Why wasn't it obvious the Klingons would have attacked anyway?

[gblews]

Why are you asking this question...

2. Michael says absolutely nothing in her own defense, either at the court martial or later.

...in light of this apparent knowledge:

And she's absolutely guilty of disobeying orders and assaulting a commanding officer - even I suppose "mutiny" if the word has changed by the 23rd century to no longer mean a conspiracy. But she should know that she didn't actually cause the first shorts to be fire,

She knew she had disobeyed orders, committed a mutiny, and assaulted a fellow Starfleet officer, so what defense did she have other than, I thought I was doing the right thing? She wasn't on trial for starting the war, for which she may have actually had a viable defense. But again, that was not one of the charges.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

But, but the Sheliak...

Anyway, Michael committed mutiny by conspiring with Sarek over psychic projection. Sarek stayed out of trouble due to diplomatic immunity.

Not really sure what the Sheliak have to do with anything as It's not suggested in 'The Ensigns of Command' that the Federation went to war with them. It's possible there may have been a few border skirmishes but nothing in the episode even hints at a larger conflict. Given how anal and bound to protocol the sheliak were, it's entirely possible that no actual conflict occurred and creating a treaty is just what the Sheliak do with new races that they encounter.

 

[Timo]

As for the "writers don't understand the logistics war" argument, it's no different from the "writers don't understand particle physics" one. They really don't have to - and are indeed better off not being up to speed on those.

That the current way of waging war would somehow be universally relevant, or that this Sun Tzu guy would have something to teach to the warriors of tomorrow or even today, is one of those common Military Lies to the Children. War changes. It has always changed, and no doubt thus will keep changing, too. The warriors of today might do better than the science fiction writers of today if thrown into a past conflict of Earth, but only barely - both would be equally out of their depth figuring out how to wage war in that alien environment, save for whatever literature they have studied on the subject (and the science fiction writers might have the upper hand there!). Conflicts on which nothing has been written down would leave the warriors high and dry.

Logistics essentially first began to matter when war started involving horses. Before this, not only was it impossible to conduct logistics operations of any sort, there was virtually no need, as a posse of warriors would be an utterly self-sufficient unit, benefiting not one iota of a "home base" or a "supply chain". The Klingons of DSC (and of much of Trek) are pretty much the spitting image of such posses, if not better still: their horses need no food, and indeed shit food, ammo and spare parts for the warriors (including spare parts for the warriors!) at the push of a button. A logistics-free campaign appears eminently possible there.

Indeed, it's extremely difficult to figure out why supply chains would have been in any way relevant in the Dominion War, with its even more self-sufficient and capable ships...

The flip side of this is that a war is not a big deal, at least not for the Klingons. One can be kicked up at one's leisure, without advance preparation or "going on war footing" or any of that nonsense. Just kill, conquer and celebrate. Which bears some relevance to what happened at the Binaries. Fighting a border war is easy. Benefiting from it somehow generally is not - unless you fight for the fight's sake, which the Klingons supposedly do whenever given an excuse. Instead of an organized state going to war, we're probably looking at random pirates occasionally being anointed privateers for nudging the Empire to a politically or economically slightly improved position... But said pirates not necessarily being happy with that, unless the incentive is really good. And since they had not taken the bait for a century, despite obviously doing a lot of that aimless piracy, I guess Burnham's assumption that a major conflict was avoidable through a bit of killing was a valid one.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Gonzo]

I'm watching the start of Discovery for the first time since the original viewing.

I'm still got getting why Burnham came away with 100% of the blame, even from herself. It was pretty abundantly clear they came there to start a war, and if it weren't for the mutiny, the war would have happened just the same.

Classic case of someone having to take the fall for it even though Burnham was right and Starfleet must realise it.

Funnily enough if she had succeeded in her plan T'Kuvma (who wanted a war to unite his people) would have been dead before the rest of the Klingons arrived (they only turned up to see what the fuss was about) and the technology aboard the Sarchophagus ship would never have fallen into their hands, they may have taken that as an excuse to start a war or just left as they had no allegiance to T'Kuvma or his ideals.

The biggest most idiotic actions were actually taken by Starfleet sending their own fleet, you cant start a war on that day if one side doesnt turn up and it would have given Starfleet some warning of what is to come, it may only have delayed the inevitable but they wouldnt have been able to pin it on Burnham then.

Georgiou did exactly what T'Kuvma expected a Starfleet Officer to do under the circumstances, she then tried to rectify it by boarding the ship and trying to take out T'Kuvma but it was too late by that point.

