Remove ads

To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest)

Linked contents
To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) Starfleet Ship Design Bureau, Refit ("To Boldly Go...")
Reader mode
SynchronizedWritersBlock said:
It's an inefficient use of resources that we can easily gather anyway if they are required.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's a vital protection against being caught out unable to form an immediate response to enemy action, exactly as we have been. It would solve numerous problems we currently have with our response, such as the fact that the STO and Apiata can't contribute because we have no standing forces on the border besides their member fleets. It would make the Cardassians act more cautiously in situations that might provoke us. It would eliminate numerous ambiguities from this situation. You are arguing that the fact we have been utterly unprepared for an immediate war with the people we are most likely to go to war with without any warning is justified. It wasn't. It isn't.
 
Rhinohunter said:
Intervening means sending a fleet to war not intervening means sending a peace fleet if we vote for it. Also the statement that the ISC is calling us cowards is a blatant lie that was one HOH diplomate all we know about the ISC is there was lobbying for us to intervene please do not spread false info around.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
While I am not in support of intervention, SWB is correct on the facts here. Deploying ships to Chrystovia falls under intervention.
The HoH were the ones to call us cowards, but the ISC statements could also be interpreted that way.
 
Night said:
It's a vital protection against being caught out unable to form an immediate response to enemy action, exactly as we have been. It would solve numerous problems we currently have with our response, such as the fact that the STO and Apiata can't contribute because we have no standing forces on the border besides their member fleets. It would make the Cardassians act more cautiously in situations that might provoke us. It would eliminate numerous ambiguities from this situation. You are arguing that the fact we have been utterly unprepared for an immediate war with the people we are most likely to go to war with without any warning is justified. It wasn't. It isn't.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Your assertions are ridiculous. There is no justification for holding 40 ships on a border doing nothing, literally nothing, when 40 ships can be gathered in less than a month from our current (not even optimal) patterns. Responding to the once-every-decade crisis a week or two faster is not worth that.
 
So looking back it seems the only mention of the ISC calling us cowards or anything similar is an offhanded remark form that HoH delegate that wanted to get a rise out of us. Also its kind of weird that the ISC and the HoH are on speaking terms with each other instead of us not to mention the fact we have good terms with the ISC so there is no reason to think we were trying to weasel out of anything.
 
SynchronizedWritersBlock said:
Your assertions are ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

As are yours. You have not countered mine or supported yours in any way. You talk about opportunity cost, ignoring that this is the opportunity cost of what you chose; this crisis, right here, is the cost of not having a constant reminder for Cardassia that the Federation has destroyed a third of their fleet before and can do it again. It is similarly the cost of the tags we have to overcome when dealing with people like the Ashidi, who doubt we would protect them from the Cardassians. Because we don't actually protect the member states from the Cardassians. We don't put ships on the border to parry a sudden thrust. We simply trust we can take things back eventually, after they've been wrecked.

When the GBZ Treaty was signed we knew the Cardassian reinforcements had come from just conquering another nation. Where was your outrage then? Why did we draw down, if it was so important to keep the Cardassians in check? As long as we maintained a fleet able to threaten them, they couldn't use their military for exactly this without risk. You come to your appreciation of containing them late, and insincerely.
 
Last edited:
Glassware said:
The ISC will contribute in the future because they know the Cardassians are a threat and they can't take them down alone. They're a pretty pragmatic bunch; they'll work with us because they know on their own they have no chance.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So... because they're pragmatic, breaking their trust in us and convincing them we're gutless and unreliable is a zero-cost exercise? That seems backwards.

If we don't intervene this time, and ask for their help next time, they'll be wondering "What if their fleet does assemble, but chickens out and leaves our ships in danger? What if their unreliable political system commits an insufficient fleet, and our ships suffer unnecessary losses because the commander on the spot tried to do too much with insufficient resources? What if, in short, we stick our necks out and get a nothingburger in return?"

