The Typhon Pact

[flandry84]

SPACELAMA
/\Not exactly my point...
It will be interesting to see the Federation deal with this new political entity.A political problem as opposed to a military one.Please treat the wmd comment as the snide quip that it was.


As for the other,sometimes a superpower will find that kind of opposition the most difficult to defeat.

 

[Braxton]

Regardless of how peaceful our world is today, Star Trek has always drawn on comparisons from the real world for its stories. That's a fact. It seems this may be a direct parallel to the Federation being the United States and the Typhon Pact being China, the current superpower being faced with the rise of a new superpower.

Certain aspects of the Typhon Pact, seem to resemble the European Union more - including shared government and single currency.

This is not a simple USA and China metaphor - the Typhon Pact does not resemble the single-state economic partner that China is to the USA (TNG arguably used the Romulans for that, at least to some extent, although they took on aspects of North Korea, Soviet Russia, etc, too) - neither does it seem to be a Warsaw Pact - with a giant Russia using the others as satellites.

If anything, the Typhon Pact resembles a kinda 'dark' EU - no EU member states have had recent major hostilities with the USA, and most are economic partners with the USA - but states in the Typhon Pact like the Tholians have had recent conflicts, and seem to be pretty economically independent of the UFP.

The EU was one of my first thoughts but it never crossed my mind to consider the TP as a 'dark' EU, mainly because there are not really any tensions between the US and the EU but there are with China but that's not the point of this thread. Perhaps they formed this new government because they didn't want to deal with a money-less society? Waiting for these books is going to be painful.

 

[Rush Limborg]

'Pax Britannica' mearly refers to peaceful trading conditions, such as absense of piracy, not a lack of suffering amongst the common folk of the world.

Mass suffering has occured throughout history, folks--as have conflicts. When you compare all the risks of massive full-scale war breaking out today with all the risks then...you get my earlier point.

And Sci...is "you would be erroneous" grammatically correct? Because I would think "your information is erroneous" would be more appropriate.

Just sayin'....


As for Bacco and Section 31...I'd think Nan would surely suspect something by now. I wonder exactly what was going through her mind as she learned that Ross was going to resign.

I'd put my money on "Now that was a little suspicious...does Ross honestly expect me to believe that someone with his record of loyalty and integrity would assasinate a president? There's more to this than meets the eye...I'm sure of it...."

 

[Sci]

'Pax Britannica' mearly refers to peaceful trading conditions, such as absense of piracy, not a lack of suffering amongst the common folk of the world.

Mass suffering has occured throughout history, folks--as have conflicts. When you compare all the risks of massive full-scale war breaking out today with all the risks then...you get my earlier point.

You did not say anything about the risks of a potential nuclear or other WMD war. You simply claimed that the Victorian era was more peaceful than the present era. I and others have only shown that the Victorian era had more violent conflicts and human rights abuses than the modern era has tended to have.

That shouldn't be taken as a claim that the present day is without horrific abuses and conflicts, either. It's simply a statement that things are better today than they were then.

As for Bacco and Section 31...I'd think Nan would surely suspect something by now. I wonder exactly what was going through her mind as she learned that Ross was going to resign.

1. Ross didn't resign, he retired.

2. He retired because she told him he was going to.

There has yet been no evidence established to indicate that President Bacco suspects the existence of Section 31. Doesn't mean she doesn't -- but there's nothing establishing that yet.

I'd put my money on "Now that was a little suspicious...does Ross honestly expect me to believe that someone with his record of loyalty and integrity would assasinate a president? There's more to this than meets the eye...I'm sure of it...."

It's possible -- but, there again, I think something to bear in mind about the Bacco/Ross relationship is that Bacco has never trusted Ross or respected him all that much. If you look at War/Peace and Articles, they're full of scenes between Ross and Bacco told from Bacco's POV that have all these little negative observations and expressions of annoyance or distrust. Bacco doesn't hold Ross in the kind of esteem that we in the audience do.

 

[SpaceLama]

Regardless of how peaceful our world is today, Star Trek has always drawn on comparisons from the real world for its stories. That's a fact. It seems this may be a direct parallel to the Federation being the United States and the Typhon Pact being China, the current superpower being faced with the rise of a new superpower.

