ivylass, what’s the point of a spoiler box when you don’t specify what book you’re spoiling?
Anyway, that strikes me as wrong. Starfleet officers’ JOB is to put themselves in jeopardy to protect the lives of civilians. Not recklessly–there’s no point in doing so when it’s clear that intervention will get them killed without helping the civilian–but if they have to choose between saving their own lives and saving civilian lives, their duty is clearly to sacrifice themselves.
Which, of course, is why having children on the Enterprise-D is stupid.
Because I don’t remember the title, but I didn’t want to give away what the book considered the trick to winning the KM scenario.
It reminds me of when Troi was going for her commander promotion. She kept failing the last part of the test, when the ship was in danger and nothing she or the crew could do could save it. Riker finally told her to let it go, she wasn’t ever going to get it. She fumes in her quarters, then realizes what she has to do.
She sends Holodeck Geordi into the conduit to fix whatever it was, knowing he would get a lethal dose of radiation and die. That was the test…could you sacrifice a member of the crew to save the ship?
Either way, by now, some many years “later,” we understand that computers are only as smart or ethical as the dorks who program them. The only chance Kirk had was to outsmart the computer and, as the problem was described, that meant he had to reprogram it.
FTR, despite how hot she appeared in that Federation uniform, that was the last time I found Kirstie Alley unbearably attractive. I tried, but there was no residual hotness.
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?”
Word would probably leak out, I agree, but I expect the cadets who undergo the test would be under oath and subject to the Federation equivalent of the Official Secrets Act not to blab about it.
Continuity neglect or not, it’s still a great novel. I’m going to go dig it out of the bookshelves in the spare room and give it another read. Thanks for the reminder!
No research project necessary–all you need to do is ask.
I was a U.S. Navy submarine officer. I ran many, many simulations and drills during my training and throughout my career, covering everything from simulated combat to fires to flooding to reactor accidents.
During a couple of my oral examinations, I did get some no-win scenarios. For example: uncontrolled flooding in the engine room. I went through all of the proper immediate actions (e.g. emergency blow on the forward ballast tanks, followed by emergency blow on the aft ballast tanks, emergency back full on the main engines, etc., etc. etc.) In the scenario, the submarine continued to flood, and continued to sink. The last bit of discussion revolved around the emergency beacon that would be automatically deployed once the hull imploded.
That’s the Kirk lesson. Other commanders took other lessons away from it. Such as Saavik: she learned not to beat herself up after making tough decisions. That lesson came after the actual simulation, but she wouldn’t have learned it so quickly if she hadn’t gone through the KM scenario. And Wesley in his simulation in TNG learned that he can make tough decisions under fire. What you get out of it is basically self-knowledge that will (hopefully) make you a better commander.
Leaders have to make the best decision possible with the available information. The Federation commander does not know that the Kobayashi Maru is a decoy ship. In any event, I don’t know the intricacies of the Neutral Zone treaty, but the whole scenario seems a bit forced to me.
Responding to an emergency distress call is a valid reason to cross a proscribed boundary. If it turned out to be a trap, what did the Klingons have to gain from this? Surely an alert, well-armed Federation warship could take out at least one of the Klingon ships before being destroyed, so it’s not like the Klingons would come out unscathed.
If a single Federation ship is so vulnerable, maybe Federation doctrine should be changed, and they should travel in battle groups.
So in short, I would not ignore the distress call. I would:
[ol][li]Send a message to Federation HQ outlining the situation.[/li][li]Man battle stations and raise shields for maximum defensive capability.[/li][li]Enter the Neutral Zone to attempt the rescue.[/li][*]Be on the alert for Klingon warships. If surprised by them (as the scenario dictates), attempt to negotiate, and, failing that, fire on them first if any aggressive moves were made (e.g. charging weapons, etc.)[/ol]
*Wouldn’t the Neutral Zone treaties cover ships in distress that drift into the zone? I would think that there would be a clause in there allowing rescue missions in that case.
*In the KM simulation, have communications between the rescue ship and the Federation been cut off? I would think most people would contact the Federation as soon as they got the distress call from the KM. What do they say to the students when they radio in, “It’s your call”?
