[Silynn]

I’ve recently completed the “A Time to Kill” and “A Time to Heal” by David Mack, the 7th and 8th novels in the series.

Wonderfully written and very captivating (hard to put down!).

In any case, in reflecting and pondering what I have absorbed… something stirred in me that I have a hard time to understand. Well, ‘understand’ may be the wrong word… perhaps ‘grasp’.

Jean-Luc Picard is an above board and epitome of a Starship Captain. He is a sound and inspirational leader beyond and doubt. Yet, something gnawed on me during an event that occurred in the 8th book (“A Time to Heal”).

His passion for non-lethal means actually contributed to numerous deaths among his crew and other Starfleet personnel. Had this been Kirk, Archer, or even Sisko (I’m not sure about Janeway)… I feel that those many deaths would and possibly be avoided.

The situation I am referring to is the climax of the story. The “insurgents” launch a massive global and orbital offensive, catching Starfleet virtually off-guard. In orbit, the insurgents pursue and attempt kamikaze-style attacks on the Enterprise using small spacecraft/shuttles. On the ground, Starfleet security personnel are pinned down by insurgents and close to being overrun.

At this juncture, Picard prohibits his Tactical’s officer (Peart) request to open fire with phasers on the swarm of kamikaze craft attacking them. Up until this point, the Enterprise has just been maneuvering to avoid them. Picard does not want to inflict any loss of life on the insurgents. Either though, the for past month, the insurgents have shown no remorse about inflicting loss of life on civilians, aid-workers, and of course Starfleet personnel. No remorse whatsoever. Peart was receiving and hearing all of the 'request for help' from his own friends down on the planet. Yet without being able to deal with these kamikazes (which he said would take less than 30 seconds), he was unable to do anything but listen to his friend's comsignals go blank.

Picard has Peart, his Tactical officer, enact their back-up plan of using the deflector to cause non-lethal pulse damage to the ‘kamikazes’ swarming them. However, that plan will take five to eight minutes to reconfigure/prepare.

Thus, during those minutes countless Starfleet, Federation Aid workers, civilians, etc lives are lost due to the Enterprise unable to emergency beam out / transport injured or trapped personnel. Nor bring to bear its orbital phaser strikes to stun entire city blocks where insurgents were located.

I do admit that Jean-Luc Picard is noble and passionate about saving lives. But I at this one moment, I have to wonder if the ends justify. I mean he cares deeply about his crew and feels each of their loses… but on the same token, he could have avoided these losses by inflicting losses on kamikaze insurgent attackers (ones who were already willing to die).

I even believe, though it wasn’t mentioned, that those kamikaze attackers who were captured would just be turned over to the planetary government, who in turn, would just execute them for their crimes against their own people. In likely a more painful matter than being vaporized by a starship’s phaser beam array.

I do admire Jean-Luc Picard greatly… but this situation, I found myself wondering if his principles were too high resulting in deaths among his crew that didn’t need to die, needlessly.

Kirk would have blasted the kamikaze shuttles without hesitation. I think Archer would have pondered it like Picard, but he would have authorized limited lethal force. Sisko as well.

I am interested to hear others think, as this kind of has me… baffled.

[Christopher Halsey]

It has been a while since I read the book but I don't actually remember that much loss of life at that point, I think I recall a runabout getting shot down but since Data had anticipated such a tactic being used the Enterprise was well prepared and managed to deal with the situation quite quickly.

I think the reason why they were trying to limit the loss of life was because Tezwa was a neutral planet, the Federation is generally shown to not be particularly aggressive and there are certain things they won't do in a war. Since there was no formal war on Tezwa and the insurgents by not belonging to a recognised government were essentially civilians I suspect Picard would have had his hands tied to some extent as to how much force could be used especially since the Tezwan ships were no match for any of the starships in orbit.

The Federation would also have wanted to avoid any contraversy as it would likely have drawn unwelcome attention to the conflict which might lead to someone discovering that they had secretly been arming the previous regime which is one of the reasons the Federation went to such lengths to get involved in what was to be a Klingon matter. The amount of aid sent to the planet and help with re-building was also probably to keep the new regime happy so they would not reveal the Federation's actions which would have likely resulted in a war with the Klingons.

Ultimately a few Starfleet officers dying would be seen as an acceptable price to pay over what would have happened if the Federation's secret had got out.

[kriiszz]

... I'll have to read the book but it seems from your summary that captain Picard felt as though the Enterprise was not required to open fire due to the fact that it was so much stronger then the other vessels. Nevertheless, strength in numbers.

I'll have to read this book now

[Silynn]

It has been a while since I read the book but I don't actually remember that much loss of life at that point, I think I recall a runabout getting shot down but since Data had anticipated such a tactic being used the Enterprise was well prepared and managed to deal with the situation quite quickly.

