The Federation Prime Directive; Non Interfere Policy

[Crazy Eddie]

That doesn't work as an analogy for the Malcorians though. If you're throwing shovels in space... fine my choice to move away, but if you're throwing them on my planet then no, I don't have a choice. I have to act in a way that I wouldn't normally have had to do.

Which is why Riker getting caught is a violation of the Prime Directive for precisely the reason that covert spying is not. It is also why Kirk and Spock stopping the volcano on Nibiru does not violate the Prime Directive until they revealed their presence by doing so.

And all of that demonstrates that the PD is flawed. It means whatever you want it to mean whenever you want it to mean it.

No, it means exactly what they say it means: "Do not interfere in the affairs of other civilizations." Just because you are working from a nebulous and constantly-shifting definition of "interference" doesn't mean everyone else is.

Well by your logic, as long as they give the two sides a choice in ending the conflict... then the PD isn't violated.

Not mine, but Jim Kirk's and Admiral Jameson's. I happen to disagree, but I think that they could make a pretty good argument before the Starfleet JAG if and when they are court marshaled for it.

Then why doesn't the Federation pop down to war-torn planets and give them the choice of peace?

Peace is ALWAYS a choice, they don't need the Federation to give them that. If and WHEN they choose peace, the Federation is happy to help them achieve that.

Case in point:

RIKER: Success, Captain?
PICARD: Number One, will you note in our report that if the government of Angosia survives the night, we will offer them Federation assistance in their efforts to reprogram their veterans.
RIKER: And if the government doesn't survive?
PICARD: I have a feeling they will choose to.

Why don' they pop down to planets with a terrible disease and say... would you like the cure... it's your choice?

The number of times the Enterprise is rushing somewhere to deliver medical supplies to relieve some plague or another... I'd be very surprised if they didn't.

Then once again... if it's all about choice then why not offer them the choice of stopping their wars? curing their diseases, stopping their environmental catastrophes?

Because stopping a war is a choice the COMBATANTS have to make. The Federation cannot mediate the terms for peace unless both sides agree from the outset that peace is the goal.

Diseases and catastrophes are covered under "humanitarian aid" which Starfleet has always been willing to help with when asked. That's assuming, of course, that anything can actually be done to help AND assuming that aid can be given to the locals without violating the Prime Directive.

Clearly interference is not just about their choice.

Clearly it IS. Every instance of violation of the Prime Directive boils down, ultimately, to a violation of that society's right of self-determination. Many non-Federation societies can and do come to the Federation for help or accept help when it is offered; Starfleet sometimes DOES go out of its way to help societies that aren't advanced enough to know that asking for help is an option, and in that case while being very careful to keep from revealing to them the source of that help or the knowledge that they have been helped in the first place.

It's about the Federation's mood on that particular day.

No, it's about the specific situation, the circumstances, the capabilities of the ship/crew/commander who is dealing with the situation and his or her judgement on the best course of action. The Prime Directive serves a very clear and specific purpose, but it's only as good as the people who enforce it.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

How did Earth survive the nukes with electronics? Nukes make EMPs.

The effective range of an EMP from a nuclear detonation is fairly limited unless it happens at VERY high altitude. An airburst at about 20,000 feet would only affect electronic devices within the immediate blast radius of the weapon itself and also screw up more sensitive instruments like radios and transmitters (not permanently and not to a degree that they couldn't be repaired).

A nuclear airburst over a city like Chicago would result in a couple hundred thousand casualties and would fry most of the computers within the lethal blast radius; everyone else would have a hell of a day, but it would hardly be the end of the world.

 

[Vandervecken]

EMP's can be shunted by enclosure grounding, possibly a little hard to find in space.

w

How about deflectors?

 

[Anwar]

But facing potential problems is how a society grows. Would the Federation even exist without Earth having gone through World War III.

Yes, and as a result of realizing the potential problems contact with alien lifeforms would cause them the Malcorians chose to try and set their civilization on a new path of development that will benefit them more than staying on the xenophobic path they were on.

 

[Spot261]

The interesting thing is, if the Federation government took a vote and decided to send in troops to curb-stomp the Bajoran Nationalists, Starfleet is prohibited by law from participating in that action. The Council would have to hire mercenaries or a third party (the Maquis?) to accomplish that.

Jumping in late here and have to say I'm generally agreeing with your endorsement of non intervention as a strategic rather than moral choice. With regard to the above though I'm not sure you've hit the nail quite so squarely on the head. The PD may well prevent or discourage Starfleet officers from intervening on their own initiative, but when acting as the agents of the Federation Council who have voted on a course of action the matter may be wholly different.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

My interpretation is that the Prime Directive is actually part of the Starfleet Charter and legally binding on their officers individually. The Council ordering them to violate it would be an illegal order and they could be prosecuted for obeying it.

