Wouldn't you expect more Defiants in the current timeline?

[Cicero]

And of course, what the fans who insist on this myth of the Black Hat Typhon Pact consistently ignore is that the first official act of the Typhon Pact was to withdraw the Kinshaya forces from the Klingon planet and apologize for the aggression. The Kinshaya acted on their own; the Pact as a group pulled them back.

As I suggested above when alluding to initial United States policy after World War I, readiness for defense does not imply that the power to be defended against is a villain - it doesn't mean even that they aren't an ally. The Pact, of course, is not an ally. It is composed of nations generally individually hostile to the Federation (the Gorn being a notable exception); one of its members appears to be gripped by religious militantcy, which has never ended well. A Federation that failed to arm itself while seeking peace - and to arm itself sufficiently well to ensure victory - would be absurdly foolish.

Disarmament without rapprochement is the graveyard of good intentions. It crippled the European powers when Germany began to rearm after World War I; it cost the Americans dearly in World War II (the Japanese Empire began to ignore the arms restriction treaties much earlier than did the democratic powers - as nations taken over by militants tend to - and the United States almost set them aside too late to be of any use in capital ship combat in World War II); it nearly cost America its independence in the War of 1812.

Interestingly, the Republicans made many of the same arguments in the late 1700s and early 1800s that you make here: establishing martial force would invite war by suggesting hostile intent where none existed, there was no reason to expect attack from powers that bore no inherent ill will, etc. The Federalists made the counter argument, insisting that naval power was a necessary hedge against the unlikely, a deterrent to other nations' estimate of the probability of success in war. Eventually, the Republicans took the country into a war that the Federalists opposed, with the small force the Republicans had devised, and the United States was very nearly soundly beaten by the small squadrons of battleships the British could afford to divert from the Napoleonic Wars. The United States survived almost solely because a quirk of geography enabled us to bring roughly equal force to bear in the crucial theater of the war (neither side had an existing fleet of any size on the Great Lakes, and neither could transport existing ships there).

Disarmament - or under-armament - requires rapprochement. The British were able to withdraw the Royal Navy from the Caribbean because they had come to a mutual understanding with the United States. Later, the French were able to withdraw their battle forces from the English Channel for the same reason (their understanding was with Britain, previously - and recently - their mortal enemy). Europe is demilitarized today because of understandings reached with the Germans, the Turks, the Russians, etc.

Even in Star Trek, disarmament followed detente, rather than preceded it. As we saw in Redemption, the Federation was able to withdraw its border forces after it and the Klingon Empire came to terms of understanding - and as we saw in The Undiscovered Country, the Federation was well-prepared for the possibility of war with the Klingons while that war's possibility existed. And Star Trek went to great lengths to assert that the Klingons, like the Russians in the Cold War, were simply our adversaries, not our enemies.

Imagine you're, say, a Klingon looking at the formation of the Federation in 2161. Would you see the lofty and peaceful intentions, or would you just see that four species you've clashed with in the past have just formed a powerful alliance that you need to be worried about? Whatever lofty intentions the UFP's founders may have had, they were also surely concerned about being militarily strong enough to hold off Romulans, Klingons, and the like. So the way the Klingons or Romulans would see the union from the outside would be very different from how the people on the inside would see it. By the same token, you can't assume that the way the Pact's formation looks from the Federation's perspective is the same way it looks from the perspective of the Gorn or the Kinshaya.

I imagine that the Federation would seem much like post-unification Germany seemed to the extant European powers (Earth would be Prussia in this example): A somewhat backwater, if occasionally troublesome region newly united and suddenly potentially dangerous (particularly given the military successes enjoyed by the Earth/Prussian forces in the recently concluded war). The comments of Klingon diplomats in The Undiscovered Country and The Voyage Home suggest that the Klingons saw the Federation along those lines in the late 23rd Century, at least. In Klingon eyes, the Federation was "a homo sapiens only club," the Vulcans its "intellectual puppets," and the Federations rhetoric hollow - typified by the notion of "inalienable rights."

The Klingons were wrong, of course, as were the French about the Germans under Wilhelm I, but in both cases military readiness protected the states from aggression: the Germans from Napoleon III, the Federation during the brief war in Errand of Mercy. (The Federation retained strong military capability; in The Undiscovered Country Starfleet professed that "we can clean their chronometers" before the President chose diplomacy).