And the ISC has a forever-tempting answer to that question, which is "Hey, let's go isolationist and turtle! Then we don't need anybody else!" If we want their help next time, we're going to have to make helping us more attractive than turtling, and I wouldn't bet on that actually happening.

Rhinohunter said:
Intervening means sending a fleet to war not intervening means sending a peace fleet if we vote for it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's not true. If one reads the posts by the QMs, one sees that that's not what 'intervene' and 'don't intervene' mean.

We've been specifically told that 'intervene' means 'send a fleet;' we have the option to not fight a war IF we want to not fight, though there will be grave costs for Starfleet's reputation if Cardassia calls our bluff and we decide not to fight.

We've been specifically told that 'do not intervene' means 'do not send a fleet.' As in, no fleet. It is not a weird way of saying "send a fleet but don't do any fighting." It means "don't send a fleet to deal with the invasion of Chrystovia."

That includes a "peace fleet," too. We might be able to wangle one or two ships as observers under 'do not intervene,' maybe. But nowhere near the number of ships we'd need to ensure the Cardassians can't just stop our ships from getting anywhere near Cardassian space. Or of their ability to do anything without constant disruptive Cardassian interference.

Also the statement that the ISC is calling us cowards is a blatant lie that was one HOH diplomate all we know about the ISC is there was lobbying for us to intervene please do not spread false info around.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Uh, no, Iron Wolf said explicitly in the "Chrystovia - Part II" post:

" When the Cardassians had declared war, the ISC were the first to reach out, stating that the Federation had to intervene. Anything less, in their eyes, was pure spineless appeasement, given their evaluation of Federation strength. The Harmony approached you a little later, just before the meeting with President Okaar. They were a little more circumspect, but they let their offer be known and clear. Now you needed to know the conditions of that agreement."

"Coward" may not be the exact word being used, but 'spineless' and 'coward' are pretty close, given that everyone involved is a vertebrate and all.

My advice is to stop calling people liars for saying things you don't see the evidence for, when you know you're new to the discussion and may have missed something.
 
Night said:
As are yours. You have not countered mine or supported yours in any way. You talk about opportunity cost, ignoring that this is the opportunity cost of what you chose; this crisis, right here, is the cost of not having a constant reminder for Cardassia that the Federation has destroyed a third of their fleet before and can do it again.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If we kept 40 ships on a border (or an equivalent proportion for the times), the Council would call us up and ask us what the fuck we were thinking. We'd be out the door within two quarters. The Council expects Starfleet's ships to be used in event response and in the missions they give us, and unless that mission is warfare (like it was in the GBZ), then we can't hover a warfleet around. There's a reasonable number of ships we could probably keep on a border, and it's true that it's several more than we currently have, but it's nowhere near the number of ships we need to threaten action in a major power vs major power crisis.
 
Last edited:
065tdsa said:
Look people have already explained this. Ships on peaceful missions won't be shot down, they'll just be barred from entering. Excuses excuses, "this area is dangerous" excuses excuses, "don't interfere from the labors of Cardassian Peacekeepers, you filthy Federation degenerate" excuses excuses.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

At least a faction of the people on the Doak-Neat are going to want to respond with "Stop us if you dare". In any case, unless you are the Breen it's probably pretty tough to stop a ship at warp without actually shooting them if they aren't willing to be intimidated.
 
brmj said:
unless you are the Breen it's probably pretty tough to stop a ship at warp without actually shooting them if they aren't willing to be intimidated.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

anon_user said:
Properly calibrated, a brace of photon torpedoes detonated in the right weak spots in subspace can cause a subspace rupture, dropping the warp field of any ship that passes through the rupture.

