Starfleet vs. Klingons (who wins)

[Deks]

I doubt that. Yesterday's Enterprise was pretty clear: the Federation and Klingons fought a twenty year war and the Federation lost. What more do you need?

The Federation did NOT lose the war.
Picard only said to Garret (in a very low voice no less AFTER she explained her desire to NOT go back through the rift) that the Federation was losing the conflict.
We don't know if this was actually the case, because he could have simply said so to encourage her to go back and prevent the war from ever taking place.

Granted, it's likely both the Klingons and Feds sustained heavy losses, but either way, I doubt the Feds would suddenly lose after 20 years of sustained conflict (and Picard would probably JUMP at the chance to undo the war and prevent numerous losses on both ends).

Furthermore, the war itself in fact doesn't make sense after ST VI.
It was also mentioned in the movie itself that SF back in Kirk's day would be able to beat the Klingons. Of course, this could have been nothing more than SF commander touting his best to the President, but even so, I never got the impression that SF would be incompetent back in that time period.
Furthermore, if the Klingons decided to go to war over 1 conflict where the Enterprise-C looked like as if it fled the battle, then they have some serious issues.
Where were their own ships to defend Khitomer?

The 'excuse' was a poor one at best. But either way, in YE timeline, we don't know if the Federation actually lost the war or not.

 

[Rojixus]

Whether or not you think the war makes sense is irrelevant. Apparently, the Klingons got their act together between 2293 and the 2340s. You have no proof Picard lied or not. You're also splitting hairs, Picard said the Federation was six months away from defeat. Six months is not long enough for the Federation to pull a victory out of its ass or even a stalemate, not after 20 long years. ST6 is irrelevant in this discussion, YE trumps it by virtue of taking place later.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Whether or not you think the war makes sense is irrelevant. Apparently, the Klingons got their act together between 2293 and the 2340s. You have no proof Picard lied or not. You're also splitting hairs, Picard said the Federation was six months away from defeat.

So its okay to say he was telling the truth without proof, but not okay to say he is lying without proof

Six months is not long enough for the Federation to pull a victory out of its ass or even a stalemate, not after 20 long years.

Only if the federation doesn't get desperate enough to toss out the morals. Otherwise they could

1) Use a protomatter device on Qo'noS's sun

2) Released a Biogentetic virus designed to kill klingons

3) Use a Genesis Device on Qo'noS

4) Use genetically engineered super soilders

5) Use time travel to erase the klingons from existence or otherwise royally screw them over.

6) Manipulating the Romulans to get involved

ST6 is irrelevant in this discussion, YE trumps it by virtue of taking place later.

No Star Trek 6 trumps YE becuase it came out later, that's how Star Trek always operates in cases of contridictions.

 

[Rojixus]

If you believe Picard was lying, the burden of proof is on you. If the Federation was willing to toss out morals to win a war, they would have done it a hell of a lot sooner than 20 years. Yesterday's Enterprise takes place later in the canon, that is why it trumps ST6. Also, how the hell is it a contradiction? The Undiscovered Country took place in 2293, the war in YE started in the 2340s. Just because you have a problem with YE, doesn't mean you can dismiss it.

 

[Deks]

There is no concrete proof that Picard wasn't lying either.
We only have his word... and in wartime where he had a chance to undo 20 years of conflict that inflicted losses on both sides would probably coax him enough to give Garret good enough incentive to go through the rift.
And there's nothing about the Federation being at the brink of losing the war before Garret expressed her non-desire to go through the rift.

I'm not dismissing YE (or the premise it was poorly thought of), I'm only stating another possible explanation on why Picard might have said what he did to Garret to get her to go through the rift.

I'm not accepting everything stated by the characters as a given either because there have been plenty of situations where SF officers lied to their adversaries in order to get out of a situation alive.
YE situation is different I'll grant you that, but either way, we have no concrete proof he was being honest with Garret.
As he so eloquently put it, 1 more ship in the here and now won't make any difference, but 20 years ago.... it might make all the difference.
Garret was pretty stubborn in her opinion to remain in the altered timeline, and Picard needed a major reason to make her go back.

 

[Rojixus]

You're the one making the claim Picard is lying, YOU have to prove it. So far you've given motive but no proof whatsoever. I give Picard the benefit of the doubt because I have no proof he was lying. Show some proof Picard is lying THEN we'll talk.

