# Kobayashi Maru question (Star Trek II) **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 28, 2009, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kobayashi-maru-question-star-trek-ii/494590 "2009-04-28T04:03:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2009, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kobayashi-maru-question-star-trek-ii/494590/101 "2009-05-01T08:36:02Z")
> [@Shawn1767](#): > > As I was reading this thread and thinking about it, I thought of something that Hypno-Toad touched on. After the first semester they do this, it would be pretty pointless. I mean, I am sure word would get around Starfleet Academy “Oh hey, there’s this ‘no-win’ scenario thingy you have to be tested with.” Even if they changed the name and the scenario, candidates would be looking out for the “no-win” scenario during their tests. It would probably color their judgment and affect their performance. Every time they came up on a scenario, they’d probably be thinking “Hmm.. I wonder if this is that ‘no-win’ scenario all the previous candidates talk about?” I don’t think it would get around, not only because they would forbid the cadets to talk about it. But because this isn’t an US college with students looking to get good grades to pass and get a high-paying job. This is the federation, where citizens are grown-up and responsible and try to better themselves; and where people apply to Starfleet acadmey voluntarily. Also, this test is given to cadets in the last years, before they do become captains (it wouldn’t make sense to give it to first-years). So I really think that the cadets understand why this test is important, and learn the lessons from it. (Except for Kirk, who refused to do so.) They know that telling the younger cadets about the test would defeat the character-building part of the test, and they would understand why in the long run this would be bad for the younger cadets to miss such an important lesson. Besides, since there is no correct answer or solution, they couldn’t help the younger cadets cheat, anyway. They can tell that the action that they themselves took was wrong, but they don’t know the right one. (and if the computer changes the scenario based on the first decions to keep it unwinnable, then no action is right.) ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2009, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kobayashi-maru-question-star-trek-ii/494590/102 "2009-05-01T08:40:24Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Kirk isn’t perfect. He’s impetuous, doesn’t always follow orders, and jumps on just about any halfway-attractive alien woman. The problem is that the writers treat these flaws as strenghts. It’s obvious that the viewers are supposed to admire Kirk for lusting (and getting, as is implied) every alien babe. His impetousness turns out to save the day, because the writers bend the world for him, same with disobeying orders - it’s always presented as a good thing when he breaks the prime directive because the computer ruling the planet forbids kissing or similar. > [@](#): > > For all that, he’s the guy I’d want in command in a crisis, with Spock and McCoy to advise him. Not me, only if I know that the writers will bend the story to Kirks whim. In the real world, commanders like him are a big danger to the rest of the world. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2009, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kobayashi-maru-question-star-trek-ii/494590/103 "2009-05-01T08:49:48Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > Kirk did have a flaw–a genuine one that is germane to this discussion. Spock nailed it in the episode with Vaal; he blamed himself for the death of every crewman, even in cases when he (Kirk) was simply following orders and could not have anticipated the occurrence. He thought he should be able to handle EVERY possible contingency, that he should ALWAYS be in control; he couldn’t accept that there were no-win scenarios and that shit was inevitably going to happen. > > His refusal to accept defeat made him a better commander, it’s true, but it also made the job much harder for him. I was considering the sum of Kirk from all episodes, because single episodes contradict each other. E.g. - to contrast this with Wesleys fear of freezing in an emergency - in the episode with the deadly vampire cloud, Kirk was obsessed because as a Lieutent years earlier, he had delayed firing for a fraction of a second, and felt that had cause the death of his then-shipmates. Spock calmly states that a delay of a fright-second is normal for humans and not worth beating yourself up over it. (I think Spock missed the more obvious point about the cloud being unharmed by phaser fire, though.) Yet in a different episode, they deal with a guy who couldn’t become captain because i simulation he had hesitated for a fraction of a second, and “a captain must never hesitate” or similar. So the messages are sometimes contradictory. (Or Spock and McCoy say what they want in order to cheer people up even if it’s factually wrong). I never got the impression that Kirk was much affected by loosing crew members as people (esp. judging at the rate with which they went through the red-shirts), but that he didn’t like to loose to fate or the ep.s bad guy. But somebody who’s obsessed with winning can’t evaluate all chances equally, he’s blind on one side. Not wanting to accept that in real life there are no-win scenarios also means a very bad education about history to me. Somebody who never learned about the real causes and complex history, but only the myths of “us vs. them, we won”, or not mentioning the problematic issues. