www.ditl.org

I agree entirely, I was merely highlighting the....inconvenient clinging to principles the UFP has shown itself capable of.

True, but the UFP has shown the ability to ignore those same values when it comes to their own survival.

Deepcrush wrote:True, but the UFP has shown the ability to ignore those same values when it comes to their own survival.

In fact, doesn't the very existence of Section 31 embody that?

S31 is around just for the purpose of protecting the UFP's population so they can have those values. S31 lives a rather bleak existence so that the rest of the UFP doesn't have to. They do what they know has to be done but which most of the UFP couldn't stomach and still believe in its values.

They're the spec-ops of the UFP.

The moral high-ground is decided by the one who's left standing at the end of it all.

Sonic Glitch wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:True, but the UFP has shown the ability to ignore those same values when it comes to their own survival.

In fact, doesn't the very existence of Section 31 embody that?

Deepcrush wrote:S31 is around just for the purpose of protecting the UFP's population so they can have those values. S31 lives a rather bleak existence so that the rest of the UFP doesn't have to. They do what they know has to be done but which most of the UFP couldn't stomach and still believe in its values.

They're the spec-ops of the UFP.

That's rather what I was getting at. The fact that they exist as part of the original federation charter (according to sloan at least) indicates to me that there were people involved in the establishment (and later operation/survival) of the Federation who recognized that those principles, while nice in theory, can get in the way of survival of a state.

Sonic Glitch wrote:That's rather what I was getting at. The fact that they exist as part of the original federation charter (according to sloan at least) indicates to me that there were people involved in the establishment (and later operation/survival) of the Federation who recognized that those principles, while nice in theory, can get in the way of survival of a state.

Which is a bit far to the cynical side of things for Gene's concept of Trek but I personally love it.

Actually, it's probably better described as in polar contradiction to Gene's concept. His whole overarching idea was that a society could exist and thrive without the need for something like S31, that those idealistic principles could one day be enough. It's telling, I think, that nothing like this was ideated until the decidedly film noir subtext of DS9 - which of itself was something of a bette noir to the original idealistic concept of 'Trek.

Mikey wrote:Actually, it's probably better described as in polar contradiction to Gene's concept. His whole overarching idea was that a society could exist and thrive without the need for something like S31, that those idealistic principles could one day be enough. It's telling, I think, that nothing like this was ideated until the decidedly film noir subtext of DS9 - which of itself was something of a bette noir to the original idealistic concept of 'Trek.

I think the idea evolved naturally from having a major, sustained enemy who could not be tricked or bargined with.

The Borg were as much a nautral disaster as an enemy so it did not really challenge the morals of society any more than a hurricane would. You were either going to live or die and that was about it. It was not as much about how much you resisted as just how strong the storm was and if you could luck out.

The Dominion were something very different. They had the same non-compromising attitude but they were much more a peer power who could be challenged. It was not TOS Klingons where you were fighting over some obscure planet. It was a war of life and death in which the enemy was not playing by any particular rules.

I think TNG got around this by never having that situation where they were placed in opposition to a threat that could be overcome but that would not negotiate and was not going to go away at the end of the week. They could not be sent off with the solution of the week by inverting some power coupling to do this or that. Or even like the Borg when the threat would arise and then you either won or lost within hours.

This situation took long enough that people had time to think, and to re-evaluate their positions on things.

The Dominion started a long, slow slide into more realism from the characters who, now that their existance was threatened by something over the course of months and years, found they could not react with the same insane detachment with which you often saw the TNG and Voyager crew display towards the suffering of other races due to the prime directive.

It is easy to say something like, I am opposed to firebombing civilians as a stand alone sentiment. But when the enemy military is pounding at the gates and the choice is either fight with everything you can get your hands on to try and survive or sit in your ivory tower most humans will make the same decision. History tells us what that response is going to be.

GrahamKennedy wrote:If I'd had to guess, during TOS I would have said Starfleet probably only consisted of 100 ships, purely based on the idea of there being 12 Constitutions. And during TNG I'd have guessed that Starfleet consisted of perhaps 250 ships, based on the idea that 40 ships was a big loss in BOBW, and later than 20 or so was clearly a pretty big force, but not a decisive one in the Klingon civil war.

Obviously those numbers went out the window with DS9, and Starfleet is pretty clearly in the 5,000 - 15,000 sort of range. I think this is reasonable, IF you assume that the Federation really is so spread out that it can take years to get from one side to the other, because that would result in even 15,000 ships being pretty thinly spread most times, and DS9 was the first time they had a couple of year lead time to a major crisis and so were able to gather most of Starfleet.