Starfleet Regulations are essentially a set of laws that are binding on Starfleet personnel, and I think that would include the Prime Directive. The Council couldn't order them to violate it, but they COULD vote to nullify it under specific circumstances, which may or may not include declared hostilities or interplanetary emergencies.

 

[Spot261]

I'm not all that clear to be honest on just how much legal sway the PD and the SC have and how they relate to each other, you may be right as I'm not aware of any particularly concrete canon on this beyond "we have a set of guiding principles" type comments. My own interpretation was that it acted more as a (slightly flexible) limitation on the decision making powers of starfleet personnel.

Rather than being read as "you may not do this" it's more like "you really shouldn't do this without a clear mandate" - delineating where the boundaries lie between a captains's admittedly pretty broad disctretionary remit and a top down political decision

 

[TwoJakes]

Then once again... if it's all about choice then why not offer them the choice of stopping their wars?

Because stopping a war is a choice the COMBATANTS have to make. The Federation cannot mediate the terms for peace unless both sides agree from the outset that peace is the goal.

Doesn't work Crazy Eddie, you're implying that war is always voluntary for all participants (that's only sometimes the case), it only takes one belligerent party to initiate a war, all other parties can be victims or engaged in self-defense. Just because you are fighting back (maybe winning) doesn't mean you're a willing participant in a conflict.

France might very much like Starfleet to yank Kaiser Wilhelm's forces back into their pre-invasion territory. Probably make the Belgians pretty happy too.

It wouldn't matter if the attacker wanted peace or not.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Doesn't work Crazy Eddie, you're implying that war is always voluntary for all participants (that's only sometimes the case)

No, that is ALWAYS the case. One nation may engage in state-directed violence against the other; it doesn't become a war unless the victim of that violence chooses to resist. In many cases that choice is made by the aggressor state, and then it falls to the target of that violence whether to fight back or surrender. It is only in wars of genocide where "surrender" is equivalent to death... and yet, even in that case, a thoroughly defeated and demoralized people will sometimes choose slow death over brutal slaughter on a battlefield.

War is therefore a choice made by BOTH sides, with the choice of the aggressor being the far more relevant. The case in which a clear aggressor does exist is precisely the sort of conflict Starfleet ought not to get involved with; it is a dispute between one aggressive faction trying to impose a solution its rival cannot or will not abide by, and thus to get involved in the conflict in any way is to choose one side or the other, declaring an alliance for one faction and against another. We've already seen that the Federation is VERY reluctant to support planetary factions in divided civilizations; getting involved in a war would mean them doing EXACTLY that.

Arbitrating a peace deal as a third party is a different matter entirely, because in this case the aggressor -- if there ever was a clear aggressor -- is open to the possibility of compromise and/or reconciliation with his rivals. Starfleet no longer has to choose sides, only get the two sides to agree on a compromise that both of them will accept. Key to this, again, is the fact that both parties to the conflict have chosen to cease hostilities but cannot come to a final non-hostile disposition on their own.

it only takes one belligerent party to initiate a war, all other parties can be victims or engaged in self-defense.

Fighting a war in self defense is still, by definition, fighting a war. It doesn't NOT become a war just because the other side started it.

When you are attacked by an enemy you either choose to fight or choose to surrender. There are no other options available until and unless your attacker ceases his offensive and calls for negotiations. Then you have a new set of choices: continue to fight, or try to talk it over.

Just because you are fighting back (maybe winning) doesn't mean you're a willing participant in a conflict.

Of course it does. You were attacked and you willingly fought back. If you DON'T fight back, the enemy conquers your territory unopposed and you quietly accept the change in government (that's a thing that sometimes happens).

 

[TwoJakes]

War is therefore a choice made by BOTH sides

Your position doesn't make any sense, war can be forced upon a unwilling party.

And again, your position that " stopping a war is a choice the COMBATANTS have to make " implies that the combatants (plural) all have to be in agreement for a outside party to stop the war. If one party doesn't want peace (at least at that time) Starfleet can still work to end the war.

 

[MacLeod]

Your position doesn't make any sense, war can be forced upon a unwilling party.

And again, your position that " stopping a war is a choice the COMBATANTS have to make " implies that the combatants (plural) all have to be in agreement for a outside party to stop the war. If one party doesn't want peace (at least at that time) Starfleet can still work to end the war.

It takes two to tango as the nsaying goes.

Nation 1 invades Nation 2. Nation 2 has two options

1.>Fight (War)
2.>Surrender (no War)

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Your position doesn't make any sense, war can be forced upon a unwilling party.

Well, yes and no. If you immediately surrender as soon as an invading army shows up -- and they ACCEPT your surrender -- there's no war at all. If they don't accept your surrender because they're not trying to conquer territory (they're trying to kill you and/or overthrow the local government) then you are indeed having a war forced on you.