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2009, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kobayashi-maru-question-star-trek-ii/494590/104 "2009-05-01T14:21:30Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > That’s a justification for you to violate a treaty that the Klingons were keeping - because it’s too fragile to last, you don’t even have to try? I’m really glad you weren’t in any position to cause damage during the Cold War. :rolleyes: With all due respect, you don’t know anything about me. For the record, I was a U.S. submarine officer during the waning years of the Cold War, and was certainly in a position that could have caused “damage,” as you put it. Nevertheless, I was not responsible for any international incidents during my service. In any event, your attitude to the KM scenario is completely one-sided. You are very quick to ignore the distress call and abandon the KM to its fate, potentially leading to the loss of many lives. Such a response is morally reprehensible. An equivalent scenario in today’s world would be receiving a distress call from a sinking ship. If the tactical situation allowed, I would certainly respond to the call, even if it meant crossing into prohibited waters. Such a response would not reasonably be expected to result in hostilities, much less a war. Even in the KM scenario, it never states that the possible result would be “an interplanetary war,” only that your ship would be attacked. Space, like the ocean, is big. In most circumstances, you would not expect to be detected, much less attacked. > [@constanze](#): > > And mankind is very lucky that all those bloodhtirsty Russians were far more level-headed during different crisis (starting with the Cuba blockade and other events) when the US provoked them to not fire back. Oh, please. :rolleyes: The Soviets precipitated the whole crisis by stationing missiles 90 miles off our coast in the first place. I’d say the U.S. as well as the Soviets were both level-headed during the crisis. No hostilities were initiated by either side. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2009, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kobayashi-maru-question-star-trek-ii/494590/105 "2009-05-01T15:00:03Z")
> [@robby](#): > > :rolleyes: I was a U.S. submarine officer during the waning years of the Cold War, Cool. While I have you here…I toured the USS Razorback, once belonging to Turkey, now docked in the Arkansas River in North Little Rock, Arkansas. In the stern torpedo room is a mock up of a nuclear torpedo. You guys had these? Was the plan to fire it at whoever you were shadowing when the balloon went up and run like hell? Thanks and sorry for the hijack. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2009, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kobayashi-maru-question-star-trek-ii/494590/106 "2009-05-01T17:47:13Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > Cool. > While I have you here…I toured the USS Razorback, once belonging to Turkey, now docked in the Arkansas River in North Little Rock, Arkansas. In the stern torpedo room is a mock up of a nuclear torpedo. You guys had these? Was the plan to fire it at whoever you were shadowing when the balloon went up and run like hell? > > Thanks and sorry for the hijack. From [here](http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/navy/opnavinst/5721_1f.pdf): “It is the policy of the U.S. government to neither confirm nor deny the presence or absence of nuclear weapons at any general or specific location.” For modern attack submarines: “It is general U.S. policy not to deploy nuclear weapons aboard surface ships, naval aircraft, attack submarines, or guided missile submarines. However, we do not discuss the presence or absence of nuclear weapons aboard specific ships, submarines, or aircraft.” ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2009, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kobayashi-maru-question-star-trek-ii/494590/107 "2009-05-01T17:54:09Z")
> [@robby](#): > > “It is the policy of the U.S. government to neither confirm nor deny the presence or absence of nuclear weapons at any general or specific location.” Rats. Thanks! 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kobayashi-maru-question-star-trek-ii/494590.md?page=5)