 

[doylem1]

There are for's and against's in this argument. We can't ignore the for's

Riker admitting that Starfleet certainly could do with more ships even if she is old

Yar saying its been a bloody war with over half the fleet lost

Picard telling Garrett one ship will not make a difference in the here and now and predictions are the Federation will have to surrender within 6 months

Against

Guinan telling Picard that this time line is wrong and shouldn't exist it has to end and arguing with Picard's reluctance to send Garrett's crew to certain death

Picard only after Guinan's little talking to and Garrett's resistance to return to her own time does he hit her with the Federation is losing and forecasts defeat is within 6 months

Only when Guinan bends Picard's ear and reminds him of the death toll in this war so far does Picard's mind change from getting the E-C ready to fight to getting her home to her fate.

There is no doubt that the Federation was in bad shape, but we don't know what shape the Klingons were in either both Empires after 20 years of conflict would be near exhausted, it all comes down to who has gained more territory and resources in this war. This is something we will never know


And due to the timeline ending with the return of the E-C to her own time the Federation never lost the war as it never started. Although if the episode parallels is correct every decision has a different outcome so somewhere in some alternate universe the war may be lost as the E-C never returned to the present and was destroyed with the E-D

 

[T'Girl]

If you believe Picard was lying, the burden of proof is on you.

Just as if you believe Picard is telling the truth, the burden of that proof would be on you.

I give Picard the benefit of the doubt because I have no proof he was lying.

Nor any corroboration that he being honest or factual.

I'll admit that there is a possibility that Picard is telling the truth. But the fact that his statement came only after Garrett said she intended to remain does place suspicion on Picard's veracity.

Returning the the base OP (Starfleet vs. Klingons), it would depend on when the war started. Starfleet strenght likely increases and decreases throughout the decades and centuries of it existence. The feeling I received from TOS is that the two forces were supposed to be pretty even, the Klingons were purposely designed to be a force to be reckoned with in that time period. Immediately following the Klingon civil war, the Klingons were weakened, while there is no indication that Starfleet was also.

 

[Rojixus]

If you believe Picard was lying, the burden of proof is on you.

Just as if you believe Picard is telling the truth, the burden of that proof would be on you.

I give Picard the benefit of the doubt because I have no proof he was lying.

Nor any corroboration that he being honest or factual.

I'll admit that there is a possibility that Picard is telling the truth. But the fact that his statement came only after Garrett said she intended to remain does place suspicion on Picard's veracity.

Returning the the base OP (Starfleet vs. Klingons), it would depend on when the war started. Starfleet strenght likely increases and decreases throughout the decades and centuries of it existence. The feeling I received from TOS is that the two forces were supposed to be pretty even, the Klingons were purposely designed to be a force to be reckoned with in that time period. Immediately following the Klingon civil war, the Klingons were weakened, while there is no indication that Starfleet was also.

I don't have to prove anything, you are the one claiming Picard is lying. It is generally assumed whenever someone says something, they are telling the truth. You accuse Picard of lying, the burden of proof is on you and you alone. Merely providing motives is not enough.

And once more, the Klingon Civil War lasted less than a year, and looked to be a low-intensity conflict at that. Within a year or two, the Klingons would have returned to their pre-war strength.

 

[Deks]

Making assumptions about anything or anyone is something I prefer to avoid, because in my experience (and those of others) it tends to backfire almost every time.
Apart from Picard's word, do we have any evidence (let alone proof) whatsoever that the war has been going badly for the Federation?
What's the state of the Klingon empire for example? Unknown - except that Riker said 'they should be careful after the pasting we gave them at...".
How many ships have they lost?
What about lives count?
Both unknown.

I don't 'believe', I said I included the possibility (a theory or a hypothesis... something that is subject to change at any given time) that Picard could have been lying to Garret on various grounds.
We have no 'proof' either way. Only Picard's word, and in order for it to be valid, it has to be taken at face value... something I don't really do. I take it into account as possibly being accurate, but since I hadn't been present during the events and I'm only getting partial information (at best) from 1 side, one cannot make an objective conclusion about things.
Equally, I don't take anything at face value that comes from the mouth of media or those in positions of power, companies (of any kind), etc.
I prefer doing my own research, study the evidence provided and make up my own mind about something.

Besides, 'absolute proof' doesn't really exist in science, nor does 'belief' (in any form). Those who inject those aspects into science, don't think in a scientific aspect, but rather a religious one.

