Treaty Against Cloaking Devices

[The Romulan Republic]

Does the cloaked ship resemble a submarine if we compare it to a real navy?

Sam has it righter. Most importantly, a submarine is not a cloaked vessel, it is a mostly undetectable vessel which requires specialized weaponry to engage and can still engage you easily from it's superior defensive position. Cloaked ships are basically just ships using a bit of a gimmick, one that could easily backfire. A submarine is not defenseless by any means while under the water, while a cloaked vessel is nearly useless while cloaked--as their shields are down and weapons disabled.

Though to be strictly accurate, we have at least two examples in canon of cloaked ships that could and did fire while cloaked (the BOP in The Undiscovered Country, and the Scimitar in Nemesis). Would these be somewhat more of an analogy to submarines?

[Bounty]

Only in the sense that they are hard to find. They're closer to modern-day stealth planes or ships, hard to track and capable of sneaking past defences, but with invisibility as a bonus.

[Glom]

The Israel analogy doesn't work because there is no evidence to suggest the Vulcans have any sympathy to the Romulans at all and some evidence to suggest the opposite. The Romulans were the outcasts that refused to accept to teachings of Sarek, which brought peace to Vulcan. That's why the Romulans left Vulcan. They may also have been a tribe of Cylons, which only adds to the animosity.

[Darth Wong]

The Israel analogy doesn't work because there is no evidence to suggest the Vulcans have any sympathy to the Romulans at all and some evidence to suggest the opposite. The Romulans were the outcasts that refused to accept to teachings of Sarek, which brought peace to Vulcan. That's why the Romulans left Vulcan. They may also have been a tribe of Cylons, which only adds to the animosity.

You're missing the point; there is evidence, ie- the fact that the Romulans have been allowed to behave in spectacularly aggressive fashion without so much as a peep in retaliation from the Federation. Either they're insane or there is some special political resistance to an aggressive posture, and the Vulcans are the most logical source for this resistance. The only alternative is to say that they're insane.

[Darth Wong]

That wouldn't explain the Federation's incredible spinelessness in the face of repeated Romulan military crossings of the Neutral Zone and the attempted invasion of Vulcan. I think my Vulcan version of the US-Israel lobby is still the best explanation, short of simply assuming that 24th century men have no testicles.

The analogy is wrong because Israel is an ally of the US , not an enemy.

A more apt analogy would be the US granting billions of dollars in aid to Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other terrorist areas which are clearly anti-US in the name of political correctness ( or stupidity ? ).

Did you even grasp the point of the analogy at all?

[Glom]

You're missing the point; there is evidence, ie- the fact that the Romulans have been allowed to behave in spectacularly aggressive fashion without so much as a peep in retaliation from the Federation. Either they're insane or there is some special political resistance to an aggressive posture, and the Vulcans are the most logical source for this resistance. The only alternative is to say that they're insane.

You're getting into a circular argument. We clearly observe the Federation are pussies. You posulate the cause of this is a sympathetic Vulcan lobby. The original observation that the Federation are pussies cannot be used as evidence for the hypothesis.

What we need is evidence of Vulcans acting in a sympathetic fashion towards the Romulans, which we might extrapolate as evidence for a pro-Romulan Vulcan lobby. I suppose the closest would be 'Unification' where there was a clandestine attempt by Vulcans to invite the Romulans into a mutual political union.

I was thinking on the against side about when Odo and Kira were discussing the refusal of the Romulans to admit Vulcans to their hospital on a Bajoran moon in 'Image in the Sand' and they talked about a mutual mistrust for each other. Given that the latter is anecdotal opinion of two people who are particular involved in Vulcan politics, you could argue the former is stronger and makes the case for your hypothetical Vulcan lobby.

[Darth Wong]

You're getting into a circular argument.

How the hell is that "circular"? Do you even know what circular reasoning is?

We clearly observe the Federation are pussies. You posulate the cause of this is a sympathetic Vulcan lobby. The original observation that the Federation are pussies cannot be used as evidence for the hypothesis.

I see. You don't know what circular reasoning is at all. You seem to think that observation A cannot be used as evidence for hypothesis B because ... well, it just can't.

What we need is evidence of Vulcans acting in a sympathetic fashion towards the Romulans, which we might extrapolate as evidence for a pro-Romulan Vulcan lobby. I suppose the closest would be 'Unification' where there was a clandestine attempt by Vulcans to invite the Romulans into a mutual political union.

