Does Star Trek Actually Believe in the Chain of Command?

[@kentwobits]

"The claim 'I was only following orders' has been used to justify too many tragedies in our history. Starfleet doesn't want officers who will blindly follow orders without analyzing the situation."

[@VelocityTheory]

Also from that episode, data:. "Mr. Hobson! You will carry out my orders or I will relieve you of duty!". One of my favorite Data lines.. really great moments both Picard's reaction and Data's chain of command issues on the USS Southerland.

[@Robocopnik]

@@KnightRaymund Right? The Prime Directive is just pure cowardice, they're just afraid of being guilty.

[@IronWarhorsesFun]

UNLESS YOU DISGRACED THE UNIFORM!!!

[@augiegirl1]

That quote continues with, ”Your actions were appropriate for the circumstances, & I have noted that in your record.”

[@j.m.w.5064]

But that is exactly how a hierarchical chain of command works. The notion instilled by hollywood that everbody in the military can always second guess their orders because they are the good guys - is childish and does not work. And you are only ever promoted when you show that you can follow orders. It is not about being good or bad. It is about a huge apparatus where the individual does not have enough insight to make those decisions and even if so the people giving orders have to keep their authority. If that makes you uncomfortable - just like me - don't stay in the military. OR - if Star Trek command acknowledges that breaking the Prime Directive is alright from time to time - they would just change the directive. What we are shown is just a trope about cool guys always going rogue.

[@jenflipz1424]

From Offspring: "There are times, sir, when men of good conscience cannot blindly follow orders. You acknowledge their sentience, but you ignore their personal liberties and freedom. Order a man to hand his child over to the state? Not while I am his captain." Data is totally ready to hand his kid over to admiral antagonist until Picard offers that pearl of wisdom.

[@theoges]

"No uniform, no orders!" "Dude, I was on the holodeck when red alert went off" "Well maybe you should go back and give those orders to your secretary, Dick Tracey" "....it's Dixon Hill" *shuffles back to the holodeck*

[@matthewschafer9440]

😂. As funny as that concept is, I think Riker was speaking metaphorically. Picard is not just ignoring orders, he’s effectively abandoning his command, going AWOL, stealing a ship and equipment, and ready to actively fight against Starfleet’s side (even if due to corruption). In that moment he’s acting as an individual and not under any authority granted to him as a Captain. By “taking off his uniform”, and going rogue, he also loses the right to give orders to his crew. He can’t have it both ways. Riker is merely pointing this out in a clever way. The scene also shows the consequences of violating the chain of command. If the Captain is going to violate orders and do whatever he wants, then so can anyone else. He’s not really in a position to complain.

[@JimmyNotes]

I love the fact that you point out that Kirk and crew don't know that Spock is going to be ressurected. That everything they did was simply to honor Spock in death and heal McCoy. I don't think a lot of people realize this when they watch the movie.

[@DrewLSsix]

The movie, from its title on has the feel of a series of set pieces designed to get us to a oint. That point being Spock. Its a good film in that its enjoyable, but one a newly minted film major might have a field day tearing apart for all its technical flaws.

[@trekjudas]

Trek is weird. It believes in an authority but it also understands that too much belief in authority can lead to people believing that elections are invalid unless your side wins!

[@screamingtongue]

I worry about people having the opposite interpretation of the spiel at the end. I 100% agree with Steve and what he was going for, but if you take "our institutions aren't entitled to our trust and faith" way out of context, I could see people using that kind of reasoning to justify attacking the electoral process and the end result that came about this year.

[@corey2232]

Yet those SAME people also believe they need to have an arsenal of guns to protect themselves from that exact authority -_-

[@trekjudas]

@@screamingtongue authoritarians thinking they’re rebels is weird as HELL!!

[@screamingtongue]

@@trekjudas I know, it's bizarre, but it's the narrative Trump has more or less succeeded in painting for himself, at least among his core followers.

[@DrewLSsix]

@@corey2232 the same people who fly the blue stripe while bragging about how man cops they'll kill when they come for their guns?

[@boriszakharin3189]

By the "no uniform, no orders" line Riker meant that Picard was not acting as a Starfleet officer, defying orders, so he was not in any position to give orders to others.

[@JonasGreenFethr]

This 'Trek Actually' reminds me of a few Picard quotes from 2 TNG episodes: "Redemption (part 2)" When Data 'turns himself in' because he disobeyed Picard's order, the capt. says: "However, the claim 'I was only following orders' has been used to justify too many tragedies in our history. Starfleet doesn't want officers who will blindly follow orders without analyzing the situation." And in the "The Offspring" After Data is ordered to turn over Lal by Admiral Haftel, Picard responds to the threat of losing his command and career: "There are times, sir, when men of good conscience cannot blindly follow orders. You acknowledge their sentience, but you ignore their personal liberties and freedom. Order a man to hand his child over to the state? Not while I am his captain." Both of these instances, and the examples that you gave, show the type of moral character these (fictional) men and women have. Because it's a TV show about pretend space adventures, what the stories reflect and promote are the ideals of the writers, and their suggestion of the type of person they find heroic.Star Trek has always been about being better than you were yesterday. In my head canon, I'm sure there are 'men of lesser conscience' who blindly follow orders and have perfectly fine careers in Star Fleet; who are liked by their peers, respected by their superiors, and idolized my their subordinates; who lose no sleep at night in the actions they take. But, Star Trek isn't about those characters because those aren't the ideals the creators encourage us to live up to. "Our" Star Trek is about doing the right thing regardless of the outcome. Mark Twain said it best: ""Each must decide for himself or herself alone what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn’t. You cannot shirk this and be a man, to decide it against your convictions is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor. It is traitorous both against yourself and your country. (...)When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move. Your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth and tell the whole world: “No, you move.”" And it works out fine for our heroes, because it wouldn't be much of a show if everybody was always getting fired and replaced by new folks willing to toe-the-line,... like in real life.

[@kaitlyn__L]

@@ohauss sooo well put!

[@brynpookc1127]

@Oliver H Excellent comment! Well said! And thanks for the great Roddenberry quote.