The Runabout that was detailed in the shootdown/crash/desperate ground battle was one of many. The only 2 survivors of this was on Scott Fillion (Spec Ops washout, dedicated but has a problem with speaking his mind) and Ensign Fiona McEwan (Part of Taurik's team for the nadon-pulse raid). In any event, both were wounded, still fighting, and desperately calling for help from Enterprise (beam out). There were others desperate calls from other starfleet crew that LT Jim Peart (currently at Tactical on the Enterprise) had to received... and tell them no help can come. In the end, Fillion went down after a few hits and McEwan knew that the insurgents would likely torture them... so she armed a grenade and blew herself and Fillion up. It was a sad moment and the feelings that Peart had knowing his friends were likely gone... it was a tough passage.

Christine Vale also saw the desperate situation at the Starfleet Ground Command center. Though, she knew better to expect support once hearing the Enterprise's situation, she is not one to sit idle (and die in a basement). Thus she led a valiant but costly charge to the enemy buildings.

Data's part, was that as Acting First Officer, he pressed the crew to run all sort of Battle Drills. One of which clicked with the Gamma shift Tactical officer who reacted perfectly due to training. This basically, saved the Enterprise, but it still suffered some damage.

I think the reason why they were trying to limit the loss of life was because Tezwa was a neutral planet, the Federation is generally shown to not be particularly aggressive and there are certain things they won't do in a war. Since there was no formal war on Tezwa and the insurgents by not belonging to a recognised government were essentially civilians I suspect Picard would have had his hands tied to some extent as to how much force could be used especially since the Tezwan ships were no match for any of the starships in orbit.

An excellent point. I do recall Picard feeling/knowing that the Enterprise could have easily swat the two dozen or so kamikaze shuttles in a blink of an eye. But it had vowed, in his own way, to not cause any loss of life to his enemies. Only to subdue them.

The Federation seems to "turn the other cheek" a lot, in the name of peace. Though, I would think that Picard wouldn't view the insurgents as civilians as he allowed Vale to wage a counter-insurgency against them. As strictly principled that Picard is... you have to admire him. He certainly knew his crew were being slaughtered on the planet.

I wonder if that Demonship / Rashanar incident had a part in Picard's unwillingness to use lethal force. In that situation, Data had implored Picard to fire. Picard didn't hesitate and did so... saving the ship, but causing the ensuing chaos afterwards. This time, nearly a year later, his Tactical Officer was asking permission to fire in order to save the lives of injured/trapped crew. There is a strong psychological argument there.

The Federation would also have wanted to avoid any contraversy as it would likely have drawn unwelcome attention to the conflict which might lead to someone discovering that they had secretly been arming the previous regime which is one of the reasons the Federation went to such lengths to get involved in what was to be a Klingon matter. The amount of aid sent to the planet and help with re-building was also probably to keep the new regime happy so they would not reveal the Federation's actions which would have likely resulted in a war with the Klingons.

Entirely true. Though, everyone knows the only true way to cover-up a secret is if they were no longer able to disclose it (like Zife, his aid, and Quafina). Cover-ups are always a mess. As I'm learning in the last book of the series.

Nevertheless, when it comes to life-death situation... authorities/soldiers are usually allowed to use force. I would have thought that Peart wouldn't use quantum torpedoes on the insurgent shuttles, but using phasers to try to disable (which is what he suggested to Picard) was in the realm of reasonable force. Some shuttles may experience hull breeches or their reactors may rupture... but most would survive. Yet, I feel that Picard had zero tolerance for death among his enemies.

Ultimately a few Starfleet officers dying would be seen as an acceptable price to pay over what would have happened if the Federation's secret had got out.

It was more than a few. In the end, Peart reflected on the dead, many his friends. He even stated the dead in the temporary morgues/cargo bays vastly outnumbered the living on the Enterprise.

I guess I understood Jim Peart's position. The author, David Mack, did extremely well in getting you to empathize with Peart. He agreed to keep the secret, but in the next moment turned in his rank pips to Picard... effectively resigning from 15-17 years in Starfleet. He couldn't perform his duty to a lie anymore.

Vale even said, perhaps it was in the previous Delta Sigma chapters, that her security officers died not for the crazy people. But out of duty. They sacrificed themselves in the name of duty... in the name of what they believed Starfleet and Federation stood for.

Pretty heavy stuff to really ponder.

Next time I beam onto a planet in STO and I see a bunch of Crimto's running around my objective... perhaps I should just leave? heh.

[Silynn]

... I'll have to read the book but it seems from your summary that captain Picard felt as though the Enterprise was not required to open fire due to the fact that it was so much stronger then the other vessels. Nevertheless, strength in numbers.

