World War On Earth In Post ST:TNG Era?
- Thread starter Dayton3
- Start date
[Pilkington] Thanks for coming in today [/Pilkington]
If they're not fighting over resources, then they're fighting over ideology.
Humans of 24th century Earth are probably ideologically homogeneous, at least at the basic level of "We all agree we don't need to kill each other to resolve our differences".
Would a global war on 24th Century Earth be like a war breaking out in modern day Washington DC?
Think about the analogy. United States = UFP. Individual States = Individual planetary members like Humans, Vulcans, Betazoids, etc... Cities = Individual planets or settlements. Or if that strains it to fine then the states = planets. In that case a civil war on Earth would equal a war within the confines of a particular state.
Would such a thing take Trek in a different direction than it's previously gone? Well, yes. But would it be Trek? Star Trek is much more than just set in the 23rd/24th century with labels such as Starfleet, Vulcan, Warp Drive, etc... Star Trek is deeply tied into Roddenberry's philosophy that the future will be a better place, overcoming the bigotry and hatreds and divisions of the 20th century and "boldly going where no one has gone before."
I'm sure you'd be able to have stories dealing with the collapse of Earth and civil war, but you'd alienate the Trek audience as a whole in favor of a niche audience. Many people complained about how dark DS-9 was. That would be nothing compared to a Star Trek: Earth Civil War.
Think about the analogy. United States = UFP. Individual States = Individual planetary members like Humans, Vulcans, Betazoids, etc... Cities = Individual planets or settlements. Or if that strains it to fine then the states = planets. In that case a civil war on Earth would equal a war within the confines of a particular state.
Would such a thing take Trek in a different direction than it's previously gone? Well, yes. But would it be Trek? Star Trek is much more than just set in the 23rd/24th century with labels such as Starfleet, Vulcan, Warp Drive, etc... Star Trek is deeply tied into Roddenberry's philosophy that the future will be a better place, overcoming the bigotry and hatreds and divisions of the 20th century and "boldly going where no one has gone before."
I'm sure you'd be able to have stories dealing with the collapse of Earth and civil war, but you'd alienate the Trek audience as a whole in favor of a niche audience. Many people complained about how dark DS-9 was. That would be nothing compared to a Star Trek: Earth Civil War.
Bingo. War is either about resources (breathing room) or ideology (We should rule over them because they're stupid/heathens/immoral/whateverist or whateverism and we're right/good/whicheverist or whicheverism.
Now there could, theoretically, be a growing sentiment among Humans/Earthers to withdraw from the UFP. That the UFP failed and it would be better to go on their own. Much like there are movements and groups today calling for the US to withdraw from the UN. If such a group were to gain a loud enough voice then who knows what would happen?
It's possible that even in the 23rd/24th Century Earth can be devastated. Everyone was freaking out about the Whale Probe at the beginning (and end) of ST:IV.
But still nobody can explain why on earth would feel like that in the TNG time period unless someone is seriously dumbing down, what is the reason why a significant population would want to leave the UFP?
Perhaps they come to see the Federation as an occupying force and believe Earth would be far more powerful and advanced if they were not being "held down" by the Federation.
Yeah, but conflict between species wasn't new. Conflict on earth hasn't even been hinted at in any trek series.
Sounds like you are writing about right-wing gun nuts not members of the 24th century.
.... in what sense? The Federation is the ultimate in liberal democracy. Another of Trek's essential conceits is that while the UFP is not perfect, it does absolutely nothing that could be considered to be a violation of its citizens' rights. The only way anyone could possibly think the UFP to be an occupying force -- especially since Humans created the UFP -- would be if they're xenophobes who hate aliens. If most of Earth came to think of the UFP as an "occupying force," it would be the equivalent of most of the United States becoming KKK members and deciding that they're being "occupied" because the President is black. And why would Trek do the equivalent of the KKK becoming a driving political force? It doesn't enable them to tell a story about the importance of human unity tolerance in a new and original way.
Hardly. United Earth was one of the least powerful and technologically advanced civilizations until it convinced Vulcan, Andor, and Tellar to join in creating the Federation. The Federation made Earth much more powerful and advanced that it would have been by itself.
Belief doesn't have to be correct for it to exist.
If Earth was severely damaged/devastated in some way then the potential for some wack-job to arise and sway/mislead even a minority would be possible.