[@Kameth]

Given how often Starfleet personnel disobey orders and Starfleet in general seems chill with it, I wonder if they have allowed disobedience built in, similar to how the German military has. It would make sense for independent exploratory vessels operating away from Federation space to be more flexible... or if you know you have an endemic 'evil admiral' problem. Or another option is that their record keeping is absolutely dire, which would also explain why no one talks about Borg encountered a century earlier, the mycelium network, or what happened last season.

[@arklestudios]

I got the vibe that enforcement of regulations was left up to the captain's discretion, especially on long-term missions. Hence why we see some captains not giving two shits about officers sleeping together as long as the relationship doesn't effect the running of ship operations, while others (though usually only single-episode captains, not our main heroes) will reprimand people for just holding hands during a time when pretty much nothing is happening.

[@123ricardo210]

I agree with this view. The Netherlands has something similar as well (a lot of countries have in some manner). Starfleet would know that sometimes orders don't make sense anymore given the quickly changing contexts in space, so they allow some disobedience as long as people make those decisions in good faith.

[@pufthemajicdragon]

That bad record-keeping theory, now that's got some merit.

[@rmsgrey]

In the tall ships era, which is what a lot of Star Trek writers base their ideas on, despite the existence of subspace radio making things look a lot more like the 20th century (TOS in particular had a lot of Cold War in the background), in that era, when the fastest way to get messages to and from a ship's captain (or an admiral if you've sent a fleet) was to send a fast ship, and the message turnaround had a timescale of weeks to months, local authorities had a lot of autonomy, simply because you often couldn't afford to wait a couple of months for a question about your orders to be sent, received, read, debated, and finally replied to. In the actual situation in Star Trek, when you do have real-time communication with your superiors except under special circumstances (Voyager), you can be expected to check in before violating orders in all but the direst of emergencies, so the leeway for overriding your orders on the grounds that the situation has changed is much less.

[@alanpennie8013]

It's an interesting question whether Starfleet themselves are aware of The Evil Admiral problem. Of course in Nu Trek TV The Evil Admiral has been replaced by The Douchey Admiral Who Does Have A Good Case.

[@chrissetti1390]

Perhaps Starfleet operates on a version of the German military's principle that soldiers are not only allowed, but obligated to disobey any order they feel would violate human dignity. That would explain several instances of insubordination, including Amok Time and Insurrection.

[@sandordugalin8951]

As an unspoken rule, that would give the Federation plausible deniability when being pressured by other governments to do less-than-moral things. If they can rely on their individual captains and crew to "take one for the team" and disobey orders to do the right thing, the Federation as a whole doesn't lose footing on the international stage. "Gee Cardassia, we sure tried to relocate those indiginous populations for you, but goshdarnit, our rambunctious little Enterprise messed it all up again. Sorry!"

[@guywithdacap4713]

See, you made a small but important mistake when you said "... to disobey any order they FEEL would violate human dignity". You will be charged for insubordination and you have to PROVE that your own human dignity or of somebody else was violated. It is a very small back door for a citizen army like the bundeswehr. It can hardly be used outside of human rights violations and they are really rare in germany. I don't want to fill you up with military decrees and reasons for judgements but I can tell you that it is mostly imposible to do in a court case. As a short rule, you can't disobey orders except they are clear human rights violations.

[@benjrivera21]

Must be a more recently regarded principle.

[@kirkdarling4120]

@@guywithdacap4713 That sounds rather similar to the US situation. The US military operates under a Law of Armed Conflict which is the regulatory application of the Geneva Conventions. A soldier is obligated to disobey any order that violates the Law of Armed Conflict. But in the same way, he will be charged with insubordination and his defense is to prove that he was given an order that was in violation of the LOAC.

[@jadelsb]

When discussing Starfleet's quasi-military status, I always try to remember when the show was first created. Roddenberry flew in the Army Air Force during WWII, and based Starfleet on that command structure. Also, given that the show started in 1965, many of its adult male viewers (arguably it's target audience) would have been 40-something veterans. Shows such as Star Trek must have felt relatable. But Roddenberry shows the military through his optimistic view of the future, where the military is there to fight when needed, but is mainly humanitarian in nature. An honorable vision of the future, indeed.

[@DoctorProph3t]

It’s a pretty standard attitude in the Australian military. You’re encouraged to follow your superiors orders because you have a trust that they’re following the greater rules at heart, ROE and the like, not because they’re your superior. Aussie soldiers are obligated to refuse orders they cannot fulfil safely or legally, Ive read this from refusing to fire on a target that may have civilians, to refusing to unload a freight container because it was placed on the dock in an unsafe manner and it was against oh&s. My sergeant pretty much quoted Picard, saying the ADF doesn’t want blind tin soldiers, they want mindful, active, considerate, intelligent people who can assess every situation independently and carry out the job as professionally and cleanly as possible. Obv this isn’t always the case... *coughAfghanFilescough*

[@DoctorProph3t]

However I’d like to add the “special forces elite” self centred warrior culture can burn in whatever hellforge it spawned from and the operations commanders that ordered those civilian murders should be tried in a military tribune and hung for war crimes.

[@pearl-may]

For the "Star Fleet is the Military" side: In Star Trek II, Carol Marcus protests Star Fleet intrusion by reminding the brainslugged Chekhov that Genesis is a civilian project. David Marcus calls Star Fleet "the military" multiple times, and while Carol does dispute David's claim that scientists are always pawns of the military - she doesn't dispute that Star Fleet *is* the military.