I'll have to read this book now

"A Time to..." is truly an excellent novel series. (Thanks Chris!)

Very true, the Enterprise could have easily taken out the threat... but it was the lose of life (even those of very very bad men) that was not acceptable.

Basically, I'm just trying to understand how Picard's principles appear to cost his crew their lives. As many have paid that price for it. Or that I'm coming from a completely wrong perspective and need to view the situation from another's eyes.

[Christopher Halsey]

Picard has ordered people to their deaths on more than one occasion, it is one of those things that comes with the job, whilst I don't think that makes it easy for him to do ultimately as Starfleet officers those casualties 'all knew the risks' and had signed up to put their lives in jeopardy to help others. Whilst that doesn't make it a good thing to have so many of them killed someone that knew what they were getting in to and died for a good cause has to be viewed slightly differently to say civilians getting killed in their place.

I remember reading a piece that Jeremy Clarkson wrote for a newspaper about a visit of his to Afghanistan. He was in a British plane or helicopter and the Taliban fired a rocket at them which they were able to avoid he admitted that part of him wanted to see the crew retaliate and take action against the group that had minutes ago tried to kill them all but the crew refused to fire back as they were under strict orders that they could not engage enemy forces that did not represent an active threat and since they had already fired off the only weapon capable of shooting them down at that range they were no longer a threat.

Having seemingly crazy rules of engagement is not a new thing especially when you are on the technically superior and 'good' side. Because the Enterprise was more than capable of dealing with the enemy forces without any risk of life to the ship or the crew onboard it makes sense that it could not have been seen as justified to use lethal force when it wasn't required.

I think the fight in orbit had to be seen as a seperate event to the battle on the ground, Picard had to resolve the first before he could move on to the second but his response to the first incident still had to be proportional to that incident, if he could use non-lethal force without putting the crew of the Enterprise at risk he most likely would not have been able to justify using lethal force to speed things up so he could go and deal with another issue. It isn't a perfect comparison but if you imagine the Police dealing with a group of protestors and then getting called to an armed bank robbery, the Police wouldn't been seen as justified by shooting the protestors and then going to the bank robbery to save the lives there.

[kriiszz]

"A Time to..." is truly an excellent novel series. (Thanks Chris!)

Very true, the Enterprise could have easily taken out the threat... but it was the lose of life (even those of very very bad men) that was not acceptable.

Basically, I'm just trying to understand how Picard's principles appear to cost his crew their lives. As many have paid that price for it. Or that I'm coming from a completely wrong perspective and need to view the situation from another's eyes.

There is no right or wrong perspective. But i agree, it is Picards responsibility to protect his ship and the lives it holds ABOVE every thing else. And yes now im going to go buy the novel(s)

[Christopher Halsey]

But i agree, it is Picards responsibility to protect his ship and the lives it holds ABOVE every thing else.

Not too sure I entirely agree with the duty to protect his crew being above that of anything else. If that were the case Star Trek would be pretty boring "We can't go down to that planet there might be Romulans there! RUN AWAY!"

As Starfleet Officers the crew are willing to put themselves at risk to help others, if Picard put their safety as his top priority then they wouldn't be able to take risks to save others, whilst obviously keeping his crew safe is a big priority I don't think it is the main one, to do what he reasonable can do to minimise the risk to his crew whilst carrying out their duties is one thing but to have the safety of the crew as his main objective I just don't think is compatible with the job role.

[kriiszz]

Not too sure I entirely agree with the duty to protect his crew being above that of anything else. If that were the case Star Trek would be pretty boring "We can't go down to that planet there might be Romulans there! RUN AWAY!"

As Starfleet Officers the crew are willing to put themselves at risk to help others, if Picard put their safety as his top priority then they wouldn't be able to take risks to save others, whilst obviously keeping his crew safe is a big priority I don't think it is the main one, to do what he reasonable can do to minimise the risk to his crew whilst carrying out their duties is one thing but to have the safety of the crew as his main objective I just don't think is compatible with the job role.

:O you have a point. I should of worded it better. What i meant to say, was that the safety of his crew, is higher then any attacking ship or enemy. As in he should be firing on vessels that are attacking and pose an immanent threat to his ship. So basically, fire when fired upon, and if its them or you; chose to destroy them.

[Silynn]

Picard has ordered people to their deaths on more than one occasion, it is one of those things that comes with the job, whilst I don't think that makes it easy for him to do ultimately as Starfleet officers those casualties 'all knew the risks' and had signed up to put their lives in jeopardy to help others. Whilst that doesn't make it a good thing to have so many of them killed someone that knew what they were getting in to and died for a good cause has to be viewed slightly differently to say civilians getting killed in their place.

