no cure, or depriving an enemy of a fixed stronghold much like a nuclear strike from a US missle submarine.
I am also very sure given the way they had it set up that any of the bridge officer could stop the countdown to 'turning the key'. I do not actually believe the wording of the order had to do with cultural interference.
To me it seemed more of a massive 'carpet bombing' general order to be given in self defense.
I would think that Kirk's butt would've been in a MAJOR Sling had he actually carried out that order, and I believe Scotty and the bridge crew were merely backing their captian's play and would NOT have fired recognizing it was a bluff.
Was such a order genocide, no mostly likely not, it would epend on the specific circumstances of any given situation. In a black and white world just the order by herself with no circumstances...well then yeah it totally sounds like genocide.
I think the order was there as a in case of <Enter INCREDIBLE UNCONTROLABLE THREAT TO -ALL- LIFE (not just FED life)> break glass.
Just my two creds.
Vons
I am also very sure given the way they had it set up that any of the bridge officer could stop the countdown to 'turning the key'. I do not actually believe the wording of the order had to do with cultural interference.
To me it seemed more of a massive 'carpet bombing' general order to be given in self defense.
I would think that Kirk's butt would've been in a MAJOR Sling had he actually carried out that order, and I believe Scotty and the bridge crew were merely backing their captian's play and would NOT have fired recognizing it was a bluff.
Was such a order genocide, no mostly likely not, it would epend on the specific circumstances of any given situation. In a black and white world just the order by herself with no circumstances...well then yeah it totally sounds like genocide.
I think the order was there as a in case of <Enter INCREDIBLE UNCONTROLABLE THREAT TO -ALL- LIFE (not just FED life)> break glass.
Just my two creds.
Vons
I agree. I'm not sure where the cultural interference thing listed on that website comes from.
I'm wholeheartedly for genocide. I mean, Kirk is a soldier. It would be disgusting to the extreme for him to argue that it is wrong to kill an entire species while at the same time arguing that he has the right to kill an individual, a family, a batallion, a city, or a continent.
Killing should never be justified by saying that it isn't the worst possible kind of killing. If Kirk's in for the penny, he must have the guts to admit that he's in for the pound.
Timo Saloniemi
Killing should never be justified by saying that it isn't the worst possible kind of killing. If Kirk's in for the penny, he must have the guts to admit that he's in for the pound.
Timo Saloniemi
I have to disagree with this wholeheartedly. There's still a very large, very bold line between killing your enemy and genocide of an entire species. In the case of Starfleet - for them to wipe out any planet is against the very ethics they're trying to protect.
The Dominion War is an example of this - the Dominion were not above attacking civilian targets, taking planets (eg Betazed), even bombarding Cardassia itself, as long as they were not in a non-aggression pact. Starfleet had these opportunities and didn't take them, their mission was only to repel the conquering force. Even in the direst of circumstances, this proves they've moved beyond the need for things like GO24. I don't believe Kirk's era was that far behind in terms of ethics (not counting the parasites, which is slightly different). Even Archer showed the Xindi that there was always the option to negotiate a peace.
A real life example would be the second World War. The Nazis had to be taken down, did the soldiers fighting that therefore have the right or even the justification to wipe the entire country of Germany off the map?
There is no justifciation for genocide unless your species, race, creed, whatever is at risk of total destruction by an opposing force. Again, as someone mentioned before, that's a matter of survival. Genocide is generally not. There are always civilians and neutrals to consider.
Last edited:
Well, we did completely obliterate the city of Dresden, for one. If WWII were scaled up to interstellar terms, that would be very much like bombarding a planet.
...and don't forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Ah, very good point. I forgot about Dresden, which is still a sticking point about WWII.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki I think are a perfect example of why GO24 seems so horrific - my opinion is that it was a huge step over the line, and definitely wasn't needed to finish the war, especially considering the sheer number of civilian casualties and the war was already over in Europe. It shouldn't have been the decision of just one man to make a decision like that (in that case Truman).
I'd hope that an organisation like Starfleet would learn from an atrocity like that to make sure it never happened again.