[@davebeattie9573]

From my own experience with the British Army, I have noticed that there is a difference between the understanding of what being a member of a hierarchical organization means to those who serve in one and those who don't. For many they have a belief that members of such organizations simply follow any order that they are given by someone of a senior rank. To them the idea is that service personnel "are required to follow all orders". The way I try to explain it is that service personnel "are required to follow all LAWFUL orders". Lawful being the key word here. In the British Army, for example, a soldier can question any order if they believe that it violates legal or moral codes. However questioning orders is never taken lightly and the one doing so would almost invariably have to justify their actions, or lack there of. Example... In 1980 my dad, who was with 1ADFA (1st Armoured Division Field Ambulance) at the time, was ordered by his C.O. to take an armoured ambulance to the nearest town and "acquire" medical supplies. My dad and 2 others did just that. Once in town my dad had the FV432 driver reverse into the front of a pharmacists shop and then all three proceeded to load the vehicle with all the medical supplies they could get their hands on. My dad then affixed a note to the counter and left. Under normal conditions this would constitute a crime or crimes, however neither my dad, any of the men with him, nor his C.O. faced any disciplinary or legal action. The reason for this was that it happened during a major NATO exercise, Crusader, and the order was deemed lawful. The note my dad had left identified himself as the one responsible and that it was carried out as part of the exercise, and the British and West German authorities wrote it all off as justifiable exercise damage. Note that Crusader was cut short by about 2 weeks due to being excessively over budget.

[@davebeattie9573]

@@MinesAGuinness Sorry for the late reply. As for why the order was lawful has to do with how West Germany treated the military threat from the Warsaw Pact. All military exercises were treated as if they were the real thing. As a result otherwise criminal actions, so long as an exercise incident report was filed, were treated as acceptable. There was no military tribunal, no effort by any British service personnel, or British government personnel to bypass civilian laws. Had my dad not left his details then it would have been a crime. The incident, and for that matter all similar incidents in Crusader and all other exercises, were always investigated by the GCP (German Civil Police), and had any criminal actions occurred, those responsible would have faced criminal prosecution. Persons affected by military actions occurring during military exercises were, where possible, compensated for their trouble, and where not possible their relatives would be the ones to be compensated. Because of how the West German government ran their country at the time, no laws were broken, because the incident occurred during a military exercise, in accordance with how the government determined what was acceptable. Yes, under other circumstances what my dad did would have been a crime, but under the circumstances no crimes were committed and hence the order and actions carried out in response to them were lawful. The point of the anecdote is to demonstrate that a lawful order can sometimes require you to do things that would ordinarily be unacceptable. A few more examples from military exercises in West Germany. Ordinarily under West German law, it is an offense to enter and damage agricultural areas like wheat fields etc. It's a crime to do so resulting in a criminal prosecution, yet in a military exercise military forces can enter and damage such areas, provided that the rules concerning exercise damage is adhered to. Millions of DM (Deutsche Marks) of damage to agriculture occurred during Crusader. This damage was caused by members from all participating forces. No military personnel involved faced criminal charges despite it normally being a criminal offense. Ordinarily under West German law, military vehicles had to abide by normal laws of the road. In military exercises however, military vehicles had absolute priority on roads. In one incident a German woman attempted to cut across the path of an armoured column in her car. She was unsuccessful, and her vehicle was crushed by a tank, and she was killed as a result. The column did not stop. The GCP investigation theorised that she thought that as she would have ordinarily had priority that the column would stop for her. No members of the column faced criminal or civil proceedings. Note that this incident was observed by members of the GCP at the time it occurred.

[@RedCaio]

"I don't take orders from people _wearing_ pajamas. You wanna boss me around? You go put on a uniform that _looks_ like pajamas" Best thing I've ever heard. I love it. Bravo.

[@chriswalls546]

"You know what the 'Chain of Command' is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with till you understand who's in ruttin' command here." --Jayne

[@danielmaher9512]

If ever there was a time we needed a Jayne quote, it was for this one.

[@poppyshock]

You can’t change that by gettin’ all… bendy. .. You got the light from the… console to keep you… lift you up… shine like- {starts grabbing at the air} little angels. ~Also Jayne

[@Philbert-s2c]

@@poppyshock "Did he just go crazy and pass out?"-Wash

[@Davis_237]

"Yeah, well if wishes were horses, we'd all be eat'n steak right now!"

[@wdrewjr]

You missed an example of Picard openly defying an admiral to his face. Season 3 "The Offspring" Data creates a child, Lal. Starfleet believes that she should be at HQ to better be studied. Adm Haftel, who has come to take her, Orders Data to comply, which he is about to, when Picard stops him. Haftel repeates the order, only to be defied again by Picard, who orders Data to sit down. Then Picard speaks : Captain Jean-Luc Picard : There are times, sir, when men of good conscience cannot blindly follow orders. You acknowledge their sentience, but you ignore their personal liberties and freedom. Order a man to hand his child over to the state? Not while I am his captain.

[@a-blivvy-yus]

To be fair, this is technically Picard *RESPECTING* the chain of command, not defying it. An admiral shouldn't be ordering one of Picard's crew members to do *ANYTHING.* He should be ordering *PICARD* to pass that order down to his subordinate instead, and as long as he doesn't take that step, PIcard is actually just enforcing the proper chain of command.

[@andrewhussey4538]

I was just going to post that specific episode lol :) one of my personal favorite quotes by the man.

[@DrewLSsix]

@@a-blivvy-yus and he might have tried that, and Picard would have had to lean on it likely being an illegal order.

[@alanpennie8013]

@@a-blivvy-yus That's a good point.

[@InvictusByz]

It seems to me that Star Trek believes the chain of command should exist, and be questioned through its entire existence. I'd even say Star Trek is distinctly in favor of the chain of command. But its more than that, they specifically believe in having a healthy and functional relationship between that chain and the actual people it governs, while acknowledging that sometimes you do have to step out of it.

[@DarthFlauschi]

I think I speak for everyone here: Your recaps are better than the episodes/movies

[@FOertel]

Argh, mentioning Michael Burnhams disobedience reminds me about all the "It's her fault that there is a war with the klingons"-shit and the fact that neither In-Universe nor fans ever seem to notice that she couldnt go trough with it and the war happened just as she feared by doing nothing... ... My brain always rants when I think about it... even if it hasnt anything to do with the topic :D :D :D PS: Great video as always

[@Seal0626]

Yes - she was scapegoated! The Klingons were going to start that war no matter what, but if they hadn't been, then her plan might have helped!