Wrong. You seem to think that the only form of permissible evidence for a hypothesis is direct observation. This is the same logic used by creationists to say that the only permissible evidence for primordial evolution is go back in time and watch it happen.

I was thinking on the against side about when Odo and Kira were discussing the refusal of the Romulans to admit Vulcans to their hospital on a Bajoran moon in 'Image in the Sand' and they talked about a mutual mistrust for each other. Given that the latter is anecdotal opinion of two people who are particular involved in Vulcan politics, you could argue the former is stronger and makes the case for your hypothetical Vulcan lobby.

Red-herring The fact that the Romulans act like assholes doesn't mean the Vulcans can't be irrationally predisposed to favour them. The Federation has gone beyond merely acting like "pussies" with regards to Romulus; they actually allowed a full-blown planetary invasion attempt to go by without repercussions of any kind!

[Solauren]

I've always assumed a timeline of events over the entire thing that went like this.

Balance of Terror (TOS Episode 9) Stardate 1709.2
What did happen; Romulan ship attacks Federation targets and eventually gets destroyed after a running fight with the Enteprise.

Assumed; The Romulan government claims it was a rogue action, but tensions mount somewhat.
The UFP begins moving assets in response to the damage inflicted by the Romulans, causing the Klingons to take advantage...

Errand of Mercy (Tos Episode 27) Stardate 3198.4
The Organian incident, peace is forced on the Klingons and Romulans.

Sometime before the next incident, the Romulans and Klingons form an alliance. This was a theory /point in the old Star Trek FASA books (at one time canon). It's evidenced by the Klingon cruisers forming the Romulan fleet in..
Also, what better way to circumvent the Organian treaty, then giving the Romulans, who have Cloaking Technology and Plasma Weapons.
The Klingons get Cloaking Technology, the Romulans get warp drive + warp capable warships.

This alarms the UFP, and in reponse...

The Enterprise Incident (TOS Episode 59) Stardate 5027.3
Kirk + crew steal a new Romulan Cloaking device. This heightens tensions even more between the Romulans and UFP, as well as the Romulan's Klingon allies. The UFP begins working on there own Cloaking Device.

During the time period leading up to the movies, the Klingons and Romulans break off relations.

Between the UFP and Romulans, escalation probably lead to a confrontation between the Romulans and the Federation (with the Klingons staying out of it). More then likely, it was caused by the Romulans wanting to keep Cloaking Technology out of UFP hands. After all, they already gave it to one space power that is now their enemy, a second wold be a big problem.

The Romulans lose the incident, and as during the Earth-Romulan war, sue for peace. A treaty is negotiated, and since the whole point of this was over cloaking technology, The UFP agrees not to further develop cloaking technology, or use it without consulting the Romulans first. They are, allowed, however, to develop counter-measures all they want. (Probably so the Romulans can get that technology to use against the Klingons).

Obviously, such a treaty prevented the use of Klingon built cloaking devices, but would have allowed the Defiant to have a cloaking device (the Romulans said; it's okay to use it against the Dominion)....

[Glom]

I see. You don't know what circular reasoning is at all. You seem to think that observation A cannot be used as evidence for hypothesis B because ... well, it just can't.

Your complaint is not unlike the Creationist logic for Creation.

It goes:
We observe the world. Observation A.
We hypothesise some unknown and unknowable intelligent entity created it through intelligent entity-onics. Hypothesis B.
Observation A may then be used as evidence for hypothesis B.

The whole point is we need an observation C, which is predicted by hypothesis B. That way the logic goes:
A implies B, which implies C. We observe C, therefore hypothesis B is good (until we find a better one of course).
Without that, the logic goes:
A implies B, which implies A. We observe A, therefore hypothesis B is good.

Wrong. You seem to think that the only form of permissible evidence for a hypothesis is direct observation. This is the same logic used by creationists to say that the only permissible evidence for primordial evolution is go back in time and watch it happen.

But we do have direct evidence for evolution. It's called the fossil record. Evolutionary biology aren't just pulling evolutionary theory out of their asses like Creationists do.

Besides, that's a bit rich coming from them. The people, who are trying to argue about Creation through some unknown and unknowable entity, are suggesting direct observation is necessary to determine the answer.

