What's your take on Section 31?
- Thread starter Danoz
- Start date
Bullshit. Aircraft carriers were being developed almost as soon as aircraft. Development really started to get underway in the 'teens and twenties. Here is a short quote from Wikipedia:
"The development of flat top vessels produced the first large fleet ships. In 1918, HMS Argus became "the world's first carrier capable of launching and landing naval aircraft".[5] Carrier evolution was well underway in the mid-1920s, resulting in ships such as HMS Hermes and Hōshō. Most early aircraft carriers were conversions of ships that were laid down (or had served) as different ship types: cargo ships, cruisers, battlecruisers, or battleships."
Anything else about the US military you want to try to tell us?
By the way, have you ever served in the military, or are you just an armchair historian? Or just talking out of your hat?
Ok, you are probably right about that, but the U.S. still was the country the idea originated from, and so are the used of metal ships. The point is: if the country is doing great economically, anything is virtually possible because we have the resources we needed to pull it off. In this day an age everything depends on how well you economy fairs.
And, no, I'm not a historian nor have ever served in the military. But between being sick and having nothing to do a lot of the time between jobs, I have a lot of time to read and read and read until my eyeballs pop out. [chuckle] I don't think anyone has as much free time as do this day an age...well, with current state of the economy i think that may have change, but it's not nearly as much free time I spent before it. When you have nothing much to do, you'll find ways to entertain yourselves.
And, no, I'm not a historian nor have ever served in the military. But between being sick and having nothing to do a lot of the time between jobs, I have a lot of time to read and read and read until my eyeballs pop out. [chuckle] I don't think anyone has as much free time as do this day an age...well, with current state of the economy i think that may have change, but it's not nearly as much free time I spent before it. When you have nothing much to do, you'll find ways to entertain yourselves.
Yes. It wasn't Section 31's virus that made the Female Shapeshifter surrender, it was Odo's offer to cure it. It wasn't the biological weapon that ended the war, it was the willingness to offer mercy.
Genocide is not the same thing as destroying legitimate military targets, especially since previous DS9 episodes had established the existence of innocent Founder infants who had nothing to do with the decision-making of the Founder leadership.
Actually, it's pretty controversial whether or not the atomic bombs were necessary to end the war or an unjustified crime against humanity. It's sure as hell not something you should be comparing the Section 31 genocide attempt to if you want us to think of it as a definitively necessary and justified action.
Section 31 infected the Founders with the virus, but they never intended it to cause a single death. It was a calculated risk to force the Founders to surrender to prevent further loss of life. In fact the virus was successful in forcing the Dominion to surrender and it didn't cause a single Founder death. How many billions of lives did Section 31 save on both sides just by infecting the Founders with a disease with no casualties? Section 31 were heroes.
And without the virus to infect them, the Female Shapeshifter wouldn't have been in such an irrational state of mind as to order the extermination of the Cardassian people and to order the Jem'Hadar and Breen to keep fighting even though all Dominion forces had been forced to retreat to Cardassia Prime. She ordered a Pyrrhic victory to spite them for the virus. Section 31's virus led to thousands of more Federation, Klingon, and Romulan dead than would have died otherwise, and to the attempted genocide against the Cardassian people.
ETA:
Absolute bullshit. It was a deliberate attempt to commit genocide against an entire species. Had they never intended it to cause a single death, they would not have tried to stop Bashir from obtaining the cure.
If Section 31 wanted the Founders dead they wouldn't have made a virus that takes over a year to kill the host. They created a long-term virus with noticeable physical effects to force the Dominion into surrendering. They only tried to prevent Bashir from taking the cure because they were afraid it would fall into Founder hands prematurely.
Besides, if they wanted the Founders to die, why would they even create a cure in the first place?
Section 31 was the third greatest thing to happen to DS9 in the 6th and 7th season (1- Pale Moonlight, 2- Occupation Arc storyline). Section 31 opens up a whole bunch of moral "material" to be discussed in war time.
Personally, I think Section 31 was the best thing to happen to the Federation. They would be extinct / conquered by now. And yes, the disease they created was their "ace in the hole" against the Dominion. Once they were aware of the Dominion's structure and how dependent they are on the Founders, the war was over. Point blank. Good stuff section 31, good stuff.