The tricky bit was, how do we get the dreadnought to cooperate and pass through the rupture?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Already quest canon that it's possible to drop a ship out of warp without directly shooting at the ship itself, so I wouldn't be so sure that that's the case.
There's probably other methods too, particularly on civilian vessels which have less robust warp drives.
 
anon_user said:
Already quest canon that it's possible to drop a ship out of warp without directly shooting at the ship itself, so I wouldn't be so sure that that's the case.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That was us SCIENCE-ing. The Cardassians might have more trouble, although to be fair, they've almost certainly worked on this particular problem because of the obvious tactical applications.

There's probably other methods too, particularly on civilian vessels which have less robust warp drives.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think it's fair to imagine both the possible outcome of the Cardassians stopping the ship, and of the Cardassians trying and failing to do so, personally.
 
Even if we win, the costs are going to be catastrophic and we'll be forced back on other fronts, like Corewards and with the Gorn and Ittick-ka. The sad truth is that we can help more people by not trying to help the Chrystovians here.

And there is a good chance of us not winning. The Federation right now is politically divided and that's not going to get much better. There simply will not be the political will for an all-out war with the Pact.

We have alot to lose and not much to gain, there's no point in this.
 
Random Member said:
Even if we win, the costs are going to be catastrophic and we'll be forced back on other fronts, like Corewards and with the Gorn and Ittick-ka. The sad truth is that we can help more people by not trying to help the Chrystovians here.

And there is a good chance of us not winning. The Federation right now is politically divided and that's not going to get much better. There simply will not be the political will for an all-out war with the Pact.

We have alot to lose and not much to gain, there's no point in this.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The cruel truth is that most of the people opposed to the war would be forced to fight no matter what. The Indorians and the STO will be contributing their full fleets on the defense, which is all we need from them. The Vulcans may not contribute much, but frankly if we're relying on Vulcan High Command to win this we're doomed. Their fleet is not particularly large, and we can Federalize parts of it anyways if we need to. This isn't like the Arcadian war where parts of the Federation were able to sit it out. The challenges are much greater, but the resources we can bring to bear are much more significant.
 
Glassware said:
At the cost of making us look like a dangerous bunch of interventionists to the various authoritarians we've been trying to negotiate into not conquering people,
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This is not a bad thing.

Glassware said:
The ISC will contribute in the future because they know the Cardassians are a threat and they can't take them down alone. They're a pretty pragmatic bunch; they'll work with us because they know on their own they have no chance.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The pragmatic people will back a nation that they haven't seen take decisive action in support of their ideals?
 
Mr Tebbs said:
This is not a bad thing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes, yes, giving the Gorn, Cardassians, and Klingons reason to unite in an anti-Federation axis is a good thing in your view, you've said. But some of us would like to not be in a state of continual war for the next decade.

Mr Tebbs said:
The pragmatic people will back a nation that they haven't seen take decisive action in support of their ideals?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What ideals are these? The Federation's ideals do not include being the galactic police for non-Federation states. In fact they specifically prohibit that...if the Chrystovians were affiliates you'd have a point, but we have no diplomatic agreements with them, nothing in their favor beyond that we prefer their form of government to the Cardassians. And we don't share the ISC's ethos of "if you're stronger than your enemy, shoot until he's dead or can't shoot back."
 
Last edited:
Mr Tebbs said:
This is not a bad thing.



The pragmatic people will back a nation that they haven't seen take decisive action in support of their ideals?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The pragmatic people will back us because there is no one better they can back. We might take a diplomatic hit with the ISC if we don't intervene, but we can come back from that far easier than from losing a massive part of our fleet in a war with the Pact and pissing of multiple other neighbors.
 
@.@

the ideal that a sovereign nation has the right to its own self determination. That is the foundation of the Federations' infinite diversity in infinite combinations philosophy
 
Mr Tebbs said:
@.@

the ideal that a sovereign nation has the right to its own self determination. That is the foundation of the Federations' infinite diversity in infinite combinations philosophy
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Oh, sorry, I must have missed when we declared war on the Laio and Licori for declaring war on the OSA and demanding they give up their sovereign right to try their own citizens. Or started shooting the Ittick-ka for having vassals. Or the ISC for what they've done to the Talarians. Or the Klingons for the half-dozen races they keep in bondage.

