Typhon Pact: Political Analysis

[JoeZhang]

You're seriously going to argue that someone building a warship is not a valid military target or a threat to national security?

Since I've never discussed that, no. I'm talking specific about the action of murdered unarmed civilians and the attempts (which are copied here) to blur the language that we use to determine if an individual is privileged or unprivileged in regards to their status and conducted during wartime. My point is that the debate here pretty much mirrors the rhetoric use by the Bush administration and neo-cons to justify pretty much all and everything.

 

[Sci]

You're seriously going to argue that someone building a warship is not a valid military target or a threat to national security?

Since I've never discussed that, no. I'm talking specific about the action of murdered unarmed civilians and the attempts (which are copied here) to blur the language that we use to determine if an individual is privileged or unprivileged in regards to their status and conducted during wartime.

Then I'm not understanding what you're saying correctly (and I suspect you're not understanding what Christopher and others are saying correctly).

What, in your view, distinguishes a civilian who is a legitimate target from one who is not? Is a civilian who is working in a shipyard building a ship whose technology constitutes a threat to national security a legitimate target? Is a civilian who is unarmed but will certainly summon someone armed a legitimate target?

 

[DimesDan]

You're seriously going to argue that someone building a warship is not a valid military target or a threat to national security?

Since I've never discussed that, no. I'm talking specific about the action of murdered unarmed civilians and the attempts (which are copied here) to blur the language that we use to determine if an individual is privileged or unprivileged in regards to their status and conducted during wartime. My point is that the debate here pretty much mirrors the rhetoric use by the Bush administration and neo-cons to justify pretty much all and everything.

In my opinion the destruction of the ship yard was a legitimate target. It was part of the Breen/Typhon Pact war machine and I see no problem with "civilians" being killed in that act, where as bombing a train full of everyday Joe Breen, regardless if anyone died or not is an act of terrorism. The former is a necessary evil, the latter is completely unnecessary.

 

[Christopher]

As I've already pointed out, we need to distinguish between "civilian" and "noncombatant." The people in the subway were not participating in any activity that threatened Federation lives, so they were not militarily valid targets. The people in the shipyard, civilian or not, were participants in the construction of a warship, and that made them threats. You really should know this by now, since it's been explained enough times.

A concept that has only gained currency since the Bush administration, who used it in an attempt to blur the lines between what's acceptable and what is not and try and make sure that it could take actions like removing civilians to camps like Gitmo.

That's not at all true. As I already pointed out, the lines became blurred in World War Two, due to the increasing ability of governments to mobilize civilian effort in support of their military activities.

'Civilan' is a well defined concept, too well defined for the right-wing warmongers and I guess for you.

Oh, for Pete's sake, if you think I'm in any way expressing a personal sentiment that aligns with the neocons in any way, you don't know a damn thing about me. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool liberal and more or less a pacifist. But I'm also able to think objectively and discuss purely factual questions in the abstract, rather than being some self-absorbed ideologue who filters everything through personal agendas. I've already made it clear in this thread that I consider any taking of life to be an immoral act and I am not in any way expressing a personal belief or preference. Personally I'm dismayed by what Bashir did, and I'm not happy with Starfleet Intelligence's decision to authorize his mission in the first place. Of all the people on this board, I'm the one who's been most emphatic about the idea that the Typhon Pact should not be met with preemptive hostility or aggression, that Clinton/Obama-style engagement and diplomacy are a better and safer strategy in the long term than Bush-style confrontation and kneejerk paranoia. So you must have a short memory if you'd think that I of all people would ever embrace a hawkish mentality.

But I am objective enough to recognize that kkozoriz1 is speaking counterfactually when he equates Bashir's actions in the shipyard to a war crime such as killing noncombatants. I'm not saying that as a personal value judgment, I'm merely insisting on an accurate definition of the terms. If Bashir's actions are to be judged, positively or negatively, they should be judged on the basis of the actual facts, not on distortions manufactured to serve an agenda. Even people whose actions we consider wrong deserve to be judged on the actual facts. We have no right to misrepresent the facts in order to stack the deck against them. As Picard once said, "If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for what we really are."

 

[David Mack]

with this crew of writers and (from the evidence in this thread) their warped senses of morality, I wouldn't be surprised.

I would strongly recommend you restrict your comments to the stories and refrain from presuming to know anything about those of us who write them. Do not confuse the work with the creator.

 

[Ferd Burfel]

The loss of life of 'civilians' goes back as far as war goes back. As Christopher pointed out, a great example is WWII. Any war effort produces the use of civilians to fuel the war effort. The standing military has NEVER shouldered the entire burden for any conflict.