Now could such a minority fringe group take over the Earth? Would they have enough capability to cause much of a ruckus or would they be put down fairly quickly?
When fear and hunger exist together, it's much easier for some wack-job dictator to arise and lead a large percentage of the population down a dark path.
Considering they are surrounded by the UFP, the answer is yes, they'd be put down fairly quickly.
And how is a planet at the centre of the UFP going to exist in "fear and hunger" when it's got star Fleet beaming down supplies and relief?
The only way this works is if Star Fleet and the UFP are also destroyed - and then what's the point? you've moved so far away from the ideas of the series, you might as well start from scratch... you could call it em.. Star Wars.
Which is all well and good, but, again, what's the point? What would make such a story unique? What would be the Star Trek twist to it?
Because I've seen that story a thousand times before. It's a fine story, but I've seen it before, and there's nothing about it that's particularly Trekian.
If we want to do a Star Trek story about fear, bigotry, and the need to adhere to our principles, that's fine. I agree completely. But one of the things that such a story would need to do is remain consistent with Trek's fundamental creative conceits. And one of those conceits is that while humanity is not perfect, it has made a decision to unify amongst itself and with other species. Without that conceit, it's just not Star Trek anymore -- it's Babylon 5 with phasers.
Oh, I'm not saying there is a point. I, personally, agree with the majority. It's not Trek. As I stated above, such a story line would only serve to entertain a small niche audience at the exclusion of the majority. As a series, the idea wouldn't last long and would only serve to separate an already fractured fan base.
At the same time I do enjoy playing devil's advocate. Instead of ridiculing and shooting Dayton's idea down, I've been enjoying spitballing and seeing if the idea would actually work on some level.
Yes, transporters and relief capabilities that Starfleet has would make such a scenario improbable. But I'm wondering if it's entirely impossible.
Plus the "it can't happen here" mindset is not always the correct mindset.
I've got no problem with Babylon 5 -- it's one of my favorites, too. But B5 is B5 and ST is ST. I don't want to see either one change to be more like the other.
I would like to note this:
I never have suggested that a war on Earth be the focus of a Trek series.
I outlined a potential Trek series once that featured a war breaking out on Earth that lasted about a season.
The featured ship (the Enterprise) was among the ships ordered to evacuate Federation personnel from Earth and help enforce a blockade of Earth to prevent any weapons or supplies from being shipped in from off world.
The "war" was mostly seen through intel reports from Federation sources on Earth and from orbital scans.
Needless to say because of the Federation blockade, no combat took place in space.
I never have suggested that a war on Earth be the focus of a Trek series.
I outlined a potential Trek series once that featured a war breaking out on Earth that lasted about a season.
The featured ship (the Enterprise) was among the ships ordered to evacuate Federation personnel from Earth and help enforce a blockade of Earth to prevent any weapons or supplies from being shipped in from off world.
The "war" was mostly seen through intel reports from Federation sources on Earth and from orbital scans.
Needless to say because of the Federation blockade, no combat took place in space.
Nonsense. Why would Federation personnel be evacuated from Earth? Why blockade the planet? It's Federation territory; it would be irresponsible for Starfleet and the Federation to just allow the population to fight amongst themselves to no end.
Earth itself is not Federation territory.
Earth is a Federation member.
Just as the U.S. is a member of the United Nations. That in no way gives the UN authority to operate inside the U.S. disregarding U.S. sovereignty.
It is pretty clear throughout Star Trek that member planets laws are a priority and take precedence over those of the Federation when it comes to internal matters.
The Federation is not a non-governmental organization like the UN. Perhaps it was when it was founded, but by the 24th century it is certainly depicted as much more like the U.S. than the U.N., as a nation unto itself.
Even if we take your supposition to be true, that the UFP is akin to the U.N., the U.N. itself does have a peace-keeping force, and can "invade" and control territory to effect peace-keeping operations. Playing along, then, with your unfounded belief that the UFP is like the U.N., why wouldn't the rest of the UFP feel compelled to intervene in a Earth-bound conflict in order to end it quickly and bloodlessly?
Even if we take your supposition to be true, that the UFP is akin to the U.N., the U.N. itself does have a peace-keeping force, and can "invade" and control territory to effect peace-keeping operations. Playing along, then, with your unfounded belief that the UFP is like the U.N., why wouldn't the rest of the UFP feel compelled to intervene in a Earth-bound conflict in order to end it quickly and bloodlessly?
Similar threads