Looks like we've already violated that ideal pretty thoroughly. What else do you have?

Something that I think we've forgotten as we've become embroiled in this conflict with the Harmony-we want the various autocrats, the authoritarians, even the slavers to talk to us. Because so long as they're talking and not shooting, we're winning. Taking this decision will make it harder to talk to those people-and thereby harder to help their citizens, who didn't make the choice to be born into an oppressive regime.
 
Last edited:
Random Member said:
Why aren't we invading the Klingons to liberate their vassals then?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because we can't. We need a reason to go to war. A moral stance might let someone pick to choose [X] Intervene,but it won't manufscture the vote ex nihilo. If a vote to go to war to free the people under the romulans came up under similar circumstances, especially if it was the pre-wenlai romulans, I personally would have voted to take it. Its disingenous to call hypocrisy at people not voting for a result on a vote when that vote has literally never come up.
 
So what are the Federation's ideals anyway? Here is my understanding, from most important to less important.

1. IDIC. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination. The idea is that people with very different natures and outlooks on the universe can find a way to live and work together for a greater whole without giving up the things that make them unique.

Something I think people miss about our fights with the Harmony of Horizon is that the reason they piss us off so much is they don't believe in the Federation's highest value. They believe in conformity and making everyone live up to the same ideals and outlook. Now these may be fine ideals and outlooks, but their overriding desire is to take any species that join the HoH and grind them down until they're "in Harmony" with the rest. They don't believe in unique differences. This is a far bigger break with the Federation than being a democracy or not being a democracy. (I don't think that the Federation actually does hold democracy as a very high ideal.)

2. Peaceful Exploration. The Federation cares a lot about being able to travel and learn more about the universe. This can be physical journeys or exploration of science and the mind, but the Federation cares a lot for pushing back frontiers. The Federation hates stasis and refusal to change, even if it's due to being very satisfied with the status quo.

3. Respecting Others. What is referred to as "right to self determination" by @Mr Tebbs above. However, it's important to understand that this ideal is mixed up with a whole heft dose of backing off and not assuming we have all the answers. This is where the Prime Directive comes from as much as anything else, but it's broader than just pre-warp societies. Still, the Federation does hate to see one group oppressed by the other and that's where the urge for intervention comes from.


Stuff I don't think the Federation is as into as we assume:

1. Democracy. Some of the Federation's members are only kind of democratic. Betazed, for instance, is still largely run by the same old families. There's an insistence on a certain forms, sure, but the most important thing to the Federation is that the government respects its people and treats them well. This is easier in a democracy, but an autocracy that respected individual rights would be viewed more kindly than a democracy that doesn't.

That's why a lot of the time arguments about "they're a democracy too" seem to cut so little ice, I think. It's also maybe the source of some of the tolerance for Klingons, who might not live in a democracy but certainly aren't prone to letting their own government push them around too much.

2. Justice. I don't think the Federation is all that into trying to make the universe a just or fair place. I don't think justness and fairness are concepts the Federation spends a lot of time worrying about, even if individual Starfleet members might.


Those are some of my thoughts What do you think the Federation's ideals are?
 
Glassware said:
Something that I think we've forgotten as we've become embroiled in this conflict with the Harmony-we want the various autocrats, the authoritarians, even the slavers to talk to us. Because so long as they're talking and not shooting, we're winning. Taking this decision will make it harder to talk to those people-and thereby harder to help their citizens, who didn't make the choice to be born into an oppressive regime.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This. So long as we can diplomance them, we'll win because we can bring them to our side. If we intervene here, they'll be afraid that they'll be next. Kinda hard to bring them to the table then.

And no, showing them "overwhelming firepower" won't bring them to the table, if any of you had that idea, get it out of here.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top