Significantly, you do not have the option to consent or not consent to having a war perpetrated against you. War BY DEFINITION is the violation of another nation's sovereignty; the only way to avoid it is to give up that sovereignty altogether. If your enemy is launching a war of genocide or ethnic cleansing, then your surrender comes in the form of sitting quietly and waiting for them to kill you. Suffice to say, this is a form of war that is rarely unopposed for very long.

And again, your position that " stopping a war is a choice the COMBATANTS have to make " implies that the combatants (plural) all have to be in agreement for a outside party to stop the war.

That's correct. To be sure, they have to agree that a war is not in either of their best interests and that a different solution should be sought.

If one party doesn't want peace (at least at that time) Starfleet can still work to end the war.

No it cannot. Because in that case, Starfleet must explicitly act AGAINST the will of the side that doesn't want peace. In doing so they are essentially trying to force one side to abandon whatever objectives it is seeking to obtain through violence and accept a peaceful compromise short of their goals. For Starfleet to make that choice on behalf of another culture or sub-culture is a direct violation of the Prime Directive.

If the aggressor decides ON HIS OWN that he is willing to accept a peaceful solution, then Starfleet can lend them their experience and neutral perspective to help them work out the details. Taking sides in the conflict would compromise their neutrality and expose the Federation to enormous liability for the outcome of the war, one way or the other.

 

[Nyotarules]

^Reminds me of the STNG episode re the Admiral who in his past gave weapons to both sides believing it would end a war...result war went on for decades, that was one major cockup on his part.

 

[BillJ]

^Reminds me of the STNG episode re the Admiral who in his past gave weapons to both sides believing it would end a war...result war went on for decades, that was one major cockup on his part.

No different than what Kirk did in "A Private Little War", and probably the correct interpretation. Jameson gave weapons to both sides to ensure no one had the advantage and saved Federation lives in the process.

 

[Brainsucker]

^Reminds me of the STNG episode re the Admiral who in his past gave weapons to both sides believing it would end a war...result war went on for decades, that was one major cockup on his part.

The admiral was wrong because he gave a useless weapons to the both side. It would be different if he gave both parties the weapon of mass destruction; which can annihilated the whole civilizations if they used that. By giving that, the admiral can ensure that the two enemies won't fight, because that will trigger MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction)

 

[RAMA]

Not exactly sure how it all works, but I would think electronics built after the EMP's wouldn't be affected by them.

EMPs can be shielded from, lots of military equipment is. If we wanted to we could shield everything from EMPs.

 

[Brainsucker]

Well, yes and no. If you immediately surrender as soon as an invading army shows up -- and they ACCEPT your surrender -- there's no war at all. If they don't accept your surrender because they're not trying to conquer territory (they're trying to kill you and/or overthrow the local government) then you are indeed having a war forced on you.

That's not a war, that's massacre. Because when you have surrender and the enemy wants to destroy you, they will make sure that you put your weapon down first, before they kill you.

 

[RAMA]

^Reminds me of the STNG episode re the Admiral who in his past gave weapons to both sides believing it would end a war...result war went on for decades, that was one major cockup on his part.

This episode "Too Short a Season" was designed to show how Kirk's breaking of the prime directive in some episodes, especially in "A Private Little War", would have had repercussions.

There were some other stories in novels and comics that showed the negative effects of ignoring the prime directive from TOS. One immediate example I can think of are Shane Johnsons's guide to aliens where at least one of races Kirk tampered with went extinct.

RAMA

 

[Brainsucker]

This episode "Too Short a Season" was designed to show how Kirk's breaking of the prime directive in some episodes, especially in "A Private Little War", would have had repercussions.

There were some other stories in novels and comics that showed the negative effects of ignoring the prime directive from TOS. One immediate example I can think of are Shane Johnsons's guide to aliens where at least one of races Kirk tampered with went extinct.

RAMA

Please tell me why those Alien went extinct.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That's not a war, that's massacre. Because when you have surrender and the enemy wants to destroy you...

WHEN the enemy wants to destroy you, then your options for "avoid war" are reduced to "die quietly" and "run like hell." A Trek example of the former is the Organians quietly accepting Klingon annexation of their planet and not lifting a finger to resist when the Klingons "executed" several hundred civilians. A good example of the latter is the El-Aurean diaspora after the Borg destroyed their planet; we never got the sense that the El Aureans actually put up a fight when the Borg went on a feeding frenzy of their homeworld, not that it would have done them any good.

And yet, 99% of the time an invading army isn't interested in killing civilians just for killing's sake. A war fought over territory, political ideology, economic control, or just for unclaimed territorial land is hardly a life or death struggle between nations. In most such cases, the objective of war is not to kill the enemy, only to dominate and force compliance.