World War On Earth In Post ST:TNG Era?

[Sci]

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.

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.

Nonsense. It's been made clear on numerous occasions that the Federation is a state, not an international organization. We've seen the Federation conducting foreign affairs binding on its people rather than consulting each individual member world's government in Star Trek VI and DS9. We've seen the Federation declare war in DS9. In "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost," we saw that the Federation President has the right to declare martial law on a Federation world unilaterally, without needing to contact that world's government, in response to an emergency. In TNG's "Force of Nature," we saw the Federation Council pass a law that was binding on all Federation worlds. And of course, there's the Federation Starfleet, a military organization that obeys the Federation, not the member worlds. It's also been clear that the UFP has established borders that it controls, such as in "The Best of Both Worlds," when Picard describes the UFP has having territory.

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.

There has been no such indication. It has been made clear throughout Trek that the UFP has a genuine commitment to federalism, but it does remain, as the name says, a federation.

 

[Dayton3]

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?

the UN itself has no peacekeeping forces whatsoever.

 

[Dayton3]

At any rate, can we get beyond "could there be a war on Earth in the post ST:TNG Era" and just assume there could be a war between nations or alliances.?

I'm wanting to know what such a conflict might look like in terms of weapons, tactics, all that.

 

[Timo]

Well, the big thing would be whether Starfleet interferes from orbit or not. And why not.

If, say, Starfleet is simply gone, destroyed in a big war that left Earth to its own devices, then the warring nations of Earth would probably take Starfleet's place and start fighting for orbital supremacy. Whatever transpired on the surface would be secondary to that, as it wouldn't really pay to ship hundreds of thousands of troops to another continent one week and have them all bombarded out of existence or beamed back the next week.

If Starfleet just wants to have a bit of reality TV for the galaxy to enjoy, and quarantines the planet from 50 km up and aims down the cameras, then I'd say the smart and empowered factions would fight with bioweapons and other indirect means, while the lesser players would throw their resources at strikes with limited aims but unlimited means. Immediately sending in everything including the kitchen sink to destroy one of the players, in hopes that this impresses the rest of the players into an alliance, would be a good tactic because there would be little hope of defense.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dayton3]

Assume that Starfleet doesn't allow anything to happen over 100 km above the planet.

Also assume for various reasons, no weapons of mass destruction used given that mass annihilation is not the goal of any side in the conflict.

Assume transporters are available to all sides but that forcefield protection of cities, military bases, and various other strategic sites are used as well.

 

[Pavonis]

the UN itself has no peacekeeping forces whatsoever.

Fine, then. Let me rephrase. Just as the U.N. members can contribute military forces that act in the name of the U.N. to intervene in conflicts and end them, why wouldn't UFP members send in their own military to intervene and end an Earth-bound conflict quickly and bloodlessly?

At any rate, can we get beyond "could there be a war on Earth in the post ST:TNG Era" and just assume there could be a war between nations or alliances.?

I'm wanting to know what such a conflict might look like in terms of weapons, tactics, all that.

Fine.

As far as weapons go, the only ones we've seen that weren't ship-mounted are the hand-held phasers, types 1-3. Larger vehicle-mounted weapons, such as tanks or missile-carrying helicopters, have not been depicted. Things such as "hoppers" were mentioned in DS9 ("Nor the Battle to the Strong", IIRC), but no indication was given that these were anything more than personnel ferries, used only when transporters were not an option. I do recall the mortar used by Kirk in "Arena", so I suppose such things would possible be available for use, but they may not exist outside of Starfleet arsenals, meaning no one else would get to use them, assuming Starfleet is merely playing referee to the "war".

Given the nature of Earth in the 24th century - no land-based conflict between nation-states since the 21st century - I wouldn't be surprised if there were no weapons more powerful than a phaser rifle on hand for anyone. Therefore I imagine the whole war reduces to numerous lengthy exchanges of phaser fire, much like the close-quarters combat depicted in episodes like "Gambit, Part I" or "Descent, Part I".

 

[Dayton3]

I would imagine that civilian shuttles with phasers rifles bolted on could be very effective in providing air support for forces on the ground.

 

[JoeZhang]

I would imagine that civilian shuttles with phasers rifles bolted on could be very effective in providing air support for forces on the ground.

Why? If it was a phaser rifle, it would have to get into range of em.. phaser rifles and would present a big target to shoot down.

 

[Dayton3]

I would imagine that civilian shuttles with phasers rifles bolted on could be very effective in providing air support for forces on the ground.

Why? If it was a phaser rifle, it would have to get into range of em.. phaser rifles and would present a big target to shoot down.

Shuttles have shields.

 

[Dayton3]

I figured that there would be a massive effort by people on Earth to seize civilian assets that could be turned to military used. Seizure of shuttles and various surface to orbit freighters to outfit as gunship type of vehicles.