 

[Christopher]

The Defiants in service would also be ideal in defending Borg ravaged worlds and relief ships from raiders and grave robbers.

Why would ships designed to fight against the most dangerous threat in the galaxy be ideal for taking on lowly raiders? That's like saying that a nuclear-equipped bomber is the ideal defense against convenience-store robbers. It's serious overkill. The Defiants aren't ideal for anything. They're not even anywhere close to ideal at what they were designed for, which is why the project was abandoned in the first place. They were only put into mass production out of necessity (and, frankly, because the Trek producers already had a digital model of the ship and so they decided to stick a few of them into shots here and there).

Border patrol and colony defense have been part of Starfleet's mandate from the beginning, so it stands to reason that there are plenty of existing ship classes that are designed with such a policing role in mind and would thus be far more "ideal" for it than something like the Defiant, which was created for a wholly different type of mission.

History in this case is just a tool for potential scenarios. We must judge the Romulans and Breen by their standards and history (which doesn't give too much hope) not human ones.

Recent history offers more hope. The Kamemor regime that came to power on Romulus in Rough Beasts of Empire is the most moderate and reasonable one we've seen in pretty much all the time the Federation has known of the Romulans. Kamemor could be for the Romulans what Gorkon and Azetbur were for the Klingons.

And then of course there are current events to consider... such as what happens in The Struggle Within...

The human history is for weighing how we should be prepared.

Exactly. The history of the Cold War shows how dangerous it is when two sides each assume the other is the aggressor and arm in self-defense -- it leads to a vicious cycle of escalation that could easily be avoided if the sides made more effort to understand each other's motivations and internal politics. Certainly there's value in self-defense, but the priority should be to look for ways to de-escalate the situation, rather than making provocative moves.

 

[Cicero]

Recent history offers more hope. The Kamemor regime that came to power on Romulus in Rough Beasts of Empire is the most moderate and reasonable one we've seen in pretty much all the time the Federation has known of the Romulans.

Well, the Ael regime was fairly friendly to the Federation.
(Frankly, I've assumed since reading The Empty Chair that Ael's Romulus was allied with the Federation for some time afterward, which would explain Nanclus's presence at the Operation Retrieve briefing in The Undiscovered Country.)

Kamemor could be for the Romulans what Gorkon and Azetbur were for the Klingons.

I certainly hope so. I'm very tired of seeing growth in unfriendliness to the Federation. The years after the Dominion War seemed very much full of hope until the last few years of real-world novels: peace, perhaps even alliance with the Cardassians; dialogue at last with Romulus (then somewhat more than dialogue with Donatra's Imperial State); peaceful, rational dealings with the Gorn. But now, between Donatra's death, Andor's succession, the pointless Borg invasion, etc. I'm very tired of grim news in Star Trek literature.

I really don't know why I keep holding out hope. Outside of standalone TOS novels, everything seems to be growing bleaker. Even Vanguard (never full of brightness) has undone nearly every note of triumph the series had allowed. I think there may be something morally wrong with us (in the old sense); has our world grown so dim that we can find no promise in it? It was not so long ago that the future was a place as well as a time - an undiscovered country, not merely an untraveled one.

Why do I hold out hope?

 

[MatthiasRussell]

The Defiants in service would also be ideal in defending Borg ravaged worlds and relief ships from raiders and grave robbers.

Why would ships designed to fight against the most dangerous threat in the galaxy be ideal for taking on lowly raiders? That's like saying that a nuclear-equipped bomber is the ideal defense against convenience-store robbers. It's serious overkill. The Defiants aren't ideal for anything. They're not even anywhere close to ideal at what they were designed for, which is why the project was abandoned in the first place. They were only put into mass production out of necessity (and, frankly, because the Trek producers already had a digital model of the ship and so they decided to stick a few of them into shots here and there).

Border patrol and colony defense have been part of Starfleet's mandate from the beginning, so it stands to reason that there are plenty of existing ship classes that are designed with such a policing role in mind and would thus be far more "ideal" for it than something like the Defiant, which was created for a wholly different type of mission.

Why waste a ship outfitted for exploration and frontier service when you have a ship that is made just to fight? Is it overkill for raiders? Perhaps, but in a battle, why would you want to be on equal terms? Plus, who knows how well equipped such raiders would be. The ships are there, use them.