Certain aspects of the Typhon Pact, seem to resemble the European Union more - including shared government and single currency.

This is not a simple USA and China metaphor - the Typhon Pact does not resemble the single-state economic partner that China is to the USA (TNG arguably used the Romulans for that, at least to some extent, although they took on aspects of North Korea, Soviet Russia, etc, too) - neither does it seem to be a Warsaw Pact - with a giant Russia using the others as satellites.

If anything, the Typhon Pact resembles a kinda 'dark' EU - no EU member states have had recent major hostilities with the USA, and most are economic partners with the USA - but states in the Typhon Pact like the Tholians have had recent conflicts, and seem to be pretty economically independent of the UFP.

The EU was one of my first thoughts but it never crossed my mind to consider the TP as a 'dark' EU, mainly because there are not really any tensions between the US and the EU but there are with China but that's not the point of this thread. Perhaps they formed this new government because they didn't want to deal with a money-less society? Waiting for these books is going to be painful.

Nobody really understands how the Federation's economy operates - there are conflicting quotes in Star Trek. I think the Federation economy is largely a post-scarcity society, but that luxuary items above and beyond the basic developmental needs of the people, are still traded for. If thats the case, I cannot really see how the Typhon Pact would be much different.

Perhaps the post-scarcity nature of these interstellar economies is what allows them to go off on isolationist policies - in our own time, China could hardly de-couple itself from the US economy, without causing a huge impact - but in the 24th century, the Federation may only gain things like Tholian silk from the Tholians.

 

[Thestral]

I and others have only shown that the Victorian era had more violent conflicts and human rights abuses than the modern era has tended to have.

That shouldn't be taken as a claim that the present day is without horrific abuses and conflicts, either. It's simply a statement that things are better today than they were then.

Ehh... I'm not sure I entirely agree. The point that the Victorian Era wasn't peaceful (really, who would make that statement except looking purely at continental Europe and the Concert therein) is well made. Nonetheless, I'm not sure how many people in Rwanda, for example, would say things are better now than they were then. Or the Balkans, or Chechnya, or Nepal. I think it's fairer to say that for many people, things are better. For many others, things are worse. For yet many others, things haven't changed all that much.

 

[Cicero]

^ Besides, the idea of the Pax Britannica isn't that the world was at peace, but that Europe generally was. Similarly, the Pax Americana refers to a lack of war between the great powers, and to generally peaceful conditions in their parts of the world.

 

[rahullak]

I and others have only shown that the Victorian era had more violent conflicts and human rights abuses than the modern era has tended to have.

That shouldn't be taken as a claim that the present day is without horrific abuses and conflicts, either. It's simply a statement that things are better today than they were then.

Ehh... I'm not sure I entirely agree. The point that the Victorian Era wasn't peaceful (really, who would make that statement except looking purely at continental Europe and the Concert therein) is well made. Nonetheless, I'm not sure how many people in Rwanda, for example, would say things are better now than they were then. Or the Balkans, or Chechnya, or Nepal. I think it's fairer to say that for many people, things are better. For many others, things are worse. For yet many others, things haven't changed all that much.

I think it might be fair to even say that the percentage of total world population for whom things are better and is at peace is higher today than it was back then. This points to a trend of a better future world.

 

[BrotherBenny]

The Federation post-Destiny is hardly post-scarcity. Millions of people are homeless and planetary societies do not have enough to feed all the refugees. Industrial food replicators are few and far between and there wouldn't be enough agriculture to feed them all anyway. Although the Federation still has advanced starship technology; on a food scale, they are proportionately back to the post-WW3 era - scarcity is the watchword for those not on starships or starbases.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^I would imagine things are just as bad in the Typhon Pact worlds.

The difference will be, I think, which society will be more free--and therefore, more industrial. A command economy will eventually collapse--as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union can attest. It's just a matter of how and when....

I think the best thing Bacco can tell the Federation right now is, frankly, to "Stay The Course"...and to not be afraid.

 

[captcalhoun]

if we stay the course, we are dead. WE ARE ALL DEAD!

