this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2025
242 points (97.6% liked)
TenForward: Where Every Vulcan Knows Your Name
6288 readers
797 users here now
/c/TenForward: Your home-away-from-home for all things Star Trek!
Re-route power to the shields, emit a tachyon pulse through the deflector, and post all the nonsense you want. Within reason of course.
~ 1. No bigotry. This is a Star Trek community. Remember that diversity and coexistence are Star Trek values. Any post/comments that are racist, anti-LGBT, or generally "othering" of a group will result in removal/ban.
~ 2. Keep it civil. Disagreements will happen both on lore and preferences. That's okay! Just don't let it make you forget that the person you are talking to is also a person.
~ 3. Use spoiler tags.
Use spoiler tags in comments, and NSFW checkbox for posts.
This applies to any episodes that have dropped within 3 months prior of your posting. After that it's free game.
~ 4. Keep it Trek related. This one is kind of a gimme but keep as on topic as possible.
~ 5. Keep posts to a limit. We all love Star Trek stuff but 3-4 posts in an hour is plenty enough.
~ 6. Try to not repost. Mistakes happen, we get it! But try to not repost anything from within the past 1-2 months.
~ 7. No General AI Art. Posts of simple AI art do not 'inspire jamaharon'
~ 8. No Political Upheaval. Political commentary is allowed, but please keep discussions civil. Read here for our community's expectations.
Fun will now commence.
Sister Communities:
Want your community to be added to the sidebar? Just ask one of our mods!
Creator Resources:
Looking for a Star Trek screencap? (TrekCore)
Looking for the right Star Trek typeface/font for your meme? (Thank you @kellyaster for putting this together!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
well, Sisko didn't use a chemical weapon-- he released radiogenic particles (trilithium) into the upper atmosphere which irradiated the planet. he also provided the inhabitants ample time to escape its effects. it didn't make the air poisonous. technically, it was Eddington who used a biological weapon one the Cardassian planet which did make their air toxic, and Sisko was responding to that.
see, you're treating this like a black-and-white situation when it's all very morally gray. and I'm not arguing what Sisko did was right or moral-- I'm trying to say that you're trying to define a complex situation through the narrow lens of a legal technicality, and that we would need to know more about both Federation law and Sisko's intent and foreknowledge before making a judgement.
so: is what Sisko did a crime? probably. would the Federation technically consider it a war crime? I don't think we know enough about the circumstances to say.
Shit, my bad, I didn't realise that using a nuclear weapon instead was that much better for people when they would die from it. You're right, this COMPLETELY changes the situation, since it changes the type of weapon from a Weapon of Mass Destruction that turns a planet inhospitable to a Weapon of Mass Destruction that turns a planet inhospitable.
So... Sisko behaved with the same level of disregard for sentient life as a terrorist? Who is a bad guy that we need to chase down at all odds and do whatever we must to catch?
Not really. Attacking civilians is bad. If you're mad at Israel for bombing hospitals, bombing planets with nukes that would kill the civilian inhabitants is also bad.
Again, the federation is meant to be better than us. It's explicitly stated multiple times through TNG. Compare and contrast the shit Sisko gets up to and the speech he himself gives to eddington with Picard's speech about "the first duty of every starfleet officer..,"
he didn't use a nuclear weapon, either.
turning a planet inhospitable isn't the same as trying to kill all of the civilians living on that planet. and - yes - that does make a difference.
he didn't do that, either. he very well knew the maquis could easily evacuate, and knew they had a new planet to resettle afterward. and, before he fired the torpedos, he gave them every bit of warning.
nobody's arguing that here, and I've already stated - several times - that I agree.
but the argument is "is it a war crime?". and you really haven't made your case. I remain unconvinced.
is it a crime-- I already said that it probably is. should it be a war crime. probably. but is it a war crime? maybe, but I don't think we know enough to say. that's a question of Federation law, and we can't know the answer here.