DIS - The Red Angel

[Worffan101]

As I have stated multiple times (which you seem to be ignoring), what Burnham convinced her genocidal bosses to do is tantamount to the UK putting a thermonuclear city-buster bomb under Kabul after the invasion of Afghanistan, then giving the big red button to Ayman al-Zawahiri. Or putting a bunch of nukes under Berlin in 1946 and giving Joachim Peiper the detonator.

It is stupid, paternalistic, racist, and evil. If you can't see why doing such a thing is blatantly immoral and bigoted, I don't think that I can reason with you.

And I am stating that your analogy is fundamentally flawed. Afghanistan is not an existential threat to Britain, therefore such an action is unwarrented. The Klingon Empire has demonstrated itself an existential threat to the Federation, meaning the choice is between a threatened genocide and allowing actual genocide to take place.

Nor is planting an explosive in the capital of an already-defeated enemy the same as threatening the destruction of a major civilian centre in order to end ongoing genocidal hostilities.

Again, you simply state your premise without actually engaging. Calling the act paternalistic is particularly out of place: if anything, the Federation is treating the Klingon Empire like a mature Space-faring civilization, with all the responsibility that entails. The Empire decided to make an Appeal to Force, and now the shoe is on the other foot.

Who said a damn thing about Britain?

And you're still ignoring my point, that it would be pretty damned wrong to threaten to blow up the Klingon capital if they don't accept the Federation's handpicked dictator because the Klingon leadership attacked the Federation. You are also going against the very point of Star Trek with your implicit assumption that appeals to force, once broken out, are the only way to negotiate..

Essentially, STD's Starfleet are genocidal thugs, and Michael Burnham is an imperialist thug. They're both still dirty thugs, and morally indefensible.

[CharlesPhipps]

As I have stated multiple times (which you seem to be ignoring), what Burnham convinced her genocidal bosses to do is tantamount to the UK putting a thermonuclear city-buster bomb under Kabul after the invasion of Afghanistan, then giving the big red button to Ayman al-Zawahiri. Or putting a bunch of nukes under Berlin in 1946 and giving Joachim Peiper the detonator.

It is stupid, paternalistic, racist, and evil. If you can't see why doing such a thing is blatantly immoral and bigoted, I don't think that I can reason with you.

To retouch on this, part of the problem is that you're using the War on Terror here and falling into Neo-Con fear mongering. You're arguing that the Disco Klingons are equivalent to terrorists, which given Disco's portrayal would make terrorists an existential threat to life as we know it--which they are not.

The Taliban WISH they were the Klingons because they were the ones on the backfoot from the moment the War on Terror began. The Federation, by contrast, is on its final legs in the war according to the Admirals and is going to be conquered unless they use their atomic bomb equivalent. The Federation is set up to do something unthinkable and are listening to Empress Hitler that the ONLY way they can save themselves is to use a weapon of mass destruction. The United States has NEVER been in this position in its history: not the War of 1812, not The Civil War.

BRITAIN might have been and it's closer to say that this is before the United States joined the war and during the Blitz. Now ask whether Churchhill would put a nuclear bomb underneath Berlin.

Yes, he fucking would have.

(Take note this is nothing like the use of the atomic bomb on Japan either because America was winning the war and might have been able to force a surrender without invasion)

It's just DISCO argues. "No, you shouldn't nuke Berlin." It does make the questionable argument, "We can give it to Count von Stauffenberg and make HIM Chancellor." They use the THREAT of the bomb but make it clear they put it in the hands of someone who never would use it. That's a very questionable decision but it is nothing like what you're describing.

And you're still ignoring my point, that it would be pretty damned wrong to threaten to blow up the Klingon capital if they don't accept the Federation's handpicked dictator because the Klingon leadership attacked the Federation.

Actually, I think we understand your argument but I don't think it's nearly as solid as you think it is. Yes, in fact, history is full of places being invaded if they don't accept terms of surrender that include replacing their existing leadership. Especially after a military invasion. You've basically described what happened to NAPOLEON.

"We will kick the shit out of France unless you send him to Elba."

Also, your argument that it is immoral to replace the government of a nation doesn't quite work when the current leadership is:

A. Invading your country
B. Fascist

Both Left wing and right wing governments generally have a shared history of believing that once a country invades, their leadership becomes combatants.

[Worffan101]

You know what? I've said my piece.

STD thinks that violence and revenge are the only way, and that not committing genocide is a grand act of mercy and peace. That is a fundamentally dark, pessimistic, almost nihilistic, and backwards worldview that holds that things can never get better.