[@dreadelectric7745]

I often wonder if something was left out or some kind of editing was done in that season opener because blaming MB is weird when the Klingons were already there and spoiling for a fight.

[@kaitlyn__L]

Same lol, I was saying that so hard in the first episodes of Discovery. The only rationalisation I had was that her going over and killing T'Kuvma was the actual inciting incident they refer to, stretching out the war instead of a brief battle, but that's undermined by T'Kuvma saying that he wanted a big war anyway! But it could be argued the other Houses didn't want to go along with him until a Starfleet officer beams over and shoots him (even though he killed her Captain first). But it's certainly not as cut and dried as people make it out to be. The hater-fans really really keep pushing that button and it's frustrating.

[@vampirefrompluto9788]

I'm so happy to find others who agree that Burnham was justified in her actions!

[@DrewLSsix]

@@dreadelectric7745 was she overtly blamed for the war or was she blamed for her mutiny? She may have been blamed by the crew for the captins death also. I know a few mostly random people mention her being at fault but I didn't gather that anyone directly involved thought that.

[@technotrousers381]

It's taken me Spock knows how long to notice the majestic portrait of Riker behind the screen. Glorious

[@jonathanharms4351]

I think Lower Decks would be a great addendum to this conversation - one of the biggest themes of the first season (the relationship between Boimler and Mariner) is all about following orders. Is it important? Does following orders simply mean a set of shitty promotions up the ladder? What does "being Star Fleet" mean, and what does it say about Star Fleet when the vast majority of a ship's members are following orders with no clue what's going on? What I love about Lower Decks is what it says about how imperfect institutions are still able to do good. And how that good gets done is directly related to how Boimler follows orders for all the wrong reasons, Mariner gleefully disobeys every order related to bureaucracy, and Tendi and Rutherford clumsily carry out orders as they follow their passions.

[@cajundude62a]

As a retired Navy man I can confirm that Officers get away shit all the time. The episode where Sisko poisoned the Planet, what they didn't tell you was some gunners mate was held accountable for it.

[@whoiswillo]

More recently in "A Sound of Thunder" Saru, perhaps the most "by the book" officer in Star Trek history generally, defies orders from Pike in order to give himself to the Ba'ul in order to save his sister, and faces no consequences at all for his action, while his people see massive life improvements.

[@SarahAndreaRoycesChannel]

It is hinted at, that this probably resulted in a genocide. And (potential Spoiler) Burnham just blew her second chance to integrate into the chain of command. At this point, she should just part from the Star Fleet (I don't mean from the show, there are some good stories to be had with the character)

[@alanpennie8013]

@@SarahAndreaRoycesChannel I would support that. It would give The Disco crew more opportunity to shine if Burnham was given detached service, something The Admiral might well consider.

[@PoindexterTactical]

I remember this exchange from Redemption, Part II, I think it perfectly sums up the correct attitude. Data : Captain, I wish to submit myself for disciplinary action. I have disobeyed a direct order from a superior officer. Although the result of my actions proved positive, the ends cannot justify the means. Picard : No, they can't. However, the claim 'I was only following orders' has been used to justify too many tragedies in our history. Starfleet doesn't want officers who will blindly follow orders without analyzing the situation. Your actions were appropriate for the circumstances. And I have noted that in your record.

[@Futt.Buckerson]

"Aww, but we want to get killed by the Borg!" 🤣😂

[@stevebainbridge7135]

I'm not sure getting chosen to be a pilot meant Riker was vindicated in Chain of Command? It validated that Riker had talents that were useful, but that was never in doubt. I'd expect the best pilot to generally by an ensign or Lieutenant. What was in doubt was his ability to be part of the chain of command and first officer. As the audience I don't see that as vindication of his subordination. If anything, Jellico is vindicated as he did get Picard back (and beat the Cardis) by doing things his way. For me, the DS9 episode Valiant is the strongest ST challenge to in a chain of command. A ship of cadets get themselves destroyed because they fall in love with the idea of a command hierachy and don't think for themselves.

[@scottkfilgo]

It occurs to me that while several lead officers in Trek disobey orders out of a sense of moral responsibility, only one was widely criticized by a chunk of the fandom, Burnham! What differentiates Michael from all those other praised officers? Indeed what...?

[@pufthemajicdragon]

Physically assaulting a senior officer, usurping command to commandeer a vessel, explicitly violent intentions towards a (then) non-hostile race. I mean, it takes more than good intentions to justify disobeying orders and there's a huge difference between telling an admiral to stuff it and committing armed mutiny against your own captain.

[@DrewLSsix]

@@pufthemajicdragon he asked whats different, not whats exactly the same.... Spock: steals an admiral and a ship, and violates one of the only capital punishment worthy laws in the federation. He has also "assaulted" several officers in the same manner. Data, disobeyed a direct order and opened fire on the Romulans intending to dissuade them of their conspiracy. Sisco attacked an entire planet of people that he wasn't at war with. Spock advised Kirk to open fire of the Romulan ship even though they were not at war. In the search for Spock Uhura pulls a gun on another officer. Spock (again) is willfully complicit in the hijacking of the Enterprise as his cremated and friends suffer physical and psychological assaults that cause them to act entirely against their established interests. So again, the question is what is the difference between when Burnham committed mutiny vs when the other people committed mutiny?

[@KGillis]

The difference between "Journey's End" and "Insurrection" is in the first case, they were relocating the Native Americans with their knowledge, in order to avert a war (not sure if the Cardassians would've gone to war again over that planet, but it's part of the bigger picture of maintaining the peace). So, he could at least see both sides of the issue. In "Insurrection", they were relocating primitive people (to their knowledge at the time) without their knowledge, for personal benefit. Rather than trying to avert a war, they were just trying to get ahold of magic youth juice. Add in that the magic youth juice (I forget the exact name of the effect going on) was keeping that population alive. So, moving them would also condemn them to death (from old age, yeah, but once again, a far as they knew, they were primitive people from that planet, so they were entitled to the effects of that planet).