Using a bomber for convenience store robbers? Come on, that illustration doesn't mesh at all. We're talking about pirates with well armed ships, not thugs in an impala.

The Defiant program was abandoned because 1 the Borg and any massive threat seemed to have gone away and 2 they couldn't solve the engine problems. 1 Between the Borg incursions and the war, sufficient enemies arose to necessitate a warship. 2 Sisko and O'Brien got the problems solved. We know the federation reinstated the program and made more because we saw more in service. The fact that more were in service with NCC designations showed the design flaws had been overcome. Many weapons have been put into production due to necessity but became fine machines with maturity and field testing. The B-52 was created to drop nukes on Russia. America doesn't need to worry about dropping bombs on Russia anymore. Did they retire the fleet? No. It was reconfigured for another task its design was ideal for and will continue serving for many many more years beyond the cold war.

The only reason we saw Defiants was because the producers already had a model? You could say the same for Galaxies, Mirandas, Akiras, etc. Are we to conclude that only one Sovereign was built because we never saw them in the war? Maybe production didn't have a model.

 

[Cicero]

^ The Defiant performed well against the raiders emplyed by the Maquis.

Regarding the appearances of the class on screen, between Message In A Bottle, Endgame, etc., didn't one or more Defiant-class ship appear nearly every time we saw a fleet after the first ship's introduction?

 

[MatthiasRussell]

The human history is for weighing how we should be prepared.

Exactly. The history of the Cold War shows how dangerous it is when two sides each assume the other is the aggressor and arm in self-defense -- it leads to a vicious cycle of escalation that could easily be avoided if the sides made more effort to understand each other's motivations and internal politics. Certainly there's value in self-defense, but the priority should be to look for ways to de-escalate the situation, rather than making provocative moves.

Yeah. Not "exactly", that wasn't my point at all. In fact, the cold war saw many improvements in aerospace technology. My field has been slow to innovate sense then. You also keep forgetting that Russia couldn't keep up with the amounts America could spend and it was their out of control spending that ended in their collapse. American industry producing massive amounts of planes, ships, etc wasn't provocative. The posturing of the politicians and where they placed those weapons is what was provocative.

The UFP doesn't have to worry about Starfleet ships provoking the Typhon Pact as much as they have to worry about Bacco's words and policies inflaming them. In fact, her hard ball and aggressive politics with the Tholians and Gorn in Destiny helped push them into forming the Pact to begin with. Don't reign in Starfleet, reign in Bacco.

 

[Christopher]

Why waste a ship outfitted for exploration and frontier service when you have a ship that is made just to fight?

Because there are different kinds of fight. You don't send in a tank division to deal with street crime. The right tool for the right job. As I said (and you overlooked), part of Starfleet's core mission is colony defense and policing. They're already equipped for defending planets against raiders, and can help those planets in other ways too, which is surely not a bad thing. It's unrealistic to treat the problem of raiders in isolation, as though it's the only problem those planets would have to deal with.

Is it overkill for raiders? Perhaps, but in a battle, why would you want to be on equal terms? Plus, who knows how well equipped such raiders would be. The ships are there, use them.

See, the problem is, you're starting with the conclusion you desire -- that Defiant-class ships should be useful -- and making up whatever rationalizations and assumptions you can think of to justify that preconceived notion. That's backward reasoning. You should start with the facts and formulate conclusions based on them.

Using a bomber for convenience store robbers? Come on, that illustration doesn't mesh at all. We're talking about pirates with well armed ships, not thugs in an impala.

Dude... the Defiant was created to fight THE BORG. Compared to the Borg, even a Romulan warbird is a few thugs in an Impala.

Yeah. Not "exactly", that wasn't my point at all.

I know that wasn't your point. I was saying that the sentence of yours that I quoted actually supported my point. We both agree that it's important to learn lessons from history, we just disagree about what those lessons are.

 

[Cicero]

Using a bomber for convenience store robbers? Come on, that illustration doesn't mesh at all. We're talking about pirates with well armed ships, not thugs in an impala.

Dude... the Defiant was created to fight THE BORG. Compared to the Borg, even a Romulan warbird is a few thugs in an Impala.

While the Defiant was created to fight the Borg, the context of Admiral Leyton's orders to Captain Benteen in Paradise Lost indicate that it was less capable than an Excelsior-class ship equipped with modern weapons.