I went back and read a few passages from that book and the previous ones. Basically ones around Delta Sigma and Terzwa regarding Picard’s (and Vale’s) thoughts on the losses of those under them. And what you say in the above is spot on. Those Starfleet officers knew the dangers yet still risked their lives as they believed in Starfleet and it’s mission.

Quite honestly, I think the vast amount of Starfleet casualties from the Enterprise in the previous books likely skewed my perspective a lot. I kind of got into the relative unknown Ensigns or Lieutenants as they provided a fresh outlook at the Star Trek universe. Then seeing their sacrifice, you just… kind of feel for them, especially when there were ways to actually save them.

I remember reading a piece that Jeremy Clarkson wrote for a newspaper about a visit of his to Afghanistan. He was in a British plane or helicopter and the Taliban fired a rocket at them which they were able to avoid he admitted that part of him wanted to see the crew retaliate and take action against the group that had minutes ago tried to kill them all but the crew refused to fire back as they were under strict orders that they could not engage enemy forces that did not represent an active threat and since they had already fired off the only weapon capable of shooting them down at that range they were no longer a threat.

Interesting. The noble and principled path to walk… most especially when your opposition does not play by those rules or worse, takes advantage of you because of it.

Having seemingly crazy rules of engagement is not a new thing especially when you are on the technically superior and 'good' side. Because the Enterprise was more than capable of dealing with the enemy forces without any risk of life to the ship or the crew onboard it makes sense that it could not have been seen as justified to use lethal force when it wasn't required.

Yes, I can honestly see this now. It also reminds me of ALL the moments some enemy which Picard and his crew faced had always bad-mouthed the Federation. Calling it weak and viewing them as ‘cowards’ as they have no stomach for blood or only seek to ‘negotiate’.

Starfleet pays for their noble ways with the blood of their own, instead of the blood of their enemies.

I think the fight in orbit had to be seen as a seperate event to the battle on the ground, Picard had to resolve the first before he could move on to the second but his response to the first incident still had to be proportional to that incident, if he could use non-lethal force without putting the crew of the Enterprise at risk he most likely would not have been able to justify using lethal force to speed things up so he could go and deal with another issue. It isn't a perfect comparison but if you imagine the Police dealing with a group of protestors and then getting called to an armed bank robbery, the Police wouldn't been seen as justified by shooting the protestors and then going to the bank robbery to save the lives there.

Yes, you are probably right in that. Picard was not ignorant of what was happening on the ground. He knew his people were being attacked and killed. But he was justified in that he had to resolve putting his ship out of danger before lending aid to the hard-pressed personnel on the planet.

And your comparison is totally understood. The bank robbers likely killed a few hostages, but the police did the right thing by not adding to the bodycount with their own hands.

[Silynn]

As Starfleet Officers the crew are willing to put themselves at risk to help others, if Picard put their safety as his top priority then they wouldn't be able to take risks to save others, whilst obviously keeping his crew safe is a big priority I don't think it is the main one, to do what he reasonable can do to minimise the risk to his crew whilst carrying out their duties is one thing but to have the safety of the crew as his main objective I just don't think is compatible with the job role.

I wonder if in STO (the game), if you could lose your bridge officers in battle or on an away team... how 'cavalier' would we be in rushing into the 'thick of things'?

But what you said is pretty much hitting the nail on the head. What is reasonable to minimize casualties among his crew while carrying out his duties/orders. I do recall that he had disagreements with some Admirals as they did not view the lives of their subordinates very highly. Using them to just further their own goals/wishes without caring about the cost in blood.

There are likely several examples in history about military commanders for both examples.

[Dave Harper]

erm couldent he just of disabled the kamikazies with the phasers and then stunned blew up whatever the ones planetside???

last i checked just because a kamikaze vessel has explosives,unless even the impulse drives and thrusters and such were rigged to overload> he could of just imoblized themand they stunned the groundside force<which apparently ship based phasers are capable of doing with no modification> his first duty is to his shp and crew.. frankly loss of life or not there a threat id deal with them<kamikazies>acordingly

[Christopher Halsey]

I wonder if in STO (the game), if you could lose your bridge officers in battle or on an away team... how 'cavalier' would we be in rushing into the 'thick of things'?

I would probably be more likely to send them in to dangerous situations easy enough to replace.

[Joey199202]

Well what i have to say is trying to beam those people out could have been more hazardous to the ship because you have to lower shield for transport and if one of those shuttles hit the ship while the sields are down immagine the damage it could inflict causing more loss of life

[Christopher Halsey]

Well what i have to say is trying to beam those people out could have been more hazardous to the ship because you have to lower shield for transport and if one of those shuttles hit the ship while the sields are down immagine the damage it could inflict causing more loss of life

I'm not sure whether or not the Enterprise was in transporter range at the time but that certainly is a risk to consider.