[@pufthemajicdragon]

What bothers me is that people see these two story arcs as conflicting rather than as rather obvious character growth. We all SAW how much Journey's End troubled Picard, and we also have multiple examples of Picard holding on to events and experiences from his past - from Tasha's death to his lifetime on Kataan to his entire side-arc as an archeology enthusiast to all of his borg issues - Picard doesn't let things go. So while it may not be "explicitly" stated in the movie, we know enough of Picard's character to recognize that his regret from Journey's End is a big part of what motivated his "Insurrection".

[@DrewLSsix]

I'm sure starfleet knew they weren't primitive and definitely not native. I know trek treats the concept of alien biology..... loosely, but it would be blindingly obvious that a group is not native to a planet even to us. The movie actually misses a major issue though, why move a few hundred people from a single settlement when theres literally a couple hundred million square kilometers of uninhabited planet to exploit? If they can walk around their village unseen they can damn well park some ships anywhere else they please and doing in the good stuff. Why even did the So'na bother with starfleet?? They were "banished " by people with zero means to enforce it, they could have moved a few miles away and been fine right? And if stripping the radiation from the planet means the inhabitants will doe then the stuff must nolonger be self replenishing, so they took a seemingly endless resource that could have benefited billions and broke the system to lock away a ship load of the stuff making it now a very finite resource.... Then theres the supposed purpose of healing officers.... how many officers survive well enough that the slow acting effect of the radiation can do its thing but are bad off enough that starfleets already near magical tech can't heal them anyway? Ensign: oh my God! The whole left side of my torso is vaporized!!! Doctor: dont worry, in six to nine months itll be mostly grown back! And firmer than ever I might add! Ensign: sixty nine months!! I won't last that long!

[@anix712]

@@DrewLSsix If I recall correctly, the issue was that it took time for the radiation to start affecting the body in significant ways (too long for many of the So'na to survive by standard exposure). What they, and starfleet, wanted was to convert it into a fast-acting, easily administer able treatment, but the only way to do that was with the process that the So'na invented, which would leave the surface of the planet uninhabitable (for unstated reasons). They weren't relocating the Baku so that they could have the planet. The planet was irrelevant, other than the fact that it was located in Federations space, hence the Starfleet involvment. Starfleet insisted on relocating the Baku before they would let the So'na conduct their operations, because it would kill them if they didn't. Starfleet was okay with forced relocation, but they weren't okay with genocide.

[@MusicByMack]

One of my favorite defiance moments comes from the TNG episode Suspicions where Dr. Crusher defies captain's orders and performs a Ferengi autopsy. Her coming up empty handed is one of my favorite plot twists.

[@spencerschaepman7239]

"No uniform, no orders." Your example of Worf refusing to follow orders during a battle because Picard is out of uniform was perfect. There were more than a few crisis moments during my military service where we weren't in proper uniform and would have been proper fucked if we'd had to go change before defending ourselves.

[@nlinecomputers]

I'm surprised that you didn't mention the Kobayashi Maru test. Star Fleet as a command test gives the cadet a situation where they must violate a treaty and cross into the neutral zone to rescue a ship. Obviously Captains are ordered to not violate treaties yet as part of their training they are given a situation where they have to do so. I'm sure a certain percentage of cadets play it safe and don't cross and they are never considered for command after that test again.

[@johnfoss500]

There is an argument to be made that Riker in "The Pegasus" had to ignore ADM Pressman's orders, as they were more than likely unlawful (following those orders would have violated The Treaty of Algernon ,the no-cloaking treaty with the Romulans).

[@pacmanshooter247]

...And Data's like "I think I speak for the entire crew when I say; Snitches get Stitches, Sir" . Word.

[@michaelhannell4083]

If Jayne Cobb from Firefly in the trek universe. They would understand what chain of command is. "You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'till you understand who's ruttin' command here." Episode 2: The Train Job

[@willjenkins4195]

Love Jayne

[@Walrus1701D]

I’m sure my fellow Trekkers already pointed these two things out, but Picard did blatantly tell Admiral Haftel he was not going to follow his order to have Data turn Lal over to Starfleet in “The Offspring.” He was only saved by Lal’s death. And in “For the Uniform,” Sisko didn’t inform Starfleet of his plan to shoot toxins into the Maquis planet’s atmosphere. Minor gripes, though, and I know you had so much material to go through. Great video as always!!

[@HandofOmega]

I smile everytime I see the scene where Picard announces "I'm taking command of the fleet!" Of all the Trek Captains, hes the only one I can buy actually pulling that off!

[@schwarzerritter5724]

It is standard military procedure. If there is an emergency and no clear leader, simply taking the initiative proves you are the most qualified person, at least for the moment. For comparison: In Star Wars: Return of the Jedi supplementary material, the Imperial fleet got absolutely wrecked after the flagship got destroyed, despite having superior numbers. That is how command worked in the Empire: Nobody wanted to be "that guy" who speaks up.

[@brynpookc1127]

WooHoo! Got a shoutout! That was fun. Thanks @steveshives for all you do!

[@Davis_237]

Interesting video, but in many of these cases you are seeing Insubordination when in fact the character in question is showing Initiative. When Picard heard the fleet getting curb stomped by the Borg over subspace, he correctly knew when his standing orders were no longer feasible and needed to act. In the Episode where Data was given command of that nebula class starship (i think it was called the crazy horse) and was part of the fleet to stop the Romulans from supplying the Duras family in the Klingon Civil War, Data (using his over powered character stats) anticipated the Romulans taking advantage of the redeployment and took the initiative to catch them in the act while disobeying his orders to reposition. This is not an indictment or a flaw of the chain of command structure Starfleet uses (or say the US military for that matter) but a feature. It's only insubordination if you blatantly disobey orders for personal gain or out of contempt for your superior officers, but when you as a person in a position of command authority recognize a fundamental shift in the realities in your area of operations, be it a combat situation or humanitarian relief effort, you are not only obligated to disregard standing orders but encouraged to act by pressing that initiative if practical or at the very least call it out up the chain as so to avoid disaster and total mission failure. The US military (as im sure for most militaries around the world as well) teach this stuff in leadership courses in ROTC, War College and Officer training courses, not because they want their officers to be reckless gungho glory hound cowboys but because throughout history rigidity and inflexible leadership lead armies and fleets to decisive defeats, where as a flexible field or junior officer who knows their shit and were able to recognize when the situation on the ground has changed and adapt and overcome and achieve ultimate victory.