Red-herring The fact that the Romulans act like assholes doesn't mean the Vulcans can't be irrationally predisposed to favour them.

You missed my point about 'Image in the Sand'. I was referring to the dialogue between Odo and Kira, which suggested both the Vulcans and the Romulans had a mutual distrust of each other, not the particular Romulan act of dispassion itself. But as I said, that probably isn't as strong as evidence against your hypothesis as the 'Unification' example, which I only thought of later, is for your hypothesis. On balance, there is some some merit to it, though it's tough to infer anything about the politics of Federation. You know how poorly fleshed out the internals of the Trek universe were. You made that point on your main site about the militarisation of the Federation (the Federation is Communist page?) that the only person who could stop the coup by a Starfleet officer in 'Paradise Lost' was another Starfleet officer. That's more a result of the writers not bothering to think up a political system for Leyton to come up against. You'll notice the lack of any politicians other than the President. I mean where was the Home Secretary? Where were the elected representative?

The Federation has gone beyond merely acting like "pussies" with regards to Romulus; they actually allowed a full-blown planetary invasion attempt to go by without repercussions of any kind!

Really, really, REALLY spineless pussies?

[Patrick Degan]

In TNG, the Treaty of Algeron seemed to follow from events surrounding the Battle of Cheron, which was apparently a major Romulan defeat according to the defector Alidar Jharok and one the Romulans still had stuck in their craws ("The Defector").

Wasn't the Battle of Cheron a battle in the Earth/Romulan War in the late twenty second century, a century or two before the Treaty of Algeron?

It was never stated which conflict the battle was a part of.

[Bounty]

In TNG, the Treaty of Algeron seemed to follow from events surrounding the Battle of Cheron, which was apparently a major Romulan defeat according to the defector Alidar Jharok and one the Romulans still had stuck in their craws ("The Defector").

Wasn't the Battle of Cheron a battle in the Earth/Romulan War in the late twenty second century, a century or two before the Treaty of Algeron?

It was never stated which conflict the battle was a part of.

The TOS-era records in In A Mirror Darkly, Pt II mark it as the end of the Romulan War and a "humiliating defeat" for the Romulan Empire. Depending on whether you accept on-screen written records which are only visible in HD, of course.

As for the lack of reprisals against the Romulans for breaking the Treaty... who's going to carry them out? By TNG the Federation has just come out of a war with the Cardassians, a backwater power, which they never decisively finished. Are they going to attack the Romulans? Maybe they just take the Romulans' abuse because they know the alternative is an all-out war they won't win, not with the Klingons as unreliable allies at best and early TNG's lacklustre military?

[Darth Wong]

I see. You don't know what circular reasoning is at all. You seem to think that observation A cannot be used as evidence for hypothesis B because ... well, it just can't.

Your complaint is not unlike the Creationist logic for Creation.

It goes:
We observe the world. Observation A.
We hypothesise some unknown and unknowable intelligent entity created it through intelligent entity-onics. Hypothesis B.
Observation A may then be used as evidence for hypothesis B.

What the fuck is "unknown and unknowable" about the Vulcans? They're not an added term; they are known to exist, they are known to wield considerable power, and there is a known unification movement on both worlds. Are you trying to be deliberately dishonest here?

The whole point is we need an observation C, which is predicted by hypothesis B. That way the logic goes:
A implies B, which implies C. We observe C, therefore hypothesis B is good (until we find a better one of course).
Without that, the logic goes:
A implies B, which implies A. We observe A, therefore hypothesis B is good.

Wrong. The logic goes: B is a known quantity and can successfully explain A. Therefore, B is a reasonable hypothesis for A. You are misstating it in order to defend your idiotic claim that it constitutes circular logic.

Wrong. You seem to think that the only form of permissible evidence for a hypothesis is direct observation. This is the same logic used by creationists to say that the only permissible evidence for primordial evolution is go back in time and watch it happen.

But we do have direct evidence for evolution. It's called the fossil record. Evolutionary biology aren't just pulling evolutionary theory out of their asses like Creationists do.

The fossil record is evidence of evolution but it is NOT direct observation of evolution. You seem like the kind of person who could easily get his ass handed to him by a skilled creationist debater because you substitute confidence for accuracy.