And I think the point may be missed here completely. Bashir, as a doctor, didn't want to take ANY life. Civilian, noncombatant or combatant. It's his oath and his life view. Douglas, as an operative, held no such views. Her job was to complete her mission.

If you have qualms with the Federation authorizing a mission, or thinking this is somehow not Star Trek, I guess I can see why you'd say that. But as far back as TOS there were episodes and stories that dealt with similar things.

And JoeZhang, I would URGE you to study history if you think that America under GWB has somehow become morally numb or is using a certain rationale to justify covert (or overt) warfare. A BRIEF study of covert warfare by almost any nation will reveal missions and plans to the very things that happened in this book. As a political entity, you most always take action to prevent an enemy or adversary from gaining a technological advantage (or even footing). This action can be political, economic or flat out physical. That is the HISTORY of warfare, and more specifically covert warfare. Do not paint a broad picture that we are all apathetic or uncaring to the lives of civilians. That's bullshit. As an American citizen I resent you painting me as some war mongering GWB apologist.

And I also agree with the writers. Don't generalize your OPINION of current TrekLit as an indictment of the core personal beliefs and philosophy of any or every writer. As a read I find that offensive, I can only imagine how they feel.

 

[kkozoriz1]

HIS NAME IS SPELLED "BASHIR" NOT "BASHIER".

Sorry for offending your delicate sensibilities. I know someone who spells it Bashier and my fingers simply mistranslated. I'll try to pay closer attention to rogue letters for you

 

[kkozoriz1]

The loss of life of 'civilians' goes back as far as war goes back. As Christopher pointed out, a great example is WWII. Any war effort produces the use of civilians to fuel the war effort. The standing military has NEVER shouldered the entire burden for any conflict.

And I think the point may be missed here completely. Bashir, as a doctor, didn't want to take ANY life. Civilian, noncombatant or combatant. It's his oath and his life view. Douglas, as an operative, held no such views. Her job was to complete her mission.

Spoiler: Bashir and ZSG

"Sure that the other side of the passageway was clear, Bashier left the Ops Center and, as a precaution, fired a head shot into the third commando as he passed his body." Zero Sum Game pg 273. Sounds to me like he got over that resistance to not taking life unnecessarily. If lying unconscious on the floor with a phaser blast to the chest isn't enough, here's a head shot.

Was there any mention of the Slipstream prototype having weapons installed? Would this actually be classified as a warship if it were simply a testbed for the propulsion system?

 

[JoeZhang]

As a read I find that offensive, I can only imagine how they feel.

It's a hard life.

 

[Sci]

Was there any mention of the Slipstream prototype having weapons installed? Would this actually be classified as a warship if it were simply a testbed for the propulsion system?

Any system that would allow Typhon Pact ships to slipstream in past all of the Federation's defenses into orbit of any Federation world is a weapon, period. Any propulsion technology that powerful is, in fact, a weapon. Period.

ETA:

And, for the record, in the DS9 Companion, actor Alexander Siddig specifically says that combat and taking lives in combat is not something that Bashir would ever have a problem with -- that he is not a pacifist and that he would not be like Crusher, refusing to pick up a phaser in a time of war.

 

[kkozoriz1]

So, what other technology do the Breen possess that might be used as a weapon? Could a Breen medical centre have access to the Quickening? Perhaps a few search and destroy missions are in order. If Slipstream on it's own is a weapon then perhaps the Breen mission to steal it was justified? After all, the Federation didn't develop Slipstream either. They stole it from the Borg, just like the Breen did from the Federation.

I'm not saying Bashir is a pacifist. I'm saying he would be opposed to the unnecessary taking of lives. I do not believe that all the lives he took were necessary to the completion of his mission.

Spoiler: Bashier and the ending of ZSG

I also feel that he should have at least considered the possibility that Section 31 could be involved in some way. They've popped up before during missions he's been on, Sloan at the Romulan conference for instance. But having him even think of the possibility would have ruined the surprise ending. I dislike having characters being played as dense to score plot points. He's a smart guy, more than most.

 

[Christopher]

And, for the record, in the DS9 Companion, actor Alexander Siddig specifically says that combat and taking lives in combat is not something that Bashir would ever have a problem with -- that he is not a pacifist and that he would not be like Crusher, refusing to pick up a phaser in a time of war.

Since when would Dr. Crusher refuse to pick up a phaser? She unflinchingly phasered enemies to death in "Suspicions" and "Sub Rosa" and never showed a hint of having any moral qualms or remorse about it.