[@NeilBlumengarten]

It's long seemed to me that Starfleet operates under the "FOLLOW OUR ORDERS OR ELSE...you either have a good reason not to or pull some heroic act, in which case, we'll gladly allow you to disobey the chain of command." This is of course shown to great effect in "The Die is Cast" when Admiral Toddman talks to Commander Sisko, after Sisko defied Toddman's orders (even getting around Eddington's sabotage of the Defiant on Toddman's orders to do so). Keep in mind this is episode 21 of Season 3, as Toddman says to Commander Sisko, "If you pull a stunt like that again, I'll court-martial you, or I'll promote you. Either way, you'll be in a lot of trouble." So, first of all, it's another, "You rascal, you disobeyed me, but everything worked out well, ha, ha! I guess the real court-martial was the friends we made along the way." And second, 5 episodes later, episode 26 of Season 3 (the season finale, at that) begins with Sisko getting promoted to Captain! Kind of makes you wonder what happened between "The Die is Cast" and "The Adversary" to piss Toddman off enough to have Sisko promoted!

[@fernandanogales4824]

My reply to your video title can only be “THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS”.

[@BioGoji-zm5ph]

"YOU ARE! SIX YEARS OLD! YOU CANNOT HURT ME!"

[@nathanieldaiken1064]

I have to confess: there were times when I really thought I saw five lights!

[@JaredByer]

I think it is important that for the most part, it being the right thing to do to disobey the chain of command is when you do so to protect to people. In our current political climate, I imagine there would be people who miss this important aspect, and disobey the chain of command to hurt people. I fear people attempting to disobey the rule of law to protect a leader that shares their racism and hate.

[@trekjudas]

Kirk, Picard and Captain America believe in the chain of command. They’re soldiers, BUT they also understand that you can’t always just blindly follow orders. They know Sometimes you need to question authority.

[@silentotto5099]

It seems like there are two different dimensions to the sort of insubordination Steve discusses. One is when the protagonist disagrees with the political goal that led to the generation of an order, and the other is when the protagonist doesn't dispute the political goal, but disagrees with how it's to be tactically implemented. Historically speaking, real world military organizations tend to be very unforgiving of deviations from the former, but have frequently tolerated, even encouraged, independent action when it comes to the latter. A good example of this is MacArthur's tenure in Korea. He was given wide latitude on how to carry out the war tactically, even when the Truman administration would have preferred he not do what he was doing. But, when he came into conflict with the political goals of the Truman administration, he got his ass fired in a heartbeat. So, it seems one can question authority, but one need be very careful about which realm of authority one questions. The consequences can be very different.

[@leeheinrich9661]

With Captain America and Picard both gave up their ranks and resigned Cap became Nomad and Picard because the Picard we saw in Star Trek Picard

[@arklestudios]

There's a saying amongst veteran novelists giving advice to aspiring authors; you have to prove you can follow the rules before you can be allowed to break them. I wonder if Starfleet operates the same way, to a certain extent.

[@skyeplus]

Burnham didn't even care wherever she lives or dies at the beginning of Ep. 3. Not only had she faced the most serious consequences of all, she had also accepted the guilt.

[@DrewLSsix]

Am I the only one that actually likes her whole arc? It takes its time to fill out and the typical growing pains of a trek production makes some of it hard to watch but basically she was traumatized as a kid, assumed a ton of guilt and placed unreasonable expectations on herself. She threw herself into Vulcan curriculum and culture to cope and became as Vulcans often are exceptional in many ways. Then she is re exposed to humanity and starts to show something like a normal human personality, until she is triggered in the most literally sense by what must look like a familiar situation and a conflict between her trauma, her re acquired humanity and her adopted logical coping mechanism is a natural result. Season one has her paying for this and ultimately has her acquitted legally and mostly by her peers, but season 2 has her facing the actual root of her problems. Her unreasonable sense of responsibility for everything and everyone around her. The climax can only happen by her letting go of the big picture and just doing her one job. I'm not sure where season 3 is going but it looks like some tension between her new more liberated self and a more external pressure to duty is building up. She probably would have been happy if her life carried on as it had been, but Discovery comes along and now she really can't just let someone else handle things because they are so few already and very outnumbered. I almost read her interactions with the admiral as frustration with the fact theres really nobody she can comfortably turn her burden over to.

[@alanpennie8013]

@@DrewLSsix Well argued. She's very like Holden from The Expanse, who's also criticised for his Messiah complex.

[@arklestudios]

I don't agree with either the creator's take that "no, really, Starfleet isn't military at all" or the common fan argument that "Starfleet is 100% military." I've always viewed it as an organization that doesn't really have a real life analog; a group that is equal parts military, scientific organization, and diplomatic corp, that just "sort of works" in the way the transporter "sorta works," i.e. you just roll with it as a viewer. I mean, I suppose it's not impossible that you could make an organization like that work in real life, but I doubt you could do that in the modern era, with so much anti-intellectualism, military worship, and the view of diplomacy as weak and violence as strength. And if the video ends up addressing that very point, I will feel very silly, but I wanted to get this down before I forgot.

[@ezmyrelda]

Yeah, suspension of disbelief powers are vital when watching star trek.

[@chadfalardeau5396]

It may not be a primarily military organization, but that its at least a militia

[@homvalerio]

I'm surprised you didn't mention the opposite happening to Worf. In the DS9 episode Change of Heart, Worf abandons his mission and allows a crucial informant to die in order to save Jadzias life. Unlike Kirk, Picard & Sisko his consequences are severe - he will never be promoted to command, something he was clearly striving for and being groomed for. Unlike with the Captains, this episode leaves us with the impression that perhaps Worf was in the wrong, even though as viewers we are invested in Jadzia.