You missed my point about 'Image in the Sand'. I was referring to the dialogue between Odo and Kira, which suggested both the Vulcans and the Romulans had a mutual distrust of each other, not the particular Romulan act of dispassion itself. But as I said, that probably isn't as strong as evidence against your hypothesis as the 'Unification' example, which I only thought of later, is for your hypothesis. On balance, there is some some merit to it, though it's tough to infer anything about the politics of Federation. You know how poorly fleshed out the internals of the Trek universe were. You made that point on your main site about the militarisation of the Federation (the Federation is Communist page?) that the only person who could stop the coup by a Starfleet officer in 'Paradise Lost' was another Starfleet officer. That's more a result of the writers not bothering to think up a political system for Leyton to come up against. You'll notice the lack of any politicians other than the President. I mean where was the Home Secretary? Where were the elected representative?

And yet, we know that the Vulcan idea of non-interference has been taken as such gospel by the Federation that they made it into their highest law, despite its obvious flaws and the fact that its leading starship captains find it almost impossible to consistently obey. They clearly wield considerable political influence on some level, even if the Federation is actually a military junta in disguise (even military juntas have internal politics).

Really, really, REALLY spineless pussies?

Why do you feel that this is necessarily superior to the Vulcan explanation, never mind your bizarre and indefensible claim that the Vulcan explanation constitutes circular reasoning?

[Glom]

What the fuck is "unknown and unknowable" about the Vulcans? They're not an added term; they are known to exist, they are known to wield considerable power, and there is a known unification movement on both worlds. Are you trying to be deliberately dishonest here?

Wrong. The logic goes: B is a known quantity and can successfully explain A. Therefore, B is a reasonable hypothesis for A. You are misstating it in order to defend your idiotic claim that it constitutes circular logic.

As I said, I didn't remember the events of 'Unification' until after my initial post. I was going off what I now see was a more tenuous bit of evidence that was contrary to that. From that initial position, you did appear to construct hypothesis about pro-Romulan Vulcans from thin air. If you were indeed thinking of 'Unification' when you made the post, then as you say, it is a known quantity, which could be used to such the postulated Vulcan lobby and everything does make sense.

The fossil record is evidence of evolution but it is NOT direct observation of evolution. You seem like the kind of person who could easily get his ass handed to him by a skilled creationist debater because you substitute confidence for accuracy.

Ok I get the distinction you raise. But I didn't see evidence direct or indirect for pro-Romulan Vulcans intially. Now I do, once I remembered 'Unification', hence we can see there is evidence for your postulated Vulcan lobby.

We can still come up with our hypotheses, can't we? Or even argue your alternative idea that the Federation government are idiots? We have lots of evidence for governments being idiots?

And yet, we know that the Vulcan idea of non-interference has been taken as such gospel by the Federation that they made it into their highest law, despite its obvious flaws and the fact that its leading starship captains find it almost impossible to consistently obey. They clearly wield considerable political influence on some level, even if the Federation is actually a military junta in disguise (even military juntas have internal politics).

I don't recall it being established that the Prime Directive was Vulcan born (Enterprise seems to want to contradict it, but we'll understandably dismiss that as non-canon/parallel universe/pretend we never saw it). Can you point out where this was implied?

Why do you feel that this is necessarily superior to the Vulcan explanation, never mind your bizarre and indefensible claim that the Vulcan explanation constitutes circular reasoning?

Okay... I won't try to make irreverent comments anymore.

[seanrobertson]

In TNG, the Treaty of Algeron seemed to follow from events surrounding the Battle of Cheron, which was apparently a major Romulan defeat according to the defector Alidar Jharok and one the Romulans still had stuck in their craws ("The Defector").

Even if we consider the barely legible text from "In a Mirror Darkly" of dubious value, the Tomed Incident's a better fit. In "The Neutral Zone," we're told there'd been no contact with the Romulans since the Tomed Incident, 53 years earlier -- 2311.

Later, in "The Pegasus," Adm. Pressman remarks that the Algeron Treaty had tied the Federation's hands for "sixty years," which corresponds to 2311.

That aside, my guess is the folks writing "The Defector" forgot the name "Tomed" and mistakenly used Cheron. It did make more sense for the Romulans to fume over a decades-old defeat than something that happened two hundred years prior, but there ya go

[seanrobertson]

*snip*

And yes, I know that this requires the Vulcans to be quite irrational about their tribal loyalties, just as American Jews go to absurd lengths to defend America's "take it up the ass" relationship with Israel. But I've made my opinion clear on Vulcan "logic" in the past; it is just a word they use, and not an actual principle they follow, other than to reject emotionalism (which is not the same as embracing logic).