The only Starfleet doctor I'm aware of who explicitly expressed refusal to take a life in self-defense was McCoy in "The Empath" -- and that didn't stop the makers of ST VI from showing him participating in the programming of the photon torpedo which destroyed the Klingon ship (even though it made zero sense for a medical doctor to do that when there must've been a whole crew of engineers and tactical officers aboard).

 

[Hartzilla2007]

After all, the Federation didn't develop Slipstream either. They stole it from the Borg, just like the Breen did from the Federation.

No they didn't they got it from Voyager who got it from a guy who tricked them into thinking it was Starfleet tech so he could get them assimilated, so I don't see any propblem with them having it.

Also as to your disbelief that a propulsion drive can be considered a weapon, Serpent Among the Ruins had the Romulans go from accusing the Federation of developing WMDS to planning a high speed first strike when they found out a large explosion they noticed in Fed space was not a weapons test as they first though, but instead a test of a new propulsion system, and they weren't less angey about it. Also Starfleet in the ENT relaunch is actively sabotaging nthe Romulans Warp 7 research as they were worried the Roms could use that against them.

 

[kkozoriz1]

So, let's get a cloaked ship from the Klingons and drive it into the Breen planet with their R&D facilities on it at .99c. That should put a serious dent into any research that they might have that would be used as a weapon. And there wouldn't be any sign of Federation involvement so nobody should have any problem with it.

If anything can be used as a weapon then anything is a target. Propulsion, better shields, weapons, medical research, faster communications. Let's bomb everyone back to the stone age so that they can't advance past us.

 

[Sci]

So, what other technology do the Breen possess that might be used as a weapon?

There is no evidence that any Typhon Pact Member State possesses any other form of technology that constitutes a direct threat to Federation security the way slipstream technology did.

If Slipstream on it's own is a weapon then perhaps the Breen mission to steal it was justified?

From the Breen POV, it no doubt was. After all, the Breen view the Federation as a hostile, imperialistic force.

That's not relevant to whether or not the Federation has a moral and legal right to retaliate by making sure the Breen can't use slipstream technology.

In the world of international relations, there is no universal morality, only what the traffic can bear and whatever morality the participants bind themselves to.

I'm not saying Bashir is a pacifist. I'm saying he would be opposed to the unnecessary taking of lives. I do not believe that all the lives he took were necessary to the completion of his mission.

And he believes they were.

And, for the record, in the DS9 Companion, actor Alexander Siddig specifically says that combat and taking lives in combat is not something that Bashir would ever have a problem with -- that he is not a pacifist and that he would not be like Crusher, refusing to pick up a phaser in a time of war.

Since when would Dr. Crusher refuse to pick up a phaser?

I am not claiming that Alexander Siddig was accurately characterizing Dr. Crusher, just paraphrasing what he said. There are a lot of people here who seemed to me to be arguing that a doctor would never kill someone or participate in combat, and Bashir's actor disagreed with that idea.

So, let's get a cloaked ship from the Klingons and drive it into the Breen planet with their R&D facilities on it at .99c. That should put a serious dent into any research that they might have that would be used as a weapon. And there wouldn't be any sign of Federation involvement so nobody should have any problem with it.

The Federation clearly believes that mass murder of an entire planet is immoral and would therefore never do it. It also clearly believes that killing civilians who are building a system that poses a threat to Federation security is not immoral.

I rather agree with both assertions.

If anything can be used as a weapon then anything is a target.

Except that anything can't be used as a weapon, because there are plenty of technologies out there for which the Federation already has an effective defense.

 

[kkozoriz1]

So, what other technology do the Breen possess that might be used as a weapon?

There is no evidence that any Typhon Pact Member State possesses any other form of technology that constitutes a direct threat to Federation security the way slipstream technology did.

If Slipstream on it's own is a weapon then perhaps the Breen mission to steal it was justified?

From the Breen POV, it no doubt was. After all, the Breen view the Federation as a hostile, imperialistic force.

That's not relevant to whether or not the Federation has a moral and legal right to retaliate by making sure the Breen can't use slipstream technology.

In the world of international relations, there is no universal morality, only what the traffic can bear and whatever morality the participants bind themselves to.



And he believes they were.



I am not claiming that Alexander Siddig was accurately characterizing Dr. Crusher, just paraphrasing what he said. There are a lot of people here who seemed to me to be arguing that a doctor would never kill someone or participate in combat, and Bashir's actor disagreed with that idea.

So, let's get a cloaked ship from the Klingons and drive it into the Breen planet with their R&D facilities on it at .99c. That should put a serious dent into any research that they might have that would be used as a weapon. And there wouldn't be any sign of Federation involvement so nobody should have any problem with it.

The Federation clearly believes that mass murder of an entire planet is immoral and would therefore never do it. It also clearly believes that killing civilians who are building a system that poses a threat to Federation security is not immoral.