[@renatocorvaro6924]

I can't speak to Starfleet, but in the Canadian Military, "No uniform, no orders" is exactly how it works.

[@AxelLeJeff]

Powerful vid, dude, Major Grinn is probably having a fit.

[@SirWussiePants]

Actually, Kirk WAS demoted from Admiral to Captain after stealing the Enterprise. I know, it is what Kirk wanted from the start, but it was a kind of punishment. Sort of. Maybe?

[@Ohforgodssakethatsme]

In story, it was a very clear "we're totally punishing you wink-wink" situation. The federation needed to be seen to be punishing Kirk but they wanted to reward him instead. They did this by giving him what he wanted while making it look like he was being punished.

[@BalooSJ]

@@Ohforgodssakethatsme Saving Earth by going time-traveling to fetch some whales buys a lot of leniency, one would think.

[@kirkdarling4120]

@Matthew Gelfer Yeah. "We're going to punish you by only letting you reach the rank of the top 3% instead of the top 1%."

[@naomikenzia-davis4148]

We'll, the Baku looked white. Also, he had a girlfriend.

[@johnsteiner3417]

The best most accurate view of the Federation and Starfleet I saw came from the Klingons. They rightly recognized an empire-building model that incorporates the peaceably conquered people into the conqueror role, thus expanding the boundaries of the Federation empire.

[@johnsteiner3417]

By the way, this is similar to how the Roman empire was built.

[@cptnmus8996]

Been working my way back slowly, good to see you've been on a strong streak for a good few years, may there be many more.

[@StevenJBen]

I'm glad you said Insurrection is underrated. I hated Insurrection when it came out, but I recently rewatched all the movies and I think I like Insurrection more than Wrath of Khan or First Contact.

[@jvomkrieg]

Request for a video on Star Fleet Admirals and how they seem to undermine the values of Star Fleet.

[@alanpennie8013]

Seconded.

[@rui5421]

FINALLY someone who gets it! While Michael Burnham is a frequent offender, the circumstances of Discovery make it a common necessity. I hope they tone it down a bit and use it for character development, but I'm tired of people acting like This is the only time an officer has stood against orders.

[@whoiswillo]

They seem to be setting up that conflict with Saru and Michael this season, and I really do hope the nail it.

[@DrewLSsix]

@@whoiswillo if season 1 and 2 were about her internal sense of duty and her tendency to take on ALL responsibility I think season 3 is seting up some tension between the liberation she found in the lost year after getting some kind of resolution via Spock concerning her issues and the external pressure for duty Discoverys current situation demands. She seemed almost reluctant to take a position again and she admitted that she had all but moved on when Disco showed up. I think she almost resents that she can't just leave her people to starfleet and go live her best life. If things turned out to be happy and stable after the time skip I think she would have had a tearful reunion before taking off and promising to keep in touch.

[@Nimelennar]

I see Riker as more "by the book" than Picard. From the very start, Riker was the one insisting that, for instance, the captain and first officer should not be on an away mission together.

[@bearaarw88]

This guy always puts me in a good mood, thanks Steve.

[@FearAddict]

Picard: Is there anyway that I don’t have to deal with the Borg? Riker: Well there is the Emergency Disaster Mode for the org chart, which gives me full control over everyone on the Enterprise. Give me control. Picard, this starship needs a strong Captain.

[@euansmith3699]

Steve's delivery of his scripted content is amazingly smooth and inflected.

[@caintheconfused]

"Is Benjamin Sisko ... Actually a War Criminal?" Yes, next question. It's going to be hard dealing with the acceptance that maybe the most interesting captain may be the most flawed. Or maybe that's how it should be?

[@nacnuDsuperb]

You mainly talked about the times that officers defied the chain of command because they thought their orders were immoral. But the way star trek treats officers following orders even though they knew them to be immoral is just as telling. Both journey's end and pegasus about which you spoke really try to drive home the point that Picard and Riker respectively are morally wrong for following orders. Voyagers equinox two-parter is even more clear in this, the blame isn't centered on the captain or the senior officers but on every single member of the crew. They were all morally wrong to either give or follow the orders, and the surviving crew members are actually punished (demoted to crewmen) for it.

[@RodIII1000]

Shives is simply so good at this kind of presentation.

[@ianlister7333]

this makes me think of Star Gate SG 1, and O'Neil, even General Hammond (from time to time) will break the chain of command, if they want to, and that is present day USAF.

[@StormsparkPegasus]

Fun fact: When the chief of staff of the Air Force appeared on the show, the character was played by the REAL Air Force chief of staff at the time (general Michael E Ryan). Richard Dean Anderson asked him if there were real colonels like O'Neill (who were snarky and sometimes insubordinate). His reply was "Son, yes, we've got Colonels like you and worse." That comment is even funnier when you read the interaction between him and O'Neill (in the episode): kzbin.info/www/bejne/fJi7iZSKn9p2n8k

[@FPL_Frost]

Looking forward to the next one! Any reason to discuss the magnificent 'in the pale moonlight' has to be a proper banger!

[@Hiramas]

So, I assume this was filmed without knowledge of the latest episode of Discovery? If so... wow... that is quite the coincidence. That episode tackles the whole theme in a new and very impactful way. Maybe this video deserves an addendum?

[@galecaie928]

Starfleet is multi purpose, I would say. It's main goal is to explore and meet new lifeforms. Starfleet has diplomacy when this comes up, making first contact when they do meet a new lifeform. Science is another purpose they focus. And they can also work as a military if need be.

[@andrewgallagher8738]

You forgot about Picard openly defying an admiral after they ordered Data to turn over his daughter to them.

[@BS-vx8dg]

Wonderfully thoughtful and well-written episode, Steve.

[@pyRoy6]

In all seriousness, I don't think the writers just let Picard off the hook. Usually, the message is that we can have a future in which negotiation and advocacy will yield justice. "Measure of a Man" (and "The Offspring") comes to mind, as well as the end of the first season of Picard. Maybe this is a hint that if we elect sane leaders, and write enough letters to the mayor, the institution can give us a utopia without a violent revolution...