Since transporters could put troops nearly everywhere, there would be a mad dash to deploy forcefield generators to prevent the transport of soldiers to key location.

In fact, assuming that the warring parties on Earth all had access to large numbers of transporters, one might see a war like non other. One where each side used transporters to put down raiding parties of soldiers into enemy territory then transport them out.

A very mobile campaign using transporters instead of aircraft and ground vehicles.

 

[JoeZhang]

And there could be Gitmo type camps where people are tortured for being secular humanists or blue!


Get in that cage Bolian scum!

 

[Dayton3]

And there could be Gitmo type camps where people are tortured for being secular humanists or blue!


Get in that cage Bolian scum!

Prisoners at Gitmo are treated far, far better than they ever deserved.

 

[JoeZhang]

And there could be Gitmo type camps where people are tortured for being secular humanists or blue!


Get in that cage Bolian scum!

Prisoners at Gitmo are treated far, far better than they ever deserved.

But that's why it would make a great story -

"He's a bolian Terrorist!"

"How do you know that?"

"Because we hold Terrorists here!"

Then Picard could come and make a speech about human rights.

 

[Dayton3]

And there could be Gitmo type camps where people are tortured for being secular humanists or blue!


Get in that cage Bolian scum!

Prisoners at Gitmo are treated far, far better than they ever deserved.

But that's why it would make a great story -

"He's a bolian Terrorist!"

"How do you know that?"

"Because we hold Terrorists here!"

Then Picard could come and make a speech about human rights.

This thread is about a war on Earth.

Which presumably in the 24th century is still largely human.

so I doubt Bolians would play much of a role.

 

[JoeZhang]

Prisoners at Gitmo are treated far, far better than they ever deserved.

But that's why it would make a great story -

"He's a bolian Terrorist!"

"How do you know that?"

"Because we hold Terrorists here!"

Then Picard could come and make a speech about human rights.

This thread is about a war on Earth.

Which presumably in the 24th century is still largely human.

so I doubt Bolians would play much of a role.

Why do you presume that? We've never seen any evidence that the federation has any internal borders. I would think that 200 years after the birth of the federation that it has pretty large ethic populations made up of 2 or 3rd generation settlers.

They could be rounded up for the death camps or blamed for the war.

 

[Dayton3]

But that's why it would make a great story -

"He's a bolian Terrorist!"

"How do you know that?"

"Because we hold Terrorists here!"

Then Picard could come and make a speech about human rights.

This thread is about a war on Earth.

Which presumably in the 24th century is still largely human.

so I doubt Bolians would play much of a role.

Why do you presume that? We've never seen any evidence that the federation has any internal borders. I would think that 200 years after the birth of the federation that it has pretty large ethic populations made up of 2 or 3rd generation settlers.

They could be rounded up for the death camps or blamed for the war.

Why would any aliens want to settle on Earth already crowded with several billion humans?

Not likely in the least.

 

[JoeZhang]

This thread is about a war on Earth.

Which presumably in the 24th century is still largely human.

so I doubt Bolians would play much of a role.

Why do you presume that? We've never seen any evidence that the federation has any internal borders. I would think that 200 years after the birth of the federation that it has pretty large ethic populations made up of 2 or 3rd generation settlers.

They could be rounded up for the death camps or blamed for the war.

Why would any aliens want to settle on Earth already crowded with several billion humans?

Not likely in the least.

What makes you think the population is that high? Did it grew amazingly after WW3? How do you know that population control measures were not put in place over the next 300 years.

 

[Dayton3]

Why do you presume that? We've never seen any evidence that the federation has any internal borders. I would think that 200 years after the birth of the federation that it has pretty large ethic populations made up of 2 or 3rd generation settlers.

They could be rounded up for the death camps or blamed for the war.

Why would any aliens want to settle on Earth already crowded with several billion humans?

Not likely in the least.

What makes you think the population is that high? Did it grew amazingly after WW3? How do you know that population control measures were not put in place over the next 300 years.

There is less evidence to indicate that than you thinking there might be colonies of aliens living on Earth.

Even with 600 million killed in World War III, the worldwide population at the end of the 21st century would still be higher than it is today.

Probably in the 9 billion range (I've seen the United Nations projections).

 

[Sci]

And there could be Gitmo type camps where people are tortured for being secular humanists or blue!


Get in that cage Bolian scum!

Prisoners at Gitmo are treated far, far better than they ever deserved.

How do you know? It's not like any of them have been found guilty of terrorism in a court of law.

 

[Dayton3]

And there could be Gitmo type camps where people are tortured for being secular humanists or blue!


Get in that cage Bolian scum!

Prisoners at Gitmo are treated far, far better than they ever deserved.

How do you know? It's not like any of them have been found guilty of terrorism in a court of law.

I've read the reports by congressman who have been there who were initially skeptical about what the military told them (don't remember their names).

Courts of law should not be required for illegal combatants.