ST TNG: Attached (episode) question!

Cafe Society
1

[QUOTE=Memory Alpha]
Dr. Crusher and Captain Picard are sharing breakfast. While Crusher tells Picard of the burgeoning romance between Nurse Alyssa Ogawa and Ensign Markson, Picard seems preoccupied. When confronted with his inattention, Picard confesses that he is, while not exactly worried, bothered by the idea of admitting half of Kesprytt III to the Federation while leaving half out. Crusher attempts to alleviate his concerns by pointing out that the Kes inhabit about three-quarters of the planet and present all the characteristics necessary for admission, even if the Prytt are xenophobic and wish to be left alone.** If Australia had refused to join the United Earth Government in 2150, Crusher asks Picard, should the Earth have been left out of the Federation? Picard is arguing that the cases are hardly analogous when he is interrupted by a communication from Commander Riker,** alerting him to the fact that Ambassador Mauric is awaiting them on the planet. Picard and Crusher leave for the transporter room, but not before Crusher promises a special Vulcan dish for the next morning’s breakfast.
[/QUOTE]

It’s on Space Canada right now, and I’ve always been at a loss as to how Picard was going to finish this sentence. How is that not analogous? If there was an Australian separatist movement that was successful, could Earth still be an effective member state in the Federation? What are your thoughts on this sci-fi hypothetical?

2

I don’t see that there’s any problem in either case - A functional government representing the majority of a planet should not be penalized because they have some folks who don’t want to play. In fact, I’d call it fairly liberal, and an encouraging sign of maturity, that the majority government allows an opt-out. Especially, in that the Prytt have a good reason to not play along.

Forcing either side of the equation (in the case of either planet) to adhere to the wishes of the other is only going to cause tensions that have no need to exist.

3

Well, it’s not analogous due to the fact that Earth was one of the founding worlds of the Federation - and generally portrayed as the only reason the other three founding worlds (Vulcan, Andoria, and Tellar Prime) could get along - so they couldn’t be disallowed to begin with - no United Earth, no Federation.

But, that aside, the way the question is phrased suggests the Aussies weren’t belligerent, just not keen on unification, and the United Earth Government seems to have been willing to accept that. The Prytt and Kes are belligerent toward each other. A world at war with itself - and full of paranoid conspiracy - would not be upholding the ideals of the Federation at home, and unable to uphold their responsibilities to the rest of the Federation at large. Whereas a world that holds two peaceful nations would be no different than two neighbouring worlds, save for it being easier for the two nations to trade and engage in diplomacy.

4

“It’s hardly analogous, Beverly, because nobody gives a toss for the filthy kangaroo-buggerers.”

5

LOL! Patrick Stewart’s one chance at an Emmy, right there.

6

No, no, it’s because the bleedin’ star ships fly overhead upside down! It’s a bloody insult, that’s what it is!

7

This. If nothing else, consider that the Federation is, among other things, a common defense arrangement. In a Federation of Planets, that primarily means naval defense - Starfleet is (functionally) the primary military force in the Federation, charged with ensuring safe commerce and communication between member worlds, and preventing invasion or raids by hostile powers.

The thing is, interstellar warfare is slow, even in the Star Trek universe. Travel between worlds commonly takes days or weeks. Assembling a fleet capable of projecting force across any significant distance is the project of months, if not years. All of which means that, with very rare exceptions, war cannot come quickly to the Federation. Yes, the Borg cube incursion was sudden, but that wasn’t really a conventional war. The Dominion invasion was a conventional war - and as we’d expect, it was a gradual process, with years passing between first contact and the outbreak of war, and the war itself developing over a period of years.

These are the wars Starfleet and the rest of the Federation defense apparatus are designed to fight - relatively predictable wars between great space-faring powers, waged over weeks, months, or years.

Compare that to the reality of war on a planetary surface. Right now, we can dispatch city-busting bombs to pretty much anywhere on Earth within an hour - it’s unlikely that the Prytt or Kes lack a similar capacity. Indeed, that’s probably precisely why the Kes haven’t been absorbed into the Prytt state - deterrence maintained by nuclear missiles, or similar weapons. Planetary wars start fast and are resolved fast, by Starfleet’s standards - which means that whatever defense arrangement they set up for Prytt has to be on much more a hair-trigger than anything they’re used to.

And it gets worse. As an independent nation, one assumes that Kes would be entitled to conduct its own foreign affairs. (Any alternative arrangement would probably provoke war, after all). What if Kes invites the Romulans to establish a base within its territory? Or the Breen? Now you’ve got Federation and Romulan (or Breen, or whoever) forces nose to nose on at least a semi-permanent basis. This isn’t a separation of several hours travel, or several days - at most, maybe there’s a buffer of a mile or two between the Prytt and Kes borders.

Kesprytt III could easily become the powder-keg of the Alpha Quadrant. Picard is quite right to want nothing to do with it, and I’m amazed the Federation Council would even consider offering either of the belligerant states membership.

8

“It’s hardly analogous, Beverly, since as you well know Australia suffered a massive surge in its rabbit population in 2152 and the entire continent was eaten.”

9

This was my first thought too. Who the fuck is in charge of screening the membership process? :smiley:

10

Data: “There was a young lady from Sidney,”
Picard: Data!
Data: “Who thought of her sex as a kidney,”
Picard: “That will be enough, Mr. Data!”

11

“It’s hardly analogous, Beverly, since as you well know the Australian population became extinct in 2156 after decades of dingos eating their babies.”

12

It’s hardly analogous because Australia hasn’t been at war with the rest of the world for a long time. (They are warring factions, right?) It’s also not analagous because Australians are human. Weren’t the two factions two different species?

13

No, just different nations. Both are Kesprytt. Why the species and planet name is a compound of the two nations, I don’t know.

14

i don’t think there’s any other reasonable answer than “yes beverly, you ignorant slut. it’s the united federation of PLANETS, with planet being the operative word here.”

15

Given that one of the founding worlds is a moon…not that reasonable.

16

That’s no moon!

(Sorry, had to be done.)

17

“It’s hardly analogous, Beverly, since as you well know the Australian population became extinct in 2156 after decades of listening to Dingos Ate My Baby.”

18

Yep. Other than convenience of plot, I thought it was bizarre that this planet would be consider at all as well. In fact, I think even having two opposed civilizations in the same solar system would be troublesome. Although, did this take place during any of the Dominion stuff? In Star Trek: Insurrection they mention the war causing a laxity in standards for Federation planet admission.

19

No, it aired the same week as Rules of Acquisition, the 7th episode of the second season of DS9, which is the season that ended with The Jem’Hadar, the episode that first introduced the Dominion. The actual war, proper, didn’t start until the fifth season.

20

The Dominion War is no time to be admitting planets that themselves are undergoing civil war.

It is, however, an excellent time to go hang out with immortal MILFs.