Star Trek: Section 31 Movie w/Michelle Yeoh Announced

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Starfleet confirms to Sisko that Section 31 is real at the end of the same episode that introduced them.

Ah wow, lol. Closer to the vest than I expected.

[Frustration]

Starfleet confirms to Sisko that Section 31 is real at the end of the same episode that introduced them.

If that's the case, then I'm wrong - and the decay of Star Trek began rather earlier than I'd thought. Still, there are many examples of single-episode bad ideas in Star Trek - they *could* have abandoned S31 as yet another one of them. They chose to run with it.

[clearspira]

Starfleet confirms to Sisko that Section 31 is real at the end of the same episode that introduced them.

If that's the case, then I'm wrong - and the decay of Star Trek began rather earlier than I'd thought. Still, there are many examples of single-episode bad ideas in Star Trek - they *could* have abandoned S31 as yet another one of them. They chose to run with it.

Have you ever read The Culture books by Iain M Banks? They're a good read if you haven't because the whole premise of it is ''The Federation but no Prime Directive and no laws against genetic engineering.'' I bring it up because their Section 31 is called ''Special Circumstances'' and they are an open secret that exists to protect paradise. The reasoning being that just because WE believe in equal rights, in liberalism, in freedom... not everyone else does. Sometimes you have to go in and change a government, sabotage an army, kill a politician for the good of everyone else's perfect life.

Same here really. Paradise in a universe of Klingons, Romulans, Borg, Dominion, Kazon, Hirogen and about 50 other powerful and nasty aliens, is it naive to expect it to survive without getting our hands dirty?

This is a fascinating topic imo. Half of the conflicts in The Culture is this discussion. Is freedom possible without overwhelming firepower and wetwork? What if the USA was weaker than China and Russia right now? For all its problems, its the closest analogy to the Federation we've ever had.

[hammerofglass]

Rewatched Inquisition because this got it on my brain and rather amusingly for how this thread went the final scene contains this exchange:

"SISKO: There's no record of a Deputy Director Sloan anywhere in Starfleet. And as for Section thirty one, that's a little more complicated. Starfleet Command doesn't acknowledge its existence, but they don't deny it either. They simply said they'd look into it and get back to me.
BASHIR: When?
SISKO: They didn't say.
KIRA: That sounds like a cover up to me.
BASHIR: I can't believe the Federation condones this kind of activity.
ODO: Personally, I find it hard to believe they wouldn't. Every other great power has a unit like Section thirty one. The Romulans have the Tal Shiar, the Cardassians had the Obsidian Order.
BASHIR: But what does that say about us? When push comes to shove, are we willing to sacrifice our principles in order to survive?
SISKO: I wish I had an answer for you, Doctor. "

[Madner Kami]

BASHIR: But what does that say about us? When push comes to shove, are we willing to sacrifice our principles in order to survive?
SISKO: I wish I had an answer for you, Doctor. "

That question was answered in "In the Pale Moonlight" and, in my opinion, it was answered correctly. I feel this is much like it is with pacifism. The ideal is great and all, but what are you gonna do if someone else feels differently and decides to go to war? The other won't let you live by your values anymore, if you don't defend yourself, so you not defending yourself or your way of life, will inevitably end with your extinction. So the only way to deal with it is... Si vis pacem, para bellum. If you are not willing to fight for your ideals, you're going to loose what you have.
And we see this in reallife right now here in Europe, where an entire continent got lulled into a state of "all war is bad" and suddenly is confronted with a situation, where they barely have the means to enfore peace and an entire nation has to pay for it in blood and tears, while we still somehow have quite a number of idiots sitting on the sideline singing "Kum Ba Yah". Section 31 didn't ruin Star Trek. It made it believable.

[clearspira]

BASHIR: But what does that say about us? When push comes to shove, are we willing to sacrifice our principles in order to survive?
SISKO: I wish I had an answer for you, Doctor. "

That question was answered in "In the Pale Moonlight" and, in my opinion, it was answered correctly. I feel this is much like it is with pacifism. The ideal is great and all, but what are you gonna do if someone else feels differently and decides to go to war? The other won't let you live by your values anymore, if you don't defend yourself, so you not defending yourself or your way of life, will inevitably end with your extinction. So the only way to deal with it is... Si vis pacem, bara bellum. If you are not willing to fight for your ideals, you're going to loose what you have.
And we see this in reallife right now here in Europe, where an entire continent got lulled into a state of "all war is bad" and suddenly is confronted with a situation, where they barely have the means to enfore peace and an entire nation has to pay for it in blood and tears, while we still somehow have quite a number of idiots sitting on the sideline singing "Kum Ba Yah". Section 31 didn't ruin Star Trek. It made it believable.

It's also kind of interesting to note that this is a TNG era problem because Kirk routinely referred to himself as a soldier. And he's the man whom Sisko admired.

I say TNG era problem, it's more a Gene Roddenberry and Rick Berman problem. Kirk was a man of peace in that his phaser and fist had a stun setting. He wouldn't kill in cold blood, but he would kill for for his principles. But as noted by Chuck, somewhere between the 1960s and the 1980s we got a completely different Gene. Suddenly its captains gave five warnings whilst getting their ass kicked and balked at war games. And Rick kind of ran with that.

Modern Trek has gone too far the other direction imo, but "armed pacifism" was the TOS way. I think Kirk would understand Sloane as a man if not a worthy adversary.

[hammerofglass]

BASHIR: But what does that say about us? When push comes to shove, are we willing to sacrifice our principles in order to survive?
SISKO: I wish I had an answer for you, Doctor. "

That question was answered in "In the Pale Moonlight" and, in my opinion, it was answered correctly. I feel this is much like it is with pacifism. The ideal is great and all, but what are you gonna do if someone else feels differently and decides to go to war? The other won't let you live by your values anymore, if you don't defend yourself, so you not defending yourself or your way of life, will inevitably end with your extinction. So the only way to deal with it is... Si vis pacem, para bellum. If you are not willing to fight for your ideals, you're going to loose what you have.
And we see this in reallife right now here in Europe, where an entire continent got lulled into a state of "all war is bad" and suddenly is confronted with a situation, where they barely have the means to enfore peace and an entire nation has to pay for it in blood and tears, while we still somehow have quite a number of idiots sitting on the sideline singing "Kum Ba Yah". Section 31 didn't ruin Star Trek. It made it believable.

I hadn't noticed the significance of In The Pale Moonlight being the next episode until now.

[Frustration]

There is a distinct difference between simple non-pacifism, and the things Sisko does in "In the Pale Moonlight"; perhaps the most important aspect is that Sisko broke his own standards of ethical conduct, doing things he regarded as reprehensible, because he was desperate about the war.

For reference: The Monologue. There are other sections of the final part of the episode on YouTube if you're curious.

(edit to add): In a sense, Section 31 was shown in Star Trek VI. They were the bad guys working to continue hostilities with the Klingons. They were presented as traitors to the Federation, not its secret saviors.

I find it striking how many people insist that Star Trek isn't believable unless it's corrupt.

[stryke]

I find it striking how many people insist that Star Trek isn't believable unless it's corrupt.

Bit of a downer really isn't it? Even more so if you consider what else has been justified over the years under 'the ends justify the means' and even more so crossed with the 'we're the goodies so that makes anything we do okay cause we're the goodies and they're evil, right?' attitudes.

[Deledrius]

I find it striking how many people insist that Star Trek isn't believable unless it's corrupt.

Yeah, I really have a hard time with that. It feels ultimately pointless if we treat it as a requirement. It's a pretty deep philosophical split, that's for sure.