DIS - The Red Angel

[Dargaron]

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.

Your "comparisons" are so intellectually dishonest that you literally asked "Who said a damn thing about Britain?" 11 real-time minutes after you specifically used Britain in a comparison, in a post that you included in your quote. Which means you either forgot you'd made a point despite it being right in front of you, or even you think your comparison was irrelevant to the overall discussion. Pick one.

You have also directly stated that committing genocide as an end-goal in itself (the objective of Nazi Germany) is at best equivalent to and at worst better than merely threatening large civilian casualties in order to end a war of unprovoked aggression in which the other side has already shown willingness to murder civilians and violate flags of truce. See here:

It's also not about the views espoused on-screen, it's the way that the cartoonishly evil actions of the protagonist and the genocidal wishes of Starfleet are not treated as unconscionable monstrosities. STD's Federation does not deserve to exist. Michael Burnham is a monster, and her Starfleet on par with the Schutzstaffel.

Which is nonsensical. If literally nothing else, there are circumstances under which The Federation will allow Klingons to go about their lives peacefully: the same can not be said for the SS and whoever they deem "undesirables." One of these groups is capable of peaceful co-existance with its former enemies: guess which one?

[CrashGordon94]

I think you might mean "at worst better" rather than "at worst worse", Dargaron.

[Dargaron]

Thanks. Mixed up which entity was the subject. It's fixed.

[Artabax]

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.

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.

They didn't think it through.
I don't know Zawahiri or Peiper, I assume they were Grand Inquisitors.

Genocide is indeed a huge evil. And Genocide was the Orks' plan all along. It sure looked as if genocide was Fed's only possible hope for survival. Empress was right. Michael watered down the evil slightly to Threat of Genocide at 85%. It was an act of desperation and panic.


Oh well if the Inquisitress genocides Orkistan, it's not OUR fault.
Bolleaux, it is still our fault. But it was our only hope Obi wan.

Would you have rather Orks genocide Fed or Feds genocide Orks?
It is the Trolley problem with billions of people on both tracks.

[CharlesPhipps]

Except:

1. L'Rell will never push the button. She's a Klingon religious fanatic who exists to preserve the Empire and its people.
2. The Federation knows it.

This is a bluff like Kirk planning to eradicate all the people on the disintegration booth planet.

https://youtu.be/Ysk-jF4ptQA

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Except:

1. L'Rell will never push the button. She's a Klingon religious fanatic who exists to preserve the Empire and its people.
2. The Federation knows it.

This is a bluff like Kirk planning to eradicate all the people on the disintegration booth planet.

https://youtu.be/Ysk-jF4ptQA

Probably the one episode that inspired the overall darker themes of ds9

[GreyICE]

There's quite a few of us that believe that using the nukes in World War 2 was morally justified. No matter how you slice it, we managed to kill a fraction of the civilians in Japan that the Japanese killed in China and Korea, and the Japanese were carrying out a literal genocidal extermination program against countries that had done nothing to them except exist.

So yeah, I'd say bombing a major city is justified to end a war. Finding a way NOT to do that and ending the war with just the threat of it is even more morally justified.

If the darkest the Federation gets is "we have a weapon and we chose not to use it because it would cost too many lives, but we still could" that's a great deal less dark than "the good guys" have been in even the last century.

Can we also add that the Klingons carry out extermination programs like the Japanese and that therefore using such a weapon would be literally saving civilian lives - lives of civilians that do not support warlike governments, do not contribute to the murder of other people, and are not part of a program of death and genocide?

Terrorists? We can't compare it to terrorists. The worst attack terrorists have ever carried out killed 3,000 people. This was a war. There are small, individual battles you don't know the name of in World War 2 that killed 3,000 people. There are little towns that got caught up in small confrontations where 3,000 people died. That's what a 21st century war is. What's an interstellar war? I can only think much more horrible still.

[Link8909]

There's quite a few of us that believe that using the nukes in World War 2 was morally justified. No matter how you slice it, we managed to kill a fraction of the civilians in Japan that the Japanese killed in China and Korea, and the Japanese were carrying out a literal genocidal extermination program against countries that had done nothing to them except exist.

So yeah, I'd say bombing a major city is justified to end a war. Finding a way NOT to do that and ending the war with just the threat of it is even more morally justified.

If the darkest the Federation gets is "we have a weapon and we chose not to use it because it would cost too many lives, but we still could" that's a great deal less dark than "the good guys" have been in even the last century.

Can we also add that the Klingons carry out extermination programs like the Japanese and that therefore using such a weapon would be literally saving civilian lives - lives of civilians that do not support warlike governments, do not contribute to the murder of other people, and are not part of a program of death and genocide?

Terrorists? We can't compare it to terrorists. The worst attack terrorists have ever carried out killed 3,000 people. This was a war. There are small, individual battles you don't know the name of in World War 2 that killed 3,000 people. There are little towns that got caught up in small confrontations where 3,000 people died. That's what a 21st century war is. What's an interstellar war? I can only think much more horrible still.

Absolutely, I think also when people talk about the Federations decision in the season 1 finally, they remove the context as to why that decision was made.

The Klingon War had at that point been going on for about a year, a brutal war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives if not millions, and every chance at a diplomatic resolution had failed or used to the advantage of the Klingons, and the Klingons were not going to relent until victory or defeat, as L'Rell said in "The War Without, The War Within":

L'Rell: This is war, not a child's game with rules. We fight to preserve Klingon identity.

Admiral Cornwell: No one is looking to destroy your culture! Our laws are founded in equality! Freedom!

L'Rell: T'Kuvma taught us that the Federation cannot help itself. It seeks universal homogenization and assimilation.

Admiral Cornwell: T'Kuvma was an ignorant fool! And your people are moving closer and closer to my home planet. What are you looking for?! More territory? Conditional surrender? I mean your people won't even make demands. Why? How does this war end?

L'Rell: It doesn't. Klingons have tasted your blood. Conquer us, or we will never relent.

And finally, the Federation was losing, in that episode Starbase One, the last line of defense to Earth, was captured with 80,000 people dead, and a fleet of Klingon ships heading for Earth.

The decision to destroy Qo'noS was an act of desperation, a morale wrong but understandable decision given the circumstances, and I like that in the end our heroes found a better way of ending the war without sacrificing the principles of the Federation or more bloodshed, and honestly is the most Star Trek way of resolving a conflict.