I think that STD is crap. None of your arguments are at all convincing to me. (BTW, Winston Churchill? Imperialist bastard and pretty racist, too. Thank fuck Roosevelt and Truman had the balls to tell him and Morgenthau to take a hike!)

[Dargaron]

Who said a damn thing about Britain?

You said a damn thing about Britain. The post I quoted had you making the analogy that Michael's behavior "...is tantamount to the UK putting a thermonuclear city-buster bomb under Kabul after the invasion of Afghanistan, then giving the big red button to Ayman al-Zawahiri." Your post explicitly complained that I had not addressed your inane political comparisons, so I decided to humor you by doing exactly what you asked for.

And you're still ignoring my point, that it would be pretty damned wrong to threaten to blow up the Klingon capital if they don't accept the Federation's handpicked dictator because the Klingon leadership attacked the Federation. You are also going against the very point of Star Trek with your implicit assumption that appeals to force, once broken out, are the only way to negotiate..

So are you saying that A Taste of Armageddon was also anti-Star Trek? At the climax of that episode, Kirk "threatens" the warring systems with an ultimatum: either wage a real war, with all the ensuing chaos and destruction that implies, or make peace with one another. He decided unilaterally that the current situation of endless death was unacceptable and risked the deaths of billions to put a stop to it.

[CharlesPhipps]

You know what? I've said my piece.

You got it.

STD thinks that violence and revenge are the only way, and that not committing genocide is a grand act of mercy and peace. That is a fundamentally dark, pessimistic, almost nihilistic, and backwards worldview that holds that things can never get better.

I think it is a grand gesture when you turn against your own government to prevent it and your own government goes, "Yes, you were right. What were we thinking?"

[CrashGordon94]

As I have stated multiple times (which you seem to be ignoring), what Burnham convinced her genocidal bosses to do is tantamount to the US putting a thermonuclear city-buster bomb under Kabul after the invasion of Afghanistan, then giving the big red button to Ayman al-Zawahiri. Or putting a bunch of nukes under Berlin in 1946 and giving Joachim Peiper the detonator.

It is stupid, paternalistic, racist, and evil. If you can't see why doing such a thing is blatantly immoral and bigoted, I don't think that I can reason with you.

This is what I'm talking about, you just state your dubious conclusion and make a bunch of weird comparisons, not actually give evidence and reasoning.

[Fianna]

As I mentioned before, the key issue is that the threat of blowing up the Klingon capital isn't a temporary thing. While it's possible the bomb has a "Best If Used By" date, unless they specifically say as much, the implication is that it's a permanent, and that all Klingon politics from here on out will have the "who controls the bomb? are they willing to use it?" question hanging in the air.

Basically, it's not trusting the Klingons to ever be capable of responsible self-governance, and instead decides that a system where a dictator can squash dissent with the threat of overwhelming destruction is the best way to keep them in line.

I don't think that was the intended message, though. Just a result of not thinking through what the long-term implications of this setup would be.

[CharlesPhipps]

Basically, it's not trusting the Klingons to ever be capable of responsible self-governance, and instead decides that a system where a dictator can squash dissent with the threat of overwhelming destruction is the best way to keep them in line.

The problem with that is the Klingons are the one with the bomb so it is self-governance. It's just rulership by fear, which is not exactly the Starfleet way. However, it's not Starfleet ruling by fear but giving the peace faction a weapon of mass destruction.

[Worffan101]

As I have stated multiple times (which you seem to be ignoring), what Burnham convinced her genocidal bosses to do is tantamount to the US putting a thermonuclear city-buster bomb under Kabul after the invasion of Afghanistan, then giving the big red button to Ayman al-Zawahiri. Or putting a bunch of nukes under Berlin in 1946 and giving Joachim Peiper the detonator.

It is stupid, paternalistic, racist, and evil. If you can't see why doing such a thing is blatantly immoral and bigoted, I don't think that I can reason with you.

This is what I'm talking about, you just state your dubious conclusion and make a bunch of weird comparisons, not actually give evidence and reasoning.

They put a bomb under the Klingon homeworld that would've blown it up. I don't see how I can give any more evidence or reasoning than restating what was actually said and done on the show, and giving the closest possible real-life comparisons. Everything I add to that will be superfluous.

[CharlesPhipps]

They put a bomb under the Klingon homeworld that would've blown it up. I don't see how I can give any more evidence or reasoning than restating what was actually said and done on the show, and giving the closest possible real-life comparisons. Everything I add to that will be superfluous.

Except they chose not to put a bomb on the Klingon homeworld. They had no idea what it was until Tilly found out and then they immediately turned against the plan. Starfleet was persuaded by the power of a Picard speech and then Georgiou put it on Kronos anyway. So they gave the bomb to Georgiou.