I rather agree with both assertions.

If anything can be used as a weapon then anything is a target.

Except that anything can't be used as a weapon, because there are plenty of technologies out there for which the Federation already has an effective defense.

But, would you not make sure that the Breen cannot develop a weapon system if there are no Breen? How better to make sure that they don't surprise you with a weapon you didn't know they were working on.

In regards to killing the entire population of a planet, may I present General Order 24: An order to destroy all life on an entire planet. This order has been given by Captain Garth (Antos IV) and Captain Kirk (Eminiar VII). It was also invoked successfully by Commodore Diego Reyes of Starbase 47. So much for the claim that the Fereration would never sanction the destruction of an entire world. They have a General Order stating just that.

Spoiler: Paths of Disharmony

What Federation secrets will the Andorians pass along to the TP? Andor has been a Federation member for centuries. Is the threat great enough for a pre-emptive strike against Andor?

 

[Christopher]

I am not claiming that Alexander Siddig was accurately characterizing Dr. Crusher, just paraphrasing what he said. There are a lot of people here who seemed to me to be arguing that a doctor would never kill someone or participate in combat, and Bashir's actor disagreed with that idea.

Sorry, I wasn't questioning you -- in fact, I was trying to add further evidence in support of your position, by pointing out that, as a rule, 24th-century Starfleet doctors have not been portrayed as pacifists, whatever Siddig may have mistakenly thought. We know for a canonical fact that Beverly Crusher is perfectly willing to kill in self-defense, so it shouldn't come as a shock that another Starfleet doctor such as Julian Bashir is capable of it as well.

 

[Ferd Burfel]

kkozoriz1, you are deliberately ignoring all of the points I made.

And you also seem to be forgetting that the Pact attacked the UFP to acquire (steal) that technology. Killing innocent civilians. And don't argue Starfleet officers aren't civilians. They were just as innocent and non combative as the Breen shipbuilders.

The UFP countered a covert operation with one of their own. It's how every military power throughout history has handled most similar situations. I can't change your mind, but an aggressive power that stole technology with violent action is an enemy in my book. If they'd do that to simply acquire it, what might they do with it? Which is the reason Starfleet sent Bashir and Douglas. You can argue Bashir acted immorally or out of character, but he didn't commit a war crime and his actions are not indictment of all of the current TrekLit.

And I ask again, why is someone who claims to not read and have sworn off these books continuing to make comments about them and trying to instigate things here?

 

[Christopher]

And you also seem to be forgetting that the Pact attacked the UFP to acquire (steal) that technology. Killing innocent civilians. And don't argue Starfleet officers aren't civilians. They were just as innocent and non combative as the Breen shipbuilders.

Well, officers aren't civilians, by definition. You're making the same mistake kkozoriz1 made by treating "civilian" as synonymous with "noncombatant." A civilian isn't someone who isn't fighting, it's someone who isn't a member of an organized military. Civilians can be combatants, and military personnel can be noncombatants. But a military officer cannot simultaneously be a civilian.

 

[kkozoriz1]

kkozoriz1, you are deliberately ignoring all of the points I made.

And you also seem to be forgetting that the Pact attacked the UFP to acquire (steal) that technology. Killing innocent civilians. And don't argue Starfleet officers aren't civilians. They were just as innocent and non combative as the Breen shipbuilders.

The UFP countered a covert operation with one of their own. It's how every military power throughout history has handled most similar situations. I can't change your mind, but an aggressive power that stole technology with violent action is an enemy in my book. If they'd do that to simply acquire it, what might they do with it? Which is the reason Starfleet sent Bashir and Douglas. You can argue Bashir acted immorally or out of character, but he didn't commit a war crime and his actions are not indictment of all of the current TrekLit.

And I ask again, why is someone who claims to not read and have sworn off these books continuing to make comments about them and trying to instigate things here?

I'm not the one who originally called some of those on the station "civilians". Bashir did on page 263.

Spoiler: Bashir and ZSG

"He thought of the hundreds of workers he had seen on the base's lower levels, the multitude of technicians and engineers and construction specialists, many of whom were probably civilians."

Should we not acknowledge that he would know better than we do?

Also, he did commit a war crime. Shooting an unconscious person in the head, just to be sure, constitutes a war crime. You do not kill people that no longer pose a threat. Seeing as he had just shot him with a disruptor and he was lying, unarmed, on the ground his actions constitute a war crime. Or do you advocate killing prisoners just in case they might later pose a threat?

I'd thank you not to put words in my mouth. I said I was done reading books set in the 24th century. I've already read the first three TP books. Are you saying I cannot comment on those that I've already read?