Starfleet's Prime Directive: Keep or trash?

Cafe Society
1

Imagine, if you will, that the usual space-time anomaly has dumped you in the Star Trek universe (the “original,” not the JJ Abrams continuity) a few years before the launch of of the Enterprise-D. You become good buddies with a certain English-accented Frenchman, and he gets you a job on board when he gets a new field command. Using your knowledge of the series and basic common sense, you’re able to prevent the massacre at Wolf 359, the worst of the Federation’s losses during the Dominion War, and most importantly Kathryn Janeway’s promotion to captain. Eventually you take a gig as a civilian consultant to Starfleet, chairing a committee on General Order – whether to keep it as it stands, reform it extensively, or trash it entirely.

What changes, if any, do you try to put forward?

2

Dunno why you’d have to trash it - the well-established precedent is you can ignore it without consequences if you make a pretty speech or two.

But, yeah, I’d ditch it in favour of laws regulating contact with prewarp cultures, akin to environmental protection regulations.

3

Trash it unless you’re actually going to show consequences for breaking it.

4

I am going to say, look are skippers break it all the time anyhow, lets end the embarrassment and bin it. And frankly, a Captain who needs such rules and cannot be trusted to execute his own judgement has no business being in command of a Starship.
By the way, am I permitted to demote Riker to Latrine Cleaners Assitant, Third Class, the fifth time he refuses command?

5

First order of business would be to recommend Janeway to promotion of Captain. :smiley: I loved her! Get her a better series, while we’re at it.

As far as the Prime Directive goes, I like it. But I agree it shouldn’t be super inflexible. I think the idea that it can be broken it certain narrow situations is great, and should be left up to Captain’s discretion, but that if the Captain cannot convince the bureaucracy that it was absolutely necessary, he might face consequences, demotion, etc.

Putting a hard and fast limit on the Prime Directive is not optimal, but neither is trashing it.

So I guess I’m voting for status quo?

6

Have Janeway executed at once! Along with every member of the to-be crew. Take no chances - kill their families too, unto the third generation.

Keep the Prime Directive. It provides “moral cover” to whatever Star Fleet wants to do, and it gives Command a ready-made bucket to hang around the neck of someone who fucks up and gets caught.

7

Keep the Prime directive. Any captain that violates it gets demoted and transferred to Janeway’s command.

8

So what do you to to Janeway herself when she violates it?

Note that I didn’t say “if”.

9

Agreed. It’s a good moral ideal, but the (hellish) demands of realpolitik will force us to compromise it now and then.

10

Keep it, and keep the existing demonstrated consequences. Which is that if you have a good enough reason, you’re fine. Just a light grilling with some lemon sauce, nothing to worry about. Obviously doesn’t affect your career prospects unless you really mess up.

11

The actual Prime Directive reads:

“It is absolutely forbidden to interfere with a culture’s development.*”

*Unless it would be inconvenient not to do so.

12

IN all seriousness, I’m not enough of a geek to know what it is precisely. So, err - what does it actually say, do, or require? I never got more than the vague notion you are joking about, so I don’t really know if the problem is the rule, the application, or the people applying it.

13

In all honesty, I find this to be paternalistic and patronizing. Maybe they should *ask *these people whether they want their culture interfered with, you know? Don’t they get a choice on the matter?

14

It appears to me there is no real simple canonical quotable prime directive that can be applied across the whole Star Trek franchise.

Part of something or other says there are 47 suborders for example.

15

Pre-warp cultures - watch from afar. Period.
Post-warp cultures - it is not interference, it is diplomacy.

What bugged me about ToS especially was their assumption that people from the stars coming down was not interference. If aliens beamed down to the White House tomorrow it would totally change everything - whether or not the aliens responded to getting arrested for chewing gum in Singapore.

16

What’s wrong with changing everything?

17

I think the Prime Directive is a good directive.

In the Kirk era all violation of TPD must have been reviewed by a board of retired Starfleet captains. Guidelines were developed as cases came in.

By the time Piccard got the keys to the mother of all ships, the whole process was probably dominated by lawyers.
Can’t talk to a girl on an exploding planet? Yeah, you wouldn’t want to interfere with their chance for front row seats to seeing the core of their planet being exposed for the first time ever.

But some how the prime directive was used even worse by captain Archer, who lived in a time before it even existed.

18

I’d replace it with a new doctrine, “What Would Kirk Do”. In any given situation, the ranking individual on scene would be tasked with determining WWKD, and acting accordingly. Granted, this may pose some difficulty for female officers, and could lead to a rather large number of human/alien hybrid offspring, but such is the price of progress.

19

Kirk: Bones, there has to be a cure for Chekov’s space herpes.
McCoy: I’m just a country doctor Jim, not an expert on inter-species venereal diseases!
Kirk: Actually, if you check your medical logs on me . . .

CMC fnord!

20

I agree, but if there are situations when it’s permissible to break it, then it can’t really be the Prime Directive - because it’s subject to another rule.

So I agree, but it should maybe be renamed The Prime Suggestion.