Finally, we can only conjure up evidence that indicates towards something, but even THAT isn't enough to make a solid conclusion - in a lot of cases, most evidence points to one singular thing, but the actual result was something else. It's just that the 'majority' ruled that the 'overwhelming evidence' points into a specific direction, ergo it MUST be the cause. This is flawed, and unscientific at best.
YE was way too vague on numerous aspects to make a determination that the Federation would have to surrender in 6 months time.
As I said before, we only have Picard's word on that... and I wouldn't be the brightest guy if I took it at face value... especially under the circumstances it was delivered in.

 

[Rojixus]

It was also stated that the Federation had over 40 billion dead, lost over half of its fleet, and that it was pressing any starship it could into service, no matter the age. That's typically a desperation tactic used by the loosing side. Furthermore, one of the final battles of the Civil War was won by the Confederacy, they still ended up loosing the war though. As a matter of fact, Riker didn't even say the Federation won that battle. He only said they gave the Klingons a "pasting" which could be interpreted in many ways as I stated in an earlier post. At least Picard is more precise. When he said Starfleet Command believed surrender was inevitable in six months, he gave specific information on the Federation's status in the war (near-surrender) and even gave an estimated time when the Federation would be unable to fight (six months).

It also doesn't matter what shape the Klingon Empire was in, it was the Federation that was planning to surrender not the Klingons. When one side decides to surrender, the other side wins by default. The victory may most likely be a Pyrrhic one, but it is a victory nevertheless.

 

[Deks]

And how do we know the Klingons hadn't suffered the same losses if not more and were employing same desperation tactics (in their case, it wouldn't really be considered desperate) or were planning to surrender themselves (a bit unlikely as they would likely fight even if they had 1 ship left - though even Klingons have the sensibility to sometime know it's better to retreat so they can fight another day)?
Don't give me that lame excuse that it doesn't matter what shape the Klingon Empire was in.
Of course it matters.
We don't even know if the Federation WOULD proclaim surrender to the Klingons in the proposed 6 months period.
It's all a theory at best, one that cannot be corroborated AT ALL because the episode was done WAY before any of the mentioned events were supposed to take place, and we don't even know whether Picard was exaggerating/lied to Garret or not (given the circumstances, I could see him do that quite easily just to change her mind and prevent the war from ever taking place).

We were given a shaky version of the events told from 1 side only, and not a peep of the Klingons.
I don't find that to be credible AT ALL if you want to formulate ANY kind of an unbiased conclusion.

 

[Rojixus]

Apparently the Klingons weren't doing too badly, they did manage to send three warships to meet the Federation's one after all. Sorry to sound like a broken record but, you don't have a shred of evidence Picard was lying. Also, most of Star Trek is told from the side of the Federation, so what? You can try to come up with any crackpot theory you like about how the Klingons were just about to surrender or how Picard lied to get Garret to go back to the past (even though if the Federation was winning, Picard would be even less likely to send Garret back, why take the chance the Federation's victory could be undone by time travel?) but at the end of the day, that's all you have: theories. Let's stick to the facts shall we?
1) The Federation lost 40 billion people.
2) The Federation lost half its fleet.
3) The Federation believed it would have to surrender in six months.
I wouldn't hold out for some half-assed Deus Ex Machina like the Klingons surrendering at the last minute either. Just stick to the bare facts without speculation and theories.

 

[T'Girl]

1) The Federation lost 40 billion people.

While admittedly non-canon, the common conjectured population on the Federation prior to the Dominion War is between eight hundred billion and one trillion. A loss of forty billion would be five percent or less.

In comparison, the twenty-six point six million losses suffered by the Soviet Union in the second world war constituted fourteen percent of their population. The Soviet Union was one of the victors of that conflict.

So, the fact that the Federation lost forty billion isn't, in of itself, a valid indication of eventual defeat.

2) The Federation lost half its fleet.

During the course of the second world war, the US Navy would lose seventy-six destroyers, over forty percent of the prewar total, but by building them faster than enemy forces could destroy them, the US Navy more than doubled it's destroyer strength by wars end.

So if the Klingons destroy one of every two wartime new starship constructions, and they destroyed half of the prewar Starfleet over the duration of a twenty year war, that wouldn't in itself necessarily mean that Starfleet is getting weaker.

Or losing.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Y.E might be a little more closer to normal reality than we think, because Sela, Tasha's daughter, exists because of what happened in it.