What are the odds of that? The decisions to terror-bomb Europe and Japan were wholeheartedly supported by the governments of the time - and by all subsequent governments, which continue to give the exact same mandate to the current USAF. No other nation has an explicit policy of "we could do it, too, but we decidedly won't", either (well, the Soviets claimed they had, for a brief while, but they lied about it; nobody else bothered with such lies). Those that can, will, if the push comes to the murderous shove.
If there's a learning process involved, it would probably be a good start if the so-called rules of war were dropped for good. "A Taste of Armageddon" had it down pat...
Timo Saloniemi
If there's a learning process involved, it would probably be a good start if the so-called rules of war were dropped for good. "A Taste of Armageddon" had it down pat...
Timo Saloniemi
The rules of war will never be dropped for good, though.
They're entirely too useful, for one. They don't stop war, and they were never meant to. They don't really reduce the horror - they were never meant to.
What they do, and do quite well, is limit the impact of war. Remember that in previous ages looting, sacking,and generally carrying-off whatever you could get your hands on was an expected and explicit part of war, to name one example. No more, in general, for state-on-state conflicts (which is all that the rules of warfare are meant to cover, strictly speaking). Why? Because the rules of war now make that a war crime, punishable (in the extreme) by death according to the customs and conventions of the profession of arms.
Civilians are still impacted, don't get me wrong - the full panopoly of modern weaponry would make it surprising if they weren't - and war will always, always be hell...But the rules of warfare do help to limit the impact.
Which, because war will never be abolished so long as politics between nations exists (and politics, being the process of deciding the allocation of resources, will never be abolished) is probably the best option available.
They're entirely too useful, for one. They don't stop war, and they were never meant to. They don't really reduce the horror - they were never meant to.
What they do, and do quite well, is limit the impact of war. Remember that in previous ages looting, sacking,and generally carrying-off whatever you could get your hands on was an expected and explicit part of war, to name one example. No more, in general, for state-on-state conflicts (which is all that the rules of warfare are meant to cover, strictly speaking). Why? Because the rules of war now make that a war crime, punishable (in the extreme) by death according to the customs and conventions of the profession of arms.
Civilians are still impacted, don't get me wrong - the full panopoly of modern weaponry would make it surprising if they weren't - and war will always, always be hell...But the rules of warfare do help to limit the impact.
Which, because war will never be abolished so long as politics between nations exists (and politics, being the process of deciding the allocation of resources, will never be abolished) is probably the best option available.
With regards to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the buck stops here. I'm sure Trumans military advisers gave him options etc.. But one person ultimately has to be responsible.Also in my opinion, it would have been irresponsible NOT to have used the atomic bomb to help end the war as quick as possible.
But back to the OP, a lot of these general orders only make since if starships are out of contact with a higher command. I would suspect and hope that any use of a GO, such as GO24, would trigger a review and possible severe penalties for misuse.
Most of these GO's would probably be pages in length, or at least reference more information. Example, GO24 lay waste to planets surface, see section xxx for justification, which would be quite lengthy.
Also Genocide could only possibly be justified if a species very existence threatened your civilization and the only weapon or option you have will cause genocide; the borg might possibly be a candidate in this type of situation.
A soldier who would not hesitate to kill an enemy soldier or blow up an important target even if there would be collateral damage, is FAR FAR away from being genocidal.
But back to the OP, a lot of these general orders only make since if starships are out of contact with a higher command. I would suspect and hope that any use of a GO, such as GO24, would trigger a review and possible severe penalties for misuse.
Most of these GO's would probably be pages in length, or at least reference more information. Example, GO24 lay waste to planets surface, see section xxx for justification, which would be quite lengthy.
Also Genocide could only possibly be justified if a species very existence threatened your civilization and the only weapon or option you have will cause genocide; the borg might possibly be a candidate in this type of situation.
A soldier who would not hesitate to kill an enemy soldier or blow up an important target even if there would be collateral damage, is FAR FAR away from being genocidal.
Last edited:
Similar threads
