What does Kirk do in Star Trek 3? He disobeys a direct order from a superior officer, violates a quarantine zone, and steals Starfleet property.
Death before mutiny? Except on those occasions when the plot says otherwise.
Starfleet needed the Klingon war to happen
- Thread starter Groppler Zorn
- Start date
Death before mutiny? Except on those occasions when the plot says otherwise.
So there’s precedent for disobeying orders lol!
Ok, ok I know when I’m beat.
Does that mean we’re supposed to look at Michael in the same way as we did Kirk and Picard in STIII and FC + INS respectively?
Can we just say regarding Michael that the ends justify the means? (Like Sloan in s31 said to Bashir)
So ultimately that the ends (the resolution of the war and saving earth and starfleet becoming more cautious of the Klingons) justify the means (Michael landing on the thing and killing the torchbearer and being the excuse T’Kuvma was looking for to start the war)?
So ultimately using the arguments of Kirk and Picard alongside Michael could we argue that starfleet needed the Klingon war to happen because the ends justify the means?
Oh no, I wouldn't say that. In fact, the framing of the story suggests that we are supposed to see her actions as very wrong - it is in interesting contrast, actually, to the way our hero characters are normally presented when disobeying orders.
Georgiou's perspective is pretty unequivocally presented as 'correct' within the narrative (although it is certainly true that many fans disagreed and felt Michael acted correctly). This was unusual for Star Trek - possibly unique, in fact. Have we been here before with a lead being presented as categorically wrong? Obsession, maybe, or depending on your reading of it, For the Uniform?
That’s an interesting question about “for the uniform”. I think sisko goes too far in that one.
I definitely agree about Michael though. Fortunately her mutiny isn’t validated at the end - I was worried they’d say “see Michael you were right to do that this whole time”
Agreed - although that is how some viewers interpreted it, I think the show is saying she was wrong and showing her realising that. I liked that, especially when our other morally grey character turned out to be a moustache twirling mirror universe baddie. sigh.
Lorca was arguably my single biggest complaint about the series so far. He was complex, ambiguous, engaging and charismatic.
Then he suddenly became Dr Evil.
Agreed. I was also hoping she wasn’t going to mutiny at the end as well to stop the hydro death ray so I’m glad that didn’t happen!
I agree with this 100%.
I’ve just watched DSC through again and knowing the truth about Lorca makes his character worse second time around because you know he’s just being eeeeeeeeevil
*sighs harder than Tuvok trying to teach Neelix Kaltow*
The Torchbearer was an armed enemy combatant in Federation territory sabotaging Federation equipment. None of these things are Michael's fault, and these are sufficient circumstances for using lethal force.
Mutiny refers to unlawfully relieving your CO of their command. We have no indication this is what Ro did.
I didn’t get the sense she killed the torchbearer on purpose though. It looked like an accident iirc. And there have been many instances in all of Trek where armed enemy combatants have been in federation space and the use of lethal force was either not used or discouraged. Picard negotiating to avoid a shooting match with Tomalak springs to mind even when the romulans had charged across the neutral zone in a heavily armed warbird. Michael’s curiosity got the better of her on the beacon. She should have followed her orders to do a flyby only in this case.
(Although my entire argument is moot since that’s not what she did!)
And regarding mutiny then - my earlier point that Ro was the closest thing to a mutineer (without actually being one) following Michael Burnham (that we know of) could well be a result of changes put in place following Michael’s actions in Vulcan Hello.
(Although again there are a lot of “coulds” in my argument there since all of this is conjecture at this point).
Which still wouldn't start a war.
Doesn't change the fact that lethal force is authorized in these circumstances.
That never happened. The three times Picard faced Tomalak are The Enemy, where hostilities are avoided after the Enterprise beams Geordi and his Romulan friend aboard and the Romulan is returned to the warbird. The Defector, in which it is in fact the Enterprise which crosses the Neutral Zone and is rescued by a Klingon task force of enlarged BoPs. And All Good Things, in which Picard and Tomalak are sort of working together.
And even that's wrong. The crew of the Pegasus mutinied against Pressman several years before Ro even joined Starfleet.
No, but the fact that she did kill the torchbearer (which arguably wouldn’t have happened if she’d not landed on the beacon) gave T’Kuvma the excuse he was looking for to start the war.
In “the enemy” Picard expressly tells Tomalak not to enter federation space - and Tomalak does so anyway. That’s an invasion of federation territory. The fact that Picard does all he can to avoid an armed conflict could well be due to the fact that starfleet learned to be more cautious following the Burnham incident. Whether lethal force is authorised or not is less important than whether or not it was used. And if it was an accident in burnhams case, it wouldn’t have happened if she’d followed her orders.
Holy smokes you’re right. I’d forgotten about that. I suppose the difference is that Ro’s disobeying of her orders was publicly known (just like Michael’s mutiny). Both Ro and Burnham enjoyed a notoriety of sorts. The Pegasus affair was classified so that only Riker and Pressman and a couple of admirals knew about it.
A reluctance to go to war can stem from many reasons and motivations which have noting to do with Michael Burnham or what she may or may not have done.
In which case the Torchbearer would have succeeded in whatever his assignment was, which would have led to war anyway, because that was T'Kuvma's ultimate goal. He just got lucky that circumstances lined up so that Michael somehow looked like the instigator.
True of course. I just wanted to explore the notion that Michael’s actions would be relevant to later Trek
He lucked out big time. It makes me wonder what his plan would have been had Michael not killed the torchbearer mind you
What's your source for this?
Spock in The Menagerie would meet the definition of a mutiny, willfully refusing to obey a order.
Specifically refusing to obey the standing orders not to go to a certain planet.
Hard to rattle your saber if there's nothing in the scabbard.
Sarek must be so embarrassed - both his children in starfleet mutinied and Sybok was a hippie...
But seriously I wonder about Spock in the menagerie. Does that actually count since the whole court martial (including admiral Pardek) were illusions created by the Talosians? Spock was exhonorated of all wrongdoing in that episode wasn’t he so... technicality? *ducks*
Maybe they won a war against the Garidians?It's not a story the Federation Council would tell you...
It’s not too soon for a “final unity” reference is it?