That's pretty close.

And it seems to be saying that there was something about the Klingon military that had the might to bring Starfleet down.

Not surprising, since in TOS and TNG the Klingon Empire was implied to be the 'threatening and dangerous empire', until in some sense, in later series it got scaled back a bit.

There is one statement that might support the idea that the Federation wasn't in immanent danger of being conquered;

Picard told Tasha that the Enterprise C could fail anyway, and that she would continue living (in that timeline) 'for a long while'.

I always thought that was an odd thing to say when both of them stated how badly the war was going for Starfleet.

Still Trek is saying that if the Klingons went on the rampage, they would have (and could) conquer the Feds and the Romulans, and the Cardassians.

 

[Rojixus]

During the course of the second world war, the US Navy would lose seventy-six destroyers, over forty percent of the prewar total, but by building them faster than enemy forces could destroy them, the US Navy more than doubled it's destroyer strength by wars end.

If the Federation was building more ships than they were loosing, they wouldn't feel the need to press every ship they had into service no matter the age. That seems to imply Starfleet IS getting weaker and is indeed loosing.

Picard told Tasha that the Enterprise C could fail anyway, and that she would continue living (in that timeline) 'for a long while'.

I always thought that was an odd thing to say when both of them stated how badly the war was going for Starfleet.

Picard said a long life, not a good one. Although to be fair, Picard said the Federation was close to surrendering, not being conquered. Even if the Federation looses the war with the Klingons, the Federation may still survive more or less intact. In that case, they may indeed live a long life in a weakened, but free, Federation.

 

[Xerxes1979]

While admittedly non-canon, the common conjectured population on the Federation prior to the Dominion War is between eight hundred billion and one trillion. A loss of forty billion would be five percent or less.

We do have the stated number of member worlds however at approximately 150 in the TNG era 24th century. If they were all similar in population to present day Earth then that is mabye 5 or 6 planets worth of death, quite survivable IMHO.

Forty billion must represent mass causalty events like orbital bombardment or atmospheric incineration. Even though these acts are not compatible with any sort of "honor" I can think of.

 

[T'Girl]

they wouldn't feel the need to press every ship they had into service no matter the age.

You've placed this contention in others of your posts Rojixus, and I can't help but wonder where you're getting it from? Because it isn't in the YE episode.

At no point does anyone say that the Federation "was pressing any starship it could into service."

Riker does say; " Starfleet could certainly use another ship, even if she is old. " But that isn't anywhere close to pressing every ship. So where is this idea of yours originating? Perhaps you're remembering something from DS9?

The Enterprise Cee is a large combatant, retro-fitted with modern technology she would definitely be an asset to Starfleet. Employing her in future combat against the Klingons would hardly constitute a "desperation tactic."

Garrett relates that Picard told her that the Federation could use all the help it can get. But this must have been after he first suggested (in sickbay) the idea of Garrett returning to her own time, and her stating they would be destroyed.

 

[cwl]

The Klingons science and military is probably underfunded...because it's not a democratic society. You couldn't pay all the smart people for the emotional and physical stress of working for researches that help improve the Klingon Empire military, science and economy. Smart and resourceful people would go where the money is...if it doesn't pay for all the emotional stress, then they wouldn't stick around for long.

IF anything the Klingons probably overfunds the military and scientific projects related to the military. Don't be fooled by the old looking ships and dingy klingon sets. Klingon technology is advanced. Anything related to the military the Klingons would heavily invest in.

 

[Rojixus]

Riker does say; " Starfleet could certainly use another ship, even if she is old. " But that isn't anywhere close to pressing every ship. So where is this idea of yours originating? Perhaps you're remembering something from DS9?

I'd say those were desperation tactics. If the Federation were making more ships than they were loosing, they wouldn't have to rely on 20 year old ships, they would instead spend the time making another warship instead of wasting it trying to upgrade an old ship not designed for combat. Furthermore, sending the Enterprise-C back in time is the ultimate desperation tactic. If the Federation was winning the war, Picard wouldn't dare risk sending the E-C back and potentially undoing their victory. Sending the E-C back was the kind of last-ditch effort typically seen by the loosing side in a war.

And on a more personal note, your attempt to nitpick my words is a desperation tactic on your end. You can try to spin it any way you want with your unfounded theories and unique interpretations of evidence, but you cannot escape the fact that the Federation was loosing that war. To deny it would be ridiculous.