If we assume for the moment that only the major member worlds build Starships, and colonies don't, then we're looking at each of those worlds maintaining a fleet of some 30 - 100 ships. I agree there's a shedload of info we don't know, but that figure "feels" about right to me. It would mean one Starship in the future, very roughly, for every five or ten Navy warships in the world today. Sure seems in the ballpark of what I would have guessed.

Keep in mind, however, that in 'Redemption' that 20-ship fleet massed by Starfleet for the blackade at the Neutral zone was referred to by Lursa or Bethor as 'not enough ships to wage war. Federation being spread across 8 thousand LY at press time of First Contact (lets assume a little more, even perhaps 9000), I would expect that logic would dictate a standing force of easily 20,000 starships on active duty. The feds would not have allowed, nor would they have had the time to mobilize the fleets in the outlying regions of the Federation, lest their borders be grossly underdefended, leaving the Tholians, Gorn Hegemony, et al, take advantage of the situation. I believe what we saw in DS9 were the 'core' fleets engaged in the bulk of the action, hence why we probably NEVER saw the Enterprise E involved.

Seriously - please stop doing this. This thread has been dead for 6 months. Nobody else remembers the conversation to which you just responded. I see you've ignored Seafort's suggestion, but I'm asking you nicely: if you see something this dated, open a new thread and outline your position/thought/hypothesis. As it is with these necros, you may as well have just made a random statement without any antecedent for all we know.

Mikey wrote:Seriously - please stop doing this. This thread has been dead for 6 months. Nobody else remembers the conversation to which you just responded. I see you've ignored Seafort's suggestion, but I'm asking you nicely: if you see something this dated, open a new thread and outline your position/thought/hypothesis. As it is with these necros, you may as well have just made a random statement without any antecedent for all we know.

Seriously STFU.

Victory is Life wrote:

Mikey wrote:Seriously - please stop doing this. This thread has been dead for 6 months. Nobody else remembers the conversation to which you just responded. I see you've ignored Seafort's suggestion, but I'm asking you nicely: if you see something this dated, open a new thread and outline your position/thought/hypothesis. As it is with these necros, you may as well have just made a random statement without any antecedent for all we know.

Seriously STFU.

As an example of you intellectual ability, this comment is overwhelming. It's also not necessary. I haven't been abusive, or even heavy-handed; I've simply been asking you to do something for the good of the forum in toto. What I've been asking, in fact, is an incredibly easy thing for you to do, and wouldn't even really put you out one bit. I will leave the pithy and very relevant commetns like "STFU" for you to deliver.

Mikey wrote:

Victory is Life wrote:

Mikey wrote:Seriously - please stop doing this. This thread has been dead for 6 months. Nobody else remembers the conversation to which you just responded. I see you've ignored Seafort's suggestion, but I'm asking you nicely: if you see something this dated, open a new thread and outline your position/thought/hypothesis. As it is with these necros, you may as well have just made a random statement without any antecedent for all we know.

Seriously STFU.

As an example of you intellectual ability, this comment is overwhelming. It's also not necessary. I haven't been abusive, or even heavy-handed; I've simply been asking you to do something for the good of the forum in toto. What I've been asking, in fact, is an incredibly easy thing for you to do, and wouldn't even really put you out one bit. I will leave the pithy and very relevant commetns like "STFU" for you to deliver.

I have made relevant comments to old posts, and added my opinion on an open forum, since joining the 'discussions' here, I have been called out, singled out, and your behaviour in attacking me rather than responding to relevant opinion that I am adding shows that, yes, indeed, you are trying to be heavy handed and you are the one impeding the sharing of opinion and preventing communication. If you do not like what I am posting, or what threads I am posting it to, then don't weigh in, simple as that. I am not contravening any rules of this forum, and you are not a moderator, leave the moderating to them, and accept that you are a 'poster', nothing more. If a moderator sees issue in anything I am doing, I will cease and desist, until then, as I kindly requested, step off, and stop trying to be a forum bully, it's not working, and it's making you look bad...


EDIT, Also, Lt. Staplic didn't seem to mind weighing in on what I had to say in another thread that I necrod. And it just realized you have Moderator green in your name, so maybe you are a mod, irregardless, if you are and want me to stop, demand so, and I will...As I said, I have no wish to rockl the boat, just want to weigh in on opinion, something that seems quite difficult so far on this forum. Value your members and supporters, that should be a cardinal rule!

Hey kid, Mikey is a mod. HIS NAME IS IN GREEN AND LISTED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE FORUM INDEX. Now I'm not going to say I haven't pissed on a few of the higher ups a rare number of times...

(SHUT UP TSU!)

...but still. If you don't have a solid reason for getting angry, just let it lay. You could have just said "I felt this was worth posting here" to which the Mod's will normally just give the okay afterwards.