Another example of how the changes behind the scenes crippled the show plot wise in the first season, it is just one of the examples where you can tell that changes were made late in production and the characters suffered for it, I certainly didnt give a crap when PU Georgiou died or T'Kuvma.

Logic and reason dont matter as Burnham was right on the money from the start, her actions had a chance of stopping the war (or at the very least delaying it and buying time) but the window for action was small, Starfleet tend to dither too much and the Klingons know it.

Kirk would have blown T'Kuvma to kingdom come well in advance and all that would have been left when the rest of the Klingons arrived would have been a debris field.

This highlights why I liked the S31 aspects of DS9 so much, they showed that not everyone in Starfleet/Federation is an idiot.

What a wasted opportunity S1 was, I can only hope that they have learned from their mistakes.

 

[Cake]

I'm watching the start of Discovery for the first time since the original viewing.

I'm still got getting why Burnham came away with 100% of the blame, even from herself. It was pretty abundantly clear they came there to start a war, and if it weren't for the mutiny, the war would have happened just the same.

Actually if Burnham's mutiny would have succeeded, I think the war could have been prevented. The show clearly presented it this way.

I guess they just really wanted to tell the story about a disgraced officer working her way up from the lowest point back to the top. A typical from zero to hero storyline. And as those work better when people actually like the protagonist, the writers really didn't want to make her really responsible for starting a war. Even her mutiny against Georgiou got an onscreen justification.

 

[Gonzo]

Actually if Burnham's mutiny would have succeeded, I think the war could have been prevented. The show clearly presented it this way.

I guess they just really wanted to tell the story about a disgraced officer working her way up from the lowest point back to the top. A typical from zero to hero storyline. And as those work better when people actually like the protagonist, the writers really didn't want to make her really responsible for starting a war. Even her mutiny against Georgiou got an onscreen justification.

The time window for success was incredibly short, Burham knew it and took action, in fact I think Georgiou realised it as well but by that time it was pretty much too late.

Funnily enough that first part of the pilot worked really well (ideally without the excruciating Klingon monologue), for instance they could have used it as a way of introducing S31 who are impressed by Burnhams quick thinking and we would have been introduced to PU Lorca and the Discovery.

The shroom story could have stayed but the mirror stuff could have been left for another season.

They could still have gone with the outbreak of war as a cliffhanger at the end of the season, that would have given them the rest of S1 to flesh out all the characters and state of the Federation/Alpha Quadrant using stand alone episodes just like they did with TNG, DS9 and VOY, with Burnhams actions having only delayed it but at least giving Starfleet time to prepare.

 

[Timo]

Whether Klingons would have war on the Federation or not would have to depend on dozens of variables, none of which had lined up for a century. So what was different this time around?

Madmen like T'Kumva would probably be a dime in a dozen. Obscure sects that feature the bearing of grudges among their key teachings, even more common. Lighting up the Light of Kahless may be a common act of vandalism, or then uncommon; it alone did not convince too many of the houses. The cloaking device is what made winning the war possible, but for the first six months nobody seemed to think that winning was in any way important.

So what was it that made Burnham's Klingon encounter different from the dozens in the preceding century? Including those where the two sides actually fought and killed, and then dropped it, as supposedly at Donatu V?

Should we simply assume that none of the factors were particularly significant, not even in combination, and it was merely an issue of mounting pressure to do something about those who "Come in peace"? In that case, nothing that Burnham or Starfleet did or did not do...

...Might have been enough to trigger the war. After all, Starfleet prevaricating between firing and not firing would be another of those things that did not drive the Klingons to war in the preceding hundred years. But prevent or delay it? This would apparently presuppose that something about the setup did matter to the Klingons. Seems unlikely, considering...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[eschaton]

The presentation in the prologue that maybe Burnham was right - in the sense that firing first might have prevented the war - is why her initial arc was so muddled. They wanted to both ways, presenting Michael as both a flawed protagonist who hit rock bottom and a likable protagonist who would do what was morally upright and logically correct. They clearly abandoned this outright, because the conclusion that Burnham draws by the end of the season is she can't be led around by her fear of Klingons any longer. Only if she didn't give in to her fear in the first episode she wouldn't have been court martialed - and Georgiou would probably be alive - but the Klingon War still would have happened.

Season 2 was far superior when it came to Michael's overall arc, because they started making it more explicit that her flaws - like believing she knows better than everyone else and her savior complex - are actual, honest-to-goodness flaws. It doesn't try to have it both ways like Season 1, suggesting they are both flaws and assets at the exact same time.

 

[drt]

I didn't have a huge hangup about it, but it did show the writers' room didn't "do their homework."