I like the explanation. Vulcans and Romulans have warred in the distant past (one -- and perhaps, the only -- conflict supposedly lasted 100 years, per "Death Wish"), but that doesn't mean modern Vulcans don't have a soft spot for Romulans. Since Vulcans regard Surak's teachings as quasi-religious stuff, one might suggest Vulcans' affinity for the Romulans stems not only from a wish to reunify with, but also reindoctrinate, the latter ... bringing the heathens back into the fold, so to speak.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

To use a different (and I would say better) analogy, it seems more like the relationship between Russia and America today. Russia has violated the airspace and sovereignty of multiple United States allies, asserts its own belligerence and strength, and deals flamboyantly with America's diplomatic "enemies", and yet suffers effectively no reprisals from the US. The Federation may simply refuse to engage because they don't want to provoke a potentially devastating war between the great powers, and beyond that there are simply few options available. They have managed, through diplomacy and skullduggery, to prevent any major conflict from brewing and even to bring Romulus in as an ally on multiple occasions, so this might simply be their working strategy. After all, we don't actually know what the consequences of the Empire's attempt to conquer Vulcan was - merely that it failed miserably, like most Romulan plots do, and they haven't tried it again. For all we know other channels of the Federation did get the chance to twist a few green-blooded arms.

[Setzer]

It may be that the loss of the entire Romulan invasion force intended for Vulcan was seen as a firm enough blow against the Romulans. The UFP higher ups simply decided "They lost the whole force. That'll teach them." I'm sure by Federation standards, killing an entire ground army as opposed to taking prisoners is seen as a very harsh measure. After all, O'Brien had traumatic memories of killing an enemy as opposed to just stunning him.

[Samuel]

It may be that the loss of the entire Romulan invasion force intended for Vulcan was seen as a firm enough blow against the Romulans. The UFP higher ups simply decided "They lost the whole force. That'll teach them." I'm sure by Federation standards, killing an entire ground army as opposed to taking prisoners is seen as a very harsh measure. After all, O'Brien had traumatic memories of killing an enemy as opposed to just stunning him.

Uh, the Romulans killed their troops rather then let them be captured, not the Federation.

[Setzer]

It's the same outcome from a strategic standpoint. A Romulan invasion force is annihilated. It's clearly a major force, by their standards anyway. The UFP probably concluded the Romulans had learned their lesson, and that they wouldn't need to concern themselves with another such invasion.

[Samuel]

It's the same outcome from a strategic standpoint. A Romulan invasion force is annihilated. It's clearly a major force, by their standards anyway. The UFP probably concluded the Romulans had learned their lesson, and that they wouldn't need to concern themselves with another such invasion.

I've been on cruiseliners with more people. 2000 is NOT alot of people.

[Kitsune]

I've been on cruiseliners with more people. 2000 is NOT alot of people.

In almost every American Civil War course or program I have ever been exposed to which give an overview, they talk about the massive casualties. Battles which they call modest casualties are considered blood baths by today's standards. It could be the same basic situation.

[Samuel]

I've been on cruiseliners with more people. 2000 is NOT alot of people.

In almost every American Civil War course or program I have ever been exposed to which give an overview, they talk about the massive casualties. Battles which they call modest casualties are considered blood baths by today's standards. It could be the same basic situation.

Over half a million is hardly modest- by American standards it was the bloodiest war in American history.

Not to mention this is the future. They should much larger populations than we have now.

[Setzer]

America has a much larger population then it did in the Civil War, but we've grown less tolerant of casualties. I think the UFP is the same way. Just because they can afford huge casualties in wartime doesn't mean they have the will to suffer them.

[Kitsune]

What I was stating was the individual battles, not the whole war, may have had modest casualties by the standard of the day. If that happened today, it would be classified a blood bath. That when the US population was quite a bit smaller that today. What can be considered a "Blood Bath" can be a moving target (downwards in numbers killed) even when populations increase. The Federation might have considered 2000 casualties to be a lot. It is in the mind of the groups involved.

[Lord Sander]

The Vulcan pro-Romulus lobby does make more sense of Ambassador Nanclus' presence during conversations he shouldn't be hearing in ST:TUC. A bit.