 

[ryan123450]

Yeah, because wouldn't the point have been to have an entire armada of Defiant class ships go up against the Borg.

 

[rfmcdpei]

Also, what of during the Borg invasion? Don't remember reading of Defiants during all of those encounters and battles.

One Defiant-class vessel was destroyed in the battle of Korvat V.

 

[rfmcdpei]

The Cold War didn't end because one side had more bombs; it ended because Gorbachev chose to relax his government's rigid hold over his own people and inadvertently triggered a revolution.

Lech Walesa and Poland's Solidarity movement predated Gorbachev's Premiership. The pressure for revolution was already there behind the Iron Curtain in the Eastern European nations. Citizens of those nations who fought to maintain their identity and culture may be surprised to hear that the USSR interest in world domination was actually a historical misconception.

Christopher's wrong in that there has been a traditional Russian push for territorial aggrandizement that bears comparison to anything that the United States has done. The occupation of Central Asia, the great push east that took Russian trade and settlers as far east as northwestern North America, and the annexation of most of Poland-Lithuania in the late 18th century all come to mind. Russia has been victim, but Russia has also been predator.

That said, Christopher is right in that after the death of Stalin, the Soviet Union was basically a status quo power concerned with maintaining its existing sphere of influence. The Soviet/Communist sphere was unstable: countries where Communists came into power without Soviet intervention (China, Yugoslavia) split away from the bloc as soon as Moscow tried to dominate them, and the European satellite states were unstable and ready to rebel at the earliest interval. Even in Czechoslovakia, where the Communists were nearly elected into power (complicated story), you would have seen the end of the old order via the Prague Spring if not for the Warsaw Pact occupation.

One difference between the Typhon Pact and the Warsaw Pact is that the Typhon Pact is not the legitmization of the hegemony of one superpower over a collection of middle and small powers, but rather a pact of near-equals. On account of its size and development the reunified Romulan Empire might be well-positioned to bid for hegemony--in the Typhon Pact novels so far people having been hoping or fearing this--but in the end the Romulans just aren't big enough or in the right position to do so.

 

[Jedi_Master]

After the Dominion War, wouldn't you expect to see more Defiants in the books? It seems like during the Borg invasion and afterwards, we read about a lot of big ships like Galaxies or Akiras, but wouldn't you expect to see more of the smaller, easier to mass produce Defiants which were designed with the Borg in mind? I imagine production of them would have stepped up in the recent turbulent years but rarely see them in literature.

Also, would the Defiant fleet make good candidates to be refitted with slipstream? Even if their shape isn't ideal, they do have very a massive power output.

A huge amount of discussion on this thread - kudos MR.

The only author so far to weigh in on this issue is obviously NOT going to use defiants in his stories, for reasons he has exhaustively discussed.

Until other Trek authors comment on the issue, it seems that the authors have basically decided to move towards the GR style trek of peaceful exploration and discovery with the occasional galactic incident or skirmish.

Would a Defiant be needed in such a galaxy? Unlikely.

However the vision of Mr. Bennett does not seem to fit the entirety of the stories written. Counting from DS9 on into the novels - the Federation has lurched from conflict to conflict. They have fought the Klingons, the Dominion Alliance, the Borg and have engaged in minor disputes. The Alpha Quadrant has been ravaged by the Borg, and Starfleet is nervous enough that they sent precious resources to the DELTA quadrant partly to ensure the Borg are no longer a threat. From this readers perspective, it seems illogical that Starfleet would "get comfy" and stop building vessels that can kick enemy butts. The Defiant class is a warship - and even peaceful nations need to have a good weapon in their closet in case someone decides to come at them. And certainly a good dose of action livens up stories. Why would their not be a place for some butt - kicking?

In every good and engaging series, there needs to be an antagonist, someone who can force the hero to defend himself, adjust his actions, or refine his heroic qualities under duress.
The Borg and Dominion were excellent enemies because they each spiced up the narrative. They caused the Federation to examine itself and its motives and on one hand they caused it to sober up (building real offensive capacity) and to hold its moral line (refusing to commit genocide).

