• @HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    58 months ago

    …And yet, the Enterprise is armed. If power does not come from the ability to effectively use violence, but from some other means, then why would the Federation arm it’s flagship?

    • @LoamImprovement@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      68 months ago

      Devil’s advocate, but parts of the Trek universe have shown that there are non- or quasi-sentient creatures capable of endangering starships like the Enterprise, in addition to the usual spacefaring hazards like asteroid belts and debris fields, and the potential to encounter, for lack of a better term, space pirates. It makes sense to arm the ship for a number of reasons not necessarily related to the power of coercion via the threat of violence. The Enterprise’s weapons are also frequently outclassed by other ships of similar size designed for combat. It feels more akin to packing bear spray or a noisemaker to scare off wildlife, and the bear spray gets used to drive off a robber.

      That said, the threat of violence against a better-armed foe in order to prevent combat is a trope the shows rely on frequently, so you have a point.

      • @HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        28 months ago

        Aside from an episode of Strange New Worlds (and possible in Wrath of Khan, depending on your perspective), space pirates aren’t brought up as a risk to the Federation starships, presumably because they usually aren’t. Shields alone should be sufficient for debris and asteroids, since shields appear to stop physical objects as well as certain forms of energy (obvs. not certain bands of light though, or whatever bands their sensors use). Non- and quasi-sentient species shouldn’t pose any risk to a starship at all (aside from possibly omniscient comets, thank you Stanislaw Lem). The weapons on a starship are appropriate to direct against planetary settlements, bases, and other starships.

        Fundamentally, I believe Mao was correct on this; the ability to use violence effectively is the lowest common denominator for all power. Everything else is a veneer of civility intended to disguise the violence that is inherent to all forms of coercive rule.