 

[Rush Limborg]

^(Nimoy Voice): I have been dead before....

 

[KRAD]

It's reasonable conjecture, plus I'm sure KRAD made a comment somewhere about the ambiguity of whether Bacco knew about S31 and he wrote AoTF...

I specifically left it vague as to whether or not President Bacco knew about S31 or not so that, if it ever came up in a future novel, that novel's writer (me or someone else) would not be hamstrung by whatever I established in Articles. (Besides, the scene worked better from Ross's POV anyhow. )

 

[Thestral]

^I would imagine things are just as bad in the Typhon Pact worlds.

I doubt it. Recall that, by and large, the Borg Invasion mostly hit Federation and Klingon worlds, along with several independent ones. I didn't get a sense that any of the Typhon Pact worlds were suffering in the same way. Ok, the Kinshaya perhaps but for a different reason. Likewise the RSE. But the Gorn, Breen, Tholians, and Tzenkethi? I don't get the feeling that any of them were devastated anywhere near what the Khitomer Accord powers were.

The difference will be, I think, which society will be more free--and therefore, more industrial. A command economy will eventually collapse--as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union can attest. It's just a matter of how and when....

Without dragging this *too* far off-topic... Nazi Germany's economic collapse had far less to do with being a command economy than it did with, y'know, fighting a massive war on two fronts and being strangled as far as trade goes, and eventually ground down. Some elements of command economy are integral to our own economic system, let alone those of, say, Great Britain. And complete unshackling of economy led to, well, mid-90s Russia, for what it's worth.*

*note the previous paragraph is written by someone with a very elementary grasp of macro (or micro- for that matter) economics, so specific terminology may not be accurate.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Nazi Germany's economic collapse had far less to do with being a command economy than it did with, y'know, fighting a massive war on two fronts...and eventually ground down.

Which actually stemmed from the same philosophical premises as the command economy of the Nazis--namely, Old Pre-Kahn Eugenics (the idea of "purifying" man and society through government action, regulation--and millitary might).

As for the command elements in our society: yes, they are good--to a point. Left completely unrestrained (with no laws punishing fraud, etc.), a free market would destroy itself. It would disolve into anarchy, which is not truly free.

A true free market does allow for regulation, but there are limits to this, so as to prevent unneccessary incursion into the market, which hamper production, rather than encourage it.

 

[Sci]

Nazi Germany's economic collapse had far less to do with being a command economy than it did with, y'know, fighting a massive war on two fronts...and eventually ground down.

Which actually stemmed from the same philosophical premises as the command economy of the Nazis--namely, Old Pre-Kahn Eugenics (the idea of "purifying" man and society through government action, regulation--and millitary might).

As for the command elements in our society: yes, they are good--to a point. Left completely unrestrained (with no laws punishing fraud, etc.), a free market would destroy itself. It would disolve into anarchy, which is not truly free.

A true free market does allow for regulation, but there are limits to this, so as to prevent unneccessary incursion into the market, which hamper production, rather than encourage it.

That, and let's not forget the necessity of making sure that the free market isn't hijacked by rich elites to force the middle and lower classes to transfer money to the top.

And, as the present crisis shows, of making sure that the elites don't become so greedy as to make incredibly reckless business deals.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^In order to clean that up, our government simply needs to stop with this Too Big To Fail doctrine, and let the incompetent, exploitive--and yes, greedy--companies fail--as they always do, those who have no regard for the long-term, and focus on "quick killings".

Hisory has proven, time and time again, that those who obtain their wealth dishonorably, will always lose it in time--unless they're being propped up by the government (that would involve "lobbying"). Why? Because those who are not competent enough to make their money honestly--are not competent enough to keep it.

By contrast, those who build their wealth on foundations of integrity--such as Henry Heintz, James C. Penny, etc.--remain prosperous, in the long run.

 

[SpaceLama]

Yeah, but when those sort of companies fall, they tend to take many people down with them.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^And...the good people can build again...from the ground up...and start fresh.

 

[rahullak]

Yeah, but when those sort of companies fall, they tend to take many people down with them.

Many people who were otherwise competent and went down through no fault of theirs.