With the Borg gone, the Klingons overused, the Romulans divided, the Cardassians broken and the other alien races underdeveloped, it makes sense to introduce an antagonist that is different and yet provides tremendous narrative opportunities. Thus the Typhon Pact.
However it has to be acknowledged that the Typhon Pact contains species that have been used in an aggressive manner in other Star Trek stories. The Romulans have been on and off enemies of the Federation since before their was a Federation. The Breen recently fought in the Dominion War. The Gorn have caused real trouble, the Tholians have a serious grudge capacity, the Tzenkethi - well they are just wierd. And the Kinshaya have some real bones to pick with the Klingons - the allies of the Federation.

One can hardly blame the reader for seeing the Typhon Pact as an aggressive and expansionist political body. And the various actions mentioned (the attempts to steal slipstream drive, the Gorn attempts to seize the sentient thingamabob in Seize the Fire, etc) seem to indicate that at the present time the Typhon Pact is at least somewhat paranoid about Federation power, and is eagerly looking to equalize. That motivation along with the actions of the various constituent species seems to indicate that the Typhon Pact could and will likely BE a threat to the Federation in the near future. Remember the Tholians manipulated the Andorians to LEAVE THE FEDERATION! That alone would seem to engender some caution - and a real determination on the Federation's part to build a defense that works, and will prevent another Deneva.

The Federation is hurt and nervous. How will they react when confronted by a seemingly aggressive new political entity? How will they maintain their values and protect their people?

That is the current batch of authors and editors tale to tell, and for us to enjoy.

But when an author says things like this

Which is why it's so sad and frustrating to me when I see readers trying to dumb the Pact down to "the enemy," to see only the potential for aggression and overlook all the other rich, competing potentials that exist within this scenario. The Pact is still trying to discover what it will be. It's a turbulent, dynamic birthing process. Within that dynamism, there's the potential for war with the Federation, for peace with the Federation, for uneasy coexistence with the Federation, for conflict and intrigue between different members of the Pact, for instability in the Pact that threatens galactic peace and the Federation trying to prevent the worst from happening, you name it. There are so very, very many possibilities here. And that is so much more interesting than just another bunch of evil aliens out to destroy the Federation.

it can alienate readers and cause them to wonder "what input do we have"?

Our impressions of the tale, just like the Pact are growing and changing as the Trek authors write the stories. If you want us to look at the Pact differently Mr. Bennett - CONVINCE US with your story. Don't assume we want to "dumb down" the Pact just because we are reacting to handful of stories written about them. One can certainly expect that TOS fans took some time to adjust to the "new" Klingons in TNG. The idea of an enemy being an ally took some time to absorb. So when new political alliance is introduced in the novels - composed of races that have been hostile to the Federation or its allies - the readers impressions of the alliance will take time to shape.

Each screenwriter, author and editor of the vast Trek storyverse gets to add his or her input into the way the storyverse is shaped. Some shape stories that contain amazing amounts of action and conflict. Some shape stories that are scientific and utopian.
Each produces a product that they hope others will enjoy and purchase.
Why not take reader feedback at face value instead of trying to shape it to fit your vision?

 

[Idran]

Our impressions of the tale, just like the Pact are growing and changing as the Trek authors write the stories. If you want us to look at the Pact differently Mr. Bennett - CONVINCE US with your story. Don't assume we want to "dumb down" the Pact just because we are reacting to handful of stories written about them. One can certainly expect that TOS fans took some time to adjust to the "new" Klingons in TNG. The idea of an enemy being an ally took some time to absorb. So when new political alliance is introduced in the novels - composed of races that have been hostile to the Federation or its allies - the readers impressions of the alliance will take time to shape.

You know that his TP story has already been written, it just hasn't been released yet, right? And it's probably written with exactly those goals in mind as part of it? Unless you're saying that authors should refrain on giving their opinions on setting details in the settings they write in outside of the books they author.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Our impressions of the tale, just like the Pact are growing and changing as the Trek authors write the stories. If you want us to look at the Pact differently Mr. Bennett - CONVINCE US with your story. Don't assume we want to "dumb down" the Pact just because we are reacting to handful of stories written about them. One can certainly expect that TOS fans took some time to adjust to the "new" Klingons in TNG. The idea of an enemy being an ally took some time to absorb. So when new political alliance is introduced in the novels - composed of races that have been hostile to the Federation or its allies - the readers impressions of the alliance will take time to shape.

You know that his TP story has already been written, it just hasn't been released yet, right? And it's probably written with exactly those goals in mind as part of it? Unless you're saying that authors should refrain on giving their opinions on setting details in the settings they write in outside of the books they author.