While not the dictionary definition, the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice considers it mutiny if a person acting alone "creates any violence or disturbance" with the intent to usurp or override lawful military authority. Burnham attacked her superior officer then tried to override Georgiou's orders, therefore she would be guilty of mutiny under the UCMJ and it would appear Starfleet uses a similar definition.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ That's a good point. Why didn't Burnham simply say "Belay that order!"? It would have been within her rights as the Shenzhou's XO.

 

[Timo]

At which point? Burnam didn't want to belay anything - she wanted action to be taken, when the crew otherwise was not going to take any.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[fireproof78]

^ That's a good point. Why didn't Burnham simply say "Belay that order!"? It would have been within her rights as the Shenzhou's XO.

The order was lawful. On what basis could she countermand Georgiou?

 

[Kor]

While not the dictionary definition, the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice considers it mutiny if a person acting alone "creates any violence or disturbance" with the intent to usurp or override lawful military authority. Burnham attacked her superior officer then tried to override Georgiou's orders, therefore she would be guilty of mutiny under the UCMJ and it would appear Starfleet uses a similar definition.

I'm not personally versed in this stuff, but the copy of the UCMJ I'm looking at specifically defines mutiny as being done "in concert with any other person." (source) This precludes acting alone like Burnham did. However, as mentioned, definitions can change in three hundred years across different organizations. And we already know from TOS "The Menagerie" that Starfleet does consider one person acting alone to be committing mutiny.

Kor

 

[Noname Given]

I'm watching the start of Discovery for the first time since the original viewing.

I'm still got getting why Burnham came away with 100% of the blame, even from herself. It was pretty abundantly clear they came there to start a war, and if it weren't for the mutiny, the war would have happened just the same.

If she hadn't killed T'Kuvma (making him a Martyr) - the Federation probably believed the Klingons might have been less bloodthirsty, or they could be appeased easier. There is also the fact that Burnham seemed to WANT to take full blame, offered no defense at all at her trial; and again openly took all the blame in her final statement to the board before being sentenced.

I'm sure many feel that had she not done what she did, Captain Georgiou might also still be alive.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The order was lawful. On what basis could she countermand Georgiou?

Immediate danger to the ship?

 

[drt]

I'm not personally versed in this stuff, but the copy of the UCMJ I'm looking at specifically defines mutiny as being done "in concert with any other person." (source) This precludes acting alone like Burnham did. However, as mentioned, definitions can change in three hundred years across different organizations. And we already know from TOS "The Menagerie" that Starfleet does consider one person acting alone to be committing mutiny.

Kor

That's the correct clause, but it actually defines two types of mutiny, note the underlined verbs.

(a)Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1)with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;

The "or" makes "creates any violence or disturbance" applicable to "any person with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority".

If "violence or disturbance" required other persons it would read "Any person subject to this chapter who—with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, in concert with any other person, refuses to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny".

 

[fireproof78]

Immediate danger to the ship?

Which Burnham had no proof of. She would need to demonstrate that the captain is actually putting the ship in danger.

While Burnham is ultimately proven correct, we have to go with information the characters could have known. In her role as the executive officer, Burnham should have discussed the matter with the captain privately, outlined her concerns, and then her job is to follow a captain's lawful orders no matter how ill advised she feels they are.

 

[lab rat]

I'm watching the start of Discovery for the first time since the original viewing.

I'm still got getting why Burnham came away with 100% of the blame, even from herself. It was pretty abundantly clear they came there to start a war, and if it weren't for the mutiny, the war would have happened just the same.

It goes back to her actions in the first episode.

When she went to investigate the cloaked ship her captain ordered her NOT to make contact. Instead she landed on the Klingon ship and killed a guard in hand to hand combat. In essence she knocked on their front door and hand delivered a telegram saying "We know you are here!".

She forced them to take action at that point.

If on the other hand if she obeyed orders and only observed and reported then Starfleet would have had time prepare a proper military force to stomp out any Klingon aggression.

 

[Kor]

That's the correct clause, but it actually defines two types of mutiny, note the underlined verbs.



The "or" makes "creates any violence or disturbance" applicable to "any person with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority".

If "violence or disturbance" required other persons it would read "Any person subject to this chapter who—with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, in concert with any other person, refuses to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny".

Oh I see.

I hate legalese.

Kor

 

[BillJ]

Technically, the Klingons fired first by damaging the communications buoy to lure Starfleet there. The biggest thing that bothered me was how it seemed the writers were writing Picard and having Yeoh say the lines.