The age of the antihero

[Crazy Eddie]

I can't picture anyone in any other Trek series saying something like that. I equate it to coward+concussion.

I could almost picture Travis saying this if he wasn't played by such a horrible actor.

Even the mission into The Expanse didn't qualify as an actual war, and no one on the Enterprise ever calls it that. They keep talking about it as a mission to find the Xindi and either issue a strongly worded "What the fuck, dude!" to their leaders or, at the very least, sabotage their superweapon.

It's quite possible this is the first time in history the Federation has actually been at war with anyone, assuming the Romulan War took place before the founding of the Federation. And even then, it's a weird war; the Klingons never actually DECLARE a state of war, they just collectively decide to start kicking raiding the Federation and conquering a bunch of their planets. It's more like a galactic gang war than any conventional military conflict.

 

[Prax]

Travis wouldn't say that, because he never did, despite being in countless battles.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Travis wouldn't say that, because he never did, despite being in countless battles.

Starfleet gets in battles all the time. But the Binary Stars might be the first time they have ever been involved in a full scale action against a Klingon war fleet. It's certainly the first time it's happened in Cooper's lifetime, which is definitely saying something.

As for Travis: one of the very few times he had any actual lines (delivered terribly at that) it was trying to talk down a cargo crew in a fight with a bunch of Nausican pirates. This is, for the most part, what Starfleet thinks of as "battle," a bit of low-key tussle with criminals and renegades. Hell, even Archer didn't consider his fight with Duras to be an action in a war, even when Duras came at him with three birds of prey.

Space is a wild and lawless place, full of people who shoot first and ask questions later. But even here, there's a BIG difference between being in a fight and being in a war.

 

[Prax]

Yes, Cooper knew no war, only a fight. He said "Why arrre weee fiiighting??"

Cooper, dear, you are fighting because another ship opened fire on your ship. Defend yourself! ...or actually, you better go see Dr. Mamboo and get that head looked at.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Missing the point. He also said "We're in a battle. You should be on the bridge!" Although I don't remember if he says "battle" or "war".

All in all, he's shocked that the situation is so out of the ordinary. "We're explorers and Burnham is first officer" is the reality he's familiar with. All that's been tossed on its head now, and he's too disoriented to keep it straight.

 

[fireproof78]

Missing the point. He also said "We're in a battle. You should be on the bridge!" Although I don't remember if he says "battle" or "war".

All in all, he's shocked that the situation is so out of the ordinary. "We're explorers and Burnham is first officer" is the reality he's familiar with. All that's been tossed on its head now, and he's too disoriented to keep it straight.

And what about Kelvin Scotty's comment when the classified torpedoes are delivered? Perhaps Picard's and Riker's comments in "Peak Performance" regarding tactical skill.

Starfleet has lots of different roles so it doesn't surprise me that different officers respond in different ways.

 

[Refuge]

Yes, and that is human nature. Can the idealism of the Federation survive it?
That is the question and at a story level and character level it is fascinating. DS9 did it as well and more of it as the seasons went on, so DISCO is not unique in that sense.

The idealism of the Federation has evolved since Discovery - obviously. I see very little integrity or idealism with the Starfleet of Discovery. When talking human nature as a means to show this we are seeing a concentration of the most base and tribal qualities. That is the foundation, later Star Treks in their skirmishes and battles had a different Federation.

 

[fireproof78]

The idealism of the Federation has evolved since Discovery - obviously. I see very little integrity or idealism with the Starfleet of Discovery. When talking human nature as a means to show this we are seeing a concentration of the most base and tribal qualities. That is the foundation, later Star Trek's in their skirmishes and battles had a different Federation.

Just because they are not expressed doesn't mean they are not relevant.

It is not black and white.

 

[Refuge]

Just because they are not expressed doesn't mean they are not relevant.

It is not black and white.

I'm sorry I don't understand what you are referring to regards the 'they' in that sentence, (examples of idealism?).

 

[fireproof78]

I'm sorry I don't understand what you are referring to regards the 'they' in that sentence, (examples of idealism?).

The ideals are stil there. They are the foundation of the Federation. That they are not being expressed by the main cast doesn't erase them from existence.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The idealism of the Federation has evolved since Discovery - obviously. I see very little integrity or idealism with the Starfleet of Discovery. When talking human nature as a means to show this we are seeing a concentration of the most base and tribal qualities. That is the foundation, later Star Treks in their skirmishes and battles had a different Federation.

