To: trekcreative{at}yahoogroups.com
From: "ronwaldyo "

Reply-To: trekcreative{at}yahoogroups.com

Jay,

> Okay.  Who benefits from the Oceana class?

Those who see the Borg as the primary threat to the Federation and those
who fear another Dominion type threat.  They see the Oceana class as the
way to deal with those threats. Indirectly, Federation citizens benefit if
other powers when confronted with the Oceana class decide a conflict is not
in their best interests.

> Is there anyone speaking for the "Smaller is
> better" methodology as embodied by
> the USS Providence?

Yes.  Admiral Fergus Simmons in the Dark Horizon storyline is the strongest
proponent of the "Smaller is better" ship designs.  Also, a
number of those in StarFleet think a large ship that reeks of
"Battlecruiser" puts forth an image of the Federation that they
feel is incompatible with its history of peaceful exploration.  In the
story so far, Admiral Angela Morris and Admiral Sanol have been the most
vocal adherents of this position.

> In your view of Trek which one is closer
> to being "Right" (In so far as such
> things can be "right" or "wrong")

In some ways I think Trek as it has been presented in the various shows and
movies has been extremely naive.  There will always be threats that cannot
be negotiated with, but only fought against.

The question then becomes, in the face of such threats, "Do we
sacrifice who we are and who we're trying to be to ensure our own
survival?"

This is not always an easy question.  To put it in terms of today's world,
its a bit like the debate now going on in the United States concerning
"preemptive" attacks against enemies which might use weapons of
such devastating impact that allowing someone to take the first shot is not
a viable choice.  Americans want to believe that we don't take the first
shot, that we don't start wars, but do we allow ourselves to suffer through
a 20 megaton blast killing 10 million people?

I tend to take the side of survival at the expense of self-image, BUT...
and that's a very BIG BUT... this can become a very slippery slope that can
lead a people and its government to become something so horrific that the
survival they desire cannot be tolerated by others. Nazi Germany was a
clear example of this.  Hitler led his people down a hole that started with
a desire to protect themselves from outside threats and to regain their
place in the world.  But in the end they became a twisted and clearly evil
society that the rest of the world could not allow to continue.

I do not think there are any simple answers to this question.  Its
something governments and their people have to struggle with. That's why I
decided to present it as a problem facing the United Federation of Planets
in the Dark Horizon storyline.

-Michael Gray
Star Trek: Dark Horizon
http://hometown.aol.com/darkhrzn91701/main.htm


-+- In trekcreative{at}yahoogroups.com, "Hailey, Jay"  wrote:
> > The reasons have less to do with the reality the
> > Federation finds itself in than it does with
> > perceptions
>
> Okay.  Who benefits from the Oceana class?
>
> Is there anyone speaking for the "Smaller is better" methodology as
embodied by
> the USS Providence?
>
> In your view of Trek which one is closer to being "Right" (In so
far as such
> things can be "right" or "wrong")
>
> Jay ~Meow!~


Star Trek; The E-mail Commands

Post message: trekcreative{at}yahoogroups.com Subscribe:
trekcreative-subscribe{at}yahoogroups.com Unsubscribe:
trekcreative-unsubscribe{at}yahoogroups.com List owner:
trekcreative-owner{at}yahoogroups.com Get Digest:
trekcreative-digest{at}yahoogroups.com Web only: 
trekcreative-nomail{at}yahoogroups.com Normal: trekcreative-normal{at}egroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- BBBS/NT v4.00 MP