Yes. I eagerly look forward to buying it - and then "dumbing down" the story as quickly as possible in my mind so that the Typhon aliens can continue to be the scary alien enemies and there can be lots of crazy transformeresque battle scenes. .

As a person who regularly states his opinion I virulently oppose any attempts to construe my statement as a prohibition against Mr. Bennett (or anyone else) from stating his or her views. However some authors on this and other forums are quick to take action when a reader interprets the stories they write in a way they (the author) do not want the story to be interpreted. They also can use a variety of methods to enforce their viewpoint or defend their interpretation. Of course that is the prerogative of an author or creator of any fictional story. However in the Trek Universe the authors work in tandem with each other, at times with contradictory results. The large story elements (the Federations behavior in crisis and in peace, the various "alien" empires motivations, etc) can vary, and the details can be VERY different.
So one author does not control the larger story elements (such as the overall goals of the Typhon Pact) and cannot speak with finality for his or her fellow authors as to what the 'proper' viewpoints of such elements should be. He or she can only advance his or her personal opinion - through the written word or through such forums as this one.

When Mr Bennett, or any other author that is part of a larger group working on one storyverse leans towards speaking for all, and attempts to correct the viewpoint of readers toward LARGE story elements they do not have the final say on, that raises my hackles.

 

[Jedi_Master]

I do think it would be interesting to have a separate thread discussing whether or not the Defiant class vessel has a place in Starfleet.

 

[Christopher]

The only author so far to weigh in on this issue is obviously NOT going to use defiants in his stories, for reasons he has exhaustively discussed.

No, that's not what I said at all. If I do a story where there's a valid reason to use a Defiant-class ship, of course I will. I have nothing against their existence. I just find a lot of the ad hoc assumptions being made in this thread about why they "must" exist in huge numbers to be unjustified.

Until other Trek authors comment on the issue, it seems that the authors have basically decided to move towards the GR style trek of peaceful exploration and discovery with the occasional galactic incident or skirmish.

I can only speak for myself, but isn't that what Star Trek is supposed to be? A trek is a long and challenging journey, an expedition. It's the other franchise that has "Wars" in its name. In six series and thirty seasons of ST (counting TAS), only four seasons have been focused primarily on war stories. So really, given that it's our job as tie-in writers to follow the lead of the series we're tying into, why would it be surprising that we'd focus on exploration and not just constant war and battles?

However the vision of Mr. Bennett does not seem to fit the entirety of the stories written.

I don't have a "vision," certainly not the one you incorrectly assume. Obviously there's a need for battleships. I just don't agree with the specifics of MatthiasRussell's arguments about how perfect and wonderful and ubiquitous the Defiant-class ships in particular must be. I'm going from the evidence, as simple as that. The evidence in canon is that the Defiant project was initially scrapped because it didn't work very well, and that even at the height of the Dominion War, Defiant-class ships were less numerous than the other classes we saw. So MR's arguments that Defiants are "ideal" for any kind of military operation and that they must exist in enormous numbers are simply difficult to reconcile with canon. Certainly the UFP needs battleships, but his conclusions about the Defiant-class ships in particular are unlikely.

One can hardly blame the reader for seeing the Typhon Pact as an aggressive and expansionist political body.

I don't see that. Yes, a couple of their members have demonstrated aggression, but their motivation has clearly been reaction against the perception of Federation/Klingon expansionism. It's a kneejerk assumption of Westerners to assume that anyone we see as aggressive must be expansionist, because we are historically expansionist and people tend to assume everyone else must think the same way we do. The faults we see in others tend to be projections of our own failings.

It's also been made very clear in the books that the Pact is not a single unified voice. In the book that introduced them, A Singular Destiny, we were shown individual Pact members acting autonomously and the Pact as a whole pulling them back. In Zero Sum Game we were shown the Breen deliberately trying to keep their slipstream discoveries from the rest of their Pact allies. In Rough Beasts of Empire, we saw the Romulans divided within themselves and the Tzenkethi employing espionage and dirty tricks against the Romulans in order to manipulate them. In Seize the Fire, we saw different Gorn factions at odds with each other, and the rest of the Pact had only a peripheral role at best. In Paths of Disharmony, we saw the Tholians acting on their own with no evident involvement from other Pact members.

