What did Klingon's do with children?

Discussion in 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' started by Rayleo02, May 17, 2018.

  1. Tenacity

    Tenacity Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2016
    Location:
    Tenacity
    Children of your blood enemies are thrown to starving targs.
     
  2. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Or then it's purely utilitarian. A worthless weakling who is your enemy is best left alive, because he is a heavy burden on the enemy. A worthless weakling from your own army is best killed, because he is a heavy burden on you. And the latter also applies to injured enemy troops you have captured, if the alternative is caring for them in a POW camp and you have healthier captives for your interrogation and slave labor needs.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  3. XCV330

    XCV330 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2017
    Location:
    XCV330
    Lunch
     
  4. johnnybear

    johnnybear Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    Children would be no threat to Klingon soldiers and there would be no honour in killing an opponent that couldn't fight back! I would say that they would take children back to their main base eventually and train them as warriors to fight for the empire!
    JB
     
  5. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk A Spock and a smile Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    AI Generated Madness
    :shifty:
     
  6. WraithDukat

    WraithDukat Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2013
    Location:
    The Fire Caves
    Kor seemed disgusted that Worf let child Duras live. So the fact they're kids probably doesn't matter to most Klingons, so I'd say they would be killed. 'Children' is an invented concept, they were basically mini people for a long time. Not every culture is going to agree with us.
     
    Worf'sParmach likes this.
  7. SpyOne

    SpyOne Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    In House of Quark it was about a duel, in Nor The Battle it was war.
    Also, in House of Quark it was about killing an opponent who refuses to defend himself. Quark pointed out that the "duel" was tantamount to just murdering him since he had no chance of winning.
    While Gowron was willing to let the matter be settled by combat rather than by weighing yhe evidence, he was not willing to let it be settled by murder.

    War isn't always about honor, and the opposite of "honorable" isn't always "dishonorable".
    There is no honor to be gained in fighting a helpless opponent, but it is still tactically wise to do so.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2018
  8. JirinPanthosa

    JirinPanthosa Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Location:
    JirinPanthosa
    What is the tactical value of killing the helpless?

    You can argue if it's an alternative to taking prisoners, it's practical, but in the case of two year olds and the badly injured, they gain nothing.
     
    Mr. Laser Beam likes this.
  9. SpyOne

    SpyOne Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    The value in killing such people is preventing them from attacking you when they become more capable.
     
    Worf'sParmach likes this.
  10. Leathco

    Leathco Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    I think they would more than likely ignore them. I mean, Worf more or less ignored Alexander, right?
     
    Tim Thomason likes this.
  11. JirinPanthosa

    JirinPanthosa Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Location:
    JirinPanthosa
    Wouldn't Klingons welcome the fight?

    I suppose in the 24th century it no longer costs more to heal a severely injured person back to usefulness than to train a new person.

    But I don't get the impression this is utilitarian, I think Klingons have a war ethic that demands ruthless brutality toward the enemy until the war is over. The wounded, better to die than be disabled. Kids, the enemy just as much as their parents.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2018