And don't call me a heartless war monger for promoting a genocidal resolution to the conflict. The Feds were overmatched and overgunned, and they had no choice. Even with divine intervention the War was STILL in favor of the Dominion.
Personally, I think Section 31 was the best thing to happen to the Federation. They would be extinct / conquered by now. And yes, the disease they created was their "ace in the hole" against the Dominion. Once they were aware of the Dominion's structure and how dependent they are on the Founders, the war was over. Point blank. Good stuff section 31, good stuff.
And don't call me a heartless war monger for promoting a genocidal resolution to the conflict. The Feds were overmatched and overgunned, and they had no choice. Even with divine intervention the War was STILL in favor of the Dominion.
Section 31 is absolutely redundant. Plotwise, there is nothing Section 31 did that Starfleet Intelligence couldn't do. If the writers wanted to convey the Federation is capable of dirty tricks, they should've made S31 an official part of the Federation government. Instead of fostering a debate over how far a country should go to protect itself, the writers have shot themselves in the foot by making S31 some secret cabal that the Federation government doesn't even know about. Instead of a morally ambiguous government agency, the writers have instead created a criminal organization of deluded extremists.
Agreed, but DS9 was playing in the Star Trek toy box. I can understand not wanting to go too far with the Federation.
You do understand that that's kinda the point, right? We don't WANT a war to come here. And our projection of military might around the world has helped make that happen. Sure, we can debate whether Iraq or Libya or any other specific military action was a good or bad idea. But the general idea of going out and defeating, or at least containing, the bad guys before they come here has been a policy that has worked pretty darn well in keeping our homeland safe. Not to mention quite a large number of our allies that we help keep safe, including countries like Germany and Japan that we have the humanitarian decency to help out even after fighting bloody wars with them.
If another country were to come here and launch an attack, could we defend ourselves? Of course. But the point is that we don't want it to get to that point.
They were necessary to end the war in 1945, and there zero controversy about that. Necessary to end the war without a invasion that would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of allied casualties.
The comparison is intact, the disease and the bombs accomplished to same result, a shorting of the war, and fewer casualties.
See, if you keep up with this kind of dishonesty and disrespect, war is a real possibility. There is a good chance, maybe not know but in the distance future, there's a good chance that some countries may declare war on us. It's paranoia but an actual possibility. That's what I'm trying to tell you. You think think they're stupid, but they're probably sitting this one out until we're really good and weak. If our country is weak enough and they plan it right down to minute details, we might be looking at a real devastating and bloody war.
This. I've read multiple articles over the years that suggest the U.S. would've taken another 150,000 to 250,000 casualties trying to take the Japanese main island with conventional forces. That doesn't include Japanese military and civilian casualties.
Some of the estimates were as high as over a million American fatalities alone. It's easy to armchair quarterback the decision after 60 years of thought, but at the time it was believed to be the best decision both for American troops and Japan itself. Given how Japan turned out I'm inclined to agree with them
It's not that clear cut, though, because it's possible that it was U.S. insistence on unconditional surrender that made Japan more determined to resist-for one thing, the Japanese were concerned if they would be able to retain their emperor or not.
Not to mention the old "demonstration vs. military target vs. the way it was actually used" issue.
The a-bombs were dropped on populated cities. It's possible they could have just been used in an arranged demonstration with Japanese officials observing far away from populated areas.
Or they could have at least been used on a military target.
So it's not quite the "they had to drop the bombs to save millions" clear-cut choice it's sometimes been made out to be.
Ah ha ha ha ha! See, you can't name anything but WWII or the Civil War. Two wars (one internal) out of literally thousands of military operations over 240 years. And I even gave you a list of wars to pick from! And you could find any! You've got nothing but anger and fallacies.
Clap, Clap, Clap. Congrats. You've passed 3rd grade history. But those of us who got passed high school try to look at why Hitler rose to power in the first place. That's the point he's making. The Afghan war started because Bin Laden attacked the WTC. Why was Bin Laden so powerful and angry at the US? If you aren't capable of looking at history as a whole then you're being very short sighted.