So the evidence is overwhelming and consistent that the Pact is not a unified government with a singular goal. It's six governments and an even larger number of factions with conflicting agendas and priorities. Its members are at odds with each other and with their own internal oppositions. "Expansionist?" Hardly. They're still struggling to get their own act in order. They're expending their attention and resources on jockeying for status against each other, dealing with internal strife, etc. Sure, the Tholians and the Breen have taken action to undermine the Federation, but that's not expansionism, it's weakening someone they see as a threat. (At least it's not expansionism on the Tholians' part. The Tholians have been around a lot longer than the Federation; if they were particularly expansionist, they would've conquered us a long time ago.)

And the various actions mentioned (the attempts to steal slipstream drive, the Gorn attempts to seize the sentient thingamabob in Seize the Fire, etc) seem to indicate that at the present time the Typhon Pact is at least somewhat paranoid about Federation power, and is eagerly looking to equalize.

The Gorn were responding to an internal ecological disaster. They were after that terraforming technology before Titan even showed up. So it wasn't fundamentally about competing with the Federation. A Starfleet ship just happened to get in their way.

And again, any sentence built around the assumption that "the Typhon Pact" is a single entity with a single worldview or goal is misunderstanding the very concept. Remember, the alliance is less than two years old within these stories. You can't expect these fiercely independent civilizations with no prior history of cooperation to have become assimilated into a homogeneous mass so quickly.

That motivation along with the actions of the various constituent species seems to indicate that the Typhon Pact could and will likely BE a threat to the Federation in the near future.

Yes, that's just the point. The Pact could be an enemy, but they don't have to be. The whole thing that's interesting about them is that they have many different competing factions within them, some militant, others moderate. They could go either way. This will be explored in The Struggle Within.

Why not take reader feedback at face value instead of trying to shape it to fit your vision?

What?? It's not my vision. It's what's actually there on the page. It's what the people who created the Pact (Keith and Marco) have said their intentions were. It's right there in A Singular Destiny that the Kinshaya attacked the Klingons unilaterally and the Pact made them stop and apologized. So if someone says the Pact encouraged the Kinshaya to launch that attack, that's simply incorrect. The concrete facts disprove it. "Vision" has nothing to do with it. I'm just clarifying the letter of the text, which some readers seem to have misunderstood.

 

[Cicero]

It's a kneejerk assumption of Westerners to assume that anyone we see as aggressive must be expansionist, because we are historically expansionist and people tend to assume everyone else must think the same way we do. The faults we see in others tend to be projections of our own failings.

At least two of the powers have or had expansionist tendencies. Admiral Valdore on Enterprise was ejected from the Senate for questioning the Romulan Empire's doctrine of unlimited expansion, and the Breen certainly appeared to have territorial motives in the Dominion War.

The attitude you assert regarding perceived expansionism is no way limited to Westerners, btw. Russia believes that NATO still exists as a counter and intentional threat to it, even though the reasons for the alliance have changed, and most of its members are on increasingly friendly terms with Russia (to the occasional alarm of other members). Similarly, China has objected to the proposed "quadrilateral alliance" of India, Japan, Australia, and the United States, which was mooted as a potential defensive alignment against potential Chinese aggression, but which China has perceived as having a far more aggressive purpose.

 

[MatthiasRussell]

I think the readers' interpretation of the Pact's agenda is just as important as the writers' intent at this early stage in their development. It is kind of insulting to tell us we are ignorant and biased, especially when we have expressed admiration for trek literature and made intelligent counterpoints. At this moment, some of us are worried about what the Pact represents and think the big stick should be ready. I'm sure many UFP citizens would agree, as would Bacco and Akaar. I agree that the Pact needs further exploration and we need to not be trigger happy, but we don't want to be caught unprepared either.

As to the Defiant. I don't think either side of this discussion has absolute evidence based on canon and we both are no doubt interpreting to fit our disposition. I will stand by my opinion that the Defiant class became a good ship and a valuable member of the fleet.

 

[Christopher]

^Interpretations can differ, but valid interpretations still have to be consistent with the facts. You can't get the basic facts wrong and defend it as a matter of interpretation. What I'm addressing here is the abundance of factual misconceptions about what's actually depicted in A Singular Destiny and the Typhon Pact novels. A lot of the claims I've heard here include inaccurate and erroneous characterizations of the events of those books, and I'm simply trying to clarify what the books actually said.

 

[Cicero]

Christopher, just checking - are you seeing my posts?