At the start of the show, I think that Georgiou, a human, was clearly espousing values consistent with Starfleet idealism and certainly with that type of idealism as it's expressed by Picard a century later. The Starfleet that we've seen in action since then is one fighting a war.

In fact, a major plot point in the first episode was that Burnham decided that that idealism was incompatible with the realities of dealing with a species like the Klingons.

 

[Refuge]

Georgiou booby trapping the Klingon dead and following the lead of a mutineer is hardly idealistic. Yes they are at war. Yes they are drawing upon something else.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Being idealistic doesn't mean being unable to fight when necessary.

 

[Prax]

Oh boy

 

[Refuge]

Booby trapping the dead. Blowing up your crew. Shooting a would be prisoner in the back. Being a mutineer. Even in war the idealism of rules, directives and Conventions exist.

 

[fireproof78]

Booby trapping the dead. Blowing up your crew. Shooting a would be prisoner in the back. Being a mutineer. Even in war the idealism of rules, directives and Conventions exist.

I guess Starfleet officers are not allowed to be desperate.

The idealism of the Federation must be able to endure the harshest of circumstances or those ideals mean precisely zero. The fact of the matter is, there have been several Starfleet officers, across every show and era, who violate directives, orders, mutinies and Federation principles. We happen to follow the crew that rarely does it and are the ones who fight against it.

But, an evaluation of the Starfleet brass indicates that those ideals are suggestions, not orders.

 

[Refuge]

I guess Starfleet officers are not allowed to be desperate.

The idealism of the Federation must be able to endure the harshest of circumstances or those ideals mean precisely zero. The fact of the matter is, there have been several Starfleet officers, across every show and era, who violate directives, orders, mutinies and Federation principles. We happen to follow the crew that rarely does it and are the ones who fight against it.

But, an evaluation of the Starfleet brass indicates that those ideals are suggestions, not orders.

The idealism of the Federation changes and evolves after such events as the Federation/Klingon war. That is in part why future examples of Starfleet officers and crew actions across other shows are set in their timeline context with the foundation of preceding history. Direct comparisons ignore that and let's be honest most other Trek has not happened yet. In looking at it (the future) though, I see instances of behaviour set against a stronger faith in Federation principles. I see more instances of those principles being observed than not, (even taking into accounts of specific failures to do so). Discovery is the opposite. More instances of disregard and failure, less of striving to do what is moral. It is a time for Starfleet where the end justifies the means.

 

[fireproof78]

It is a time for Starfleet where the end justifies the means.

Welcome to war.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The idealism of the Federation has evolved since Discovery - obviously. I see very little integrity or idealism with the Starfleet of Discovery.

If you were purely talking about Lorca, that sentence would make sense.

But we're watching a show about a war that basically started when a Starfleet captain greeted the most notoriously warlike species in the known galaxy with the words "We come in peace," where her first officer pleads guilty to the charge of mutiny despite the fact that her going against her captain was quite obviously the right thing to do, and where even a "war monger" like Gabriel Lorca doesn't see the Spore Drive as purely a weapon of war but is looking past that niche use, seeing its potential for exploration.

As Ben Sisko famously put it, "It's easy to be a saint in paradise," and this Starfleet DOES NOT exist in paradise. They aren't saints, not by a longshot, but they're trying to be BETTER, which is saying something.

There's even Lorca's words on Discovery before the spy mission: "And here I thought there might be a better version of me here in this universe..."

later Star Treks in their skirmishes and battles had a different Federation.

Yes, and that's exactly the POINT. The Federation we see in the 24th century is the Federation that the Michael Burnhams and Gabriel Lorcas of the world fought and died to help create. It wasn't easy and it wasn't glamorous and they made a lot of mistakes along the way, mistakes that the Will Rikers and Jean Luc Picards of the world read about in history books and can learn their lessons the EASY way.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Booby trapping the dead. Blowing up your crew. Shooting a would be prisoner in the back. Being a mutineer. Even in war the idealism of rules, directives and Conventions exist.

And yet in the history of warfare for just the past hundred years, I can show you at least six examples of exactly these things happening.

If you're a Klingon, war is just a gigantic bloodsport where anything goes and you can rape and pillage to your heart's content. For just about everyone else, war is HELL.