[@foujj]

Nice work Steve. Your ball cap was appropriate because you knocked this one over the fence.

[@margixable]

In DSP "Change of Heart" Work disobeys orders to save Jadzia and has a permanent reprimand in his file for him not following orders. So there some that get in trouble for not following orders.

[@a-blivvy-yus]

"You go put on a uniform that looks like pyjamas" - what if they made the pyjamas into regulation uniform in order to cover exactly that scenario though?

[@robertheinrich2994]

Think about the episode (Redemption II), where Data had command over the USS Sutherland. He disobeyed command and launched some torpedos to kill romulan warbirds, and was accused of that first officer, that a machine is not interested in cleaning some decks from radiation due to this being not a threat to him (but everyone else). And Picard then gives him a speech, that starfleet is full of officer who just follow orders, but it takes the ones who think for themselves to make a difference.

[@jimbunch9175]

You are about the only person I watch on KZbin that I think I would like in real life. Just thought I'd let you know. These days, I don't like many people I know. Thanks for the content.

[@Mallory-Malkovich]

Part of what makes _Star Trek_ so broadly appealing is that it shows a future that is both a communist utopia _and_ an individualist wild west. Everyone is taken care of _because_ of the lone heroes who take matters into their own hands in a crisis.

[@kaitlyn__L]

I've been thinking things along these lines more and more myself, lately. The Federation ensures everyone has housing, food, opportunities - but they never prevent anybody from exercising their agency, even if doing so might damage their welfare.

[@irishwarlock]

In season 5 episode 1, Redemption part 1, Data disobeys Picards orders to fall back leading to him catching Romulans and proving their involvement in the Klingon civil war. Seems you can disobay orders as long as you have a good enough reason and it works out

[@augiegirl1]

In that episode, Data submits himself for disciplinary action, stating to Picard that, ”although the results of my actions proved positive, the ends cannot justify the means.” Picard's response is, ”No they can't. However, the phrase ’I was only following orders’ has been used to justify too many tragedies in our history. Star Fleet doesn't want officers who will blindly follow orders without analyzing the situation. Your actions were appropriate for the circumstances, & I have noted that in your record.”

[@andrewbowenssylvanianfamilies]

Star Trek heroes are like Billionaires. The rules work in a different way for them.

[@pufthemajicdragon]

Redemption II "The claim, 'I was only following orders' has been used to justify too many tragedies in our history. Starfleet does not want officers who will blindly follow orders without analyzing the situation. Your actions were appropriate for the circumstances, and I have noted that in your record." It's helpful when the show actually tells you exactly what the moral of the story is.

[@mikemoloney6448]

Scotty disobeying Kirks orders not to fight with Romulans in trouble with tribbles is the most humorous version

[@michaelolsen2760]

Voyager had great opportunities for conflict over the chain of command with the Marquis but sadly mostly wasted it

[@kaitlyn__L]

Unfortunately, that was largely at the behest of Jeri Taylor, and also from Paramount execs who wanted to "ensure" TNG ratings by not having too much drama... that worked out great for them, lol. Piller kept trying to push it, and got pushback. Then after he left the show, all vestiges of it disappeared, including having MULTIPLE episodes all about the crew finding the idea of any tension or mutiny completely ludicrous.

[@davidstowers1964]

I'm reminded of Spock stealing the Enterprise and kidnapping Pike in defiance of general order 7 and going to Talos 4.

[@Velvet_Intrigue]

Another great and timely video.

[@JanetDax]

Tos trope: Admirals, Commodores, and, Commissioners are always less competent, insane, or downright evil. Only Kirk knows what is best.

[@joshuahillerup4290]

There's a nonfiction book called Seeing Like a State that is about real world examples which demonstrate why a lot of the times that you see order violations on Star Trek would actually be a good idea. I highly recommend reading it if you haven't already.

[@fisk0]

Wonder how much Star Trek's position was colored by "I was just following orders" which you know was only about 20 years before the original series after all.

[@kirkdarling4120]

But "I was just following orders" had actually gotten no traction whatsoever twenty years earlier. All those guys were hanged by the neck until dead.

[@fisk0]

@@kirkdarling4120 Well, some of them got important positions in the US and Russian space programs.

[@alanpennie8013]

@@fisk0 If you're good with rockets all your sins will be forgiven.

[@Brahmsonite]

There's an episode of DS9 where Worf fails a mission to pickup a Cardasian informant when Jadzia Dax is severely wounded and he saves her life instead. He's told he'll never captain a starship because of it, but (at least in the secondary continuity) goes on to inherit the captaincy of the Enterprise E. Maybe he's just lucky that Cisco went off with the Prophets.

[@knightspearhead5718]

Star Fleet is about doing what you think is right and for most officers that involves going against chain of command.

[@emmanuelkotei649]

Dude I love your videos keep up the good work

[@std7702]

Mr Shives? That was excellent!

[@IronWarhorsesFun]

The wrath of khan showed us what happened when you DON'T FOLLOW THE REGS for no good reason.

[@TheGamer201291]

Good video Steve! I really liked your conclusion, however I do think you kinda glossed over how DSC frames Burnham's disobedience. For one, as you said, they do punish her, but also, she starts a war and it is implied that had she not initiated first contact in such a way the war wouldn't have started. Her insubordination is framed as a point she should do better on. As recent as the third season Saru notes in her insobursinstion negatively.

[@kaitlyn__L]

Other officers in the text, who don't have the benefit of an audience view, think she started it - but remember T'Kuvma was aching for such a war anyway. It's a bit fuzzy, since it may have fizzled out after one battle if Burnham hadn't killed him. But it's only really an in-universe belief that it's her fault, it's not really textual that it's actually her fault.

[@helenafarkas4534]

Voyager: prime factors. Tuvok and B'lanna disobey orders to steal tech that "could" get them home, it doesn't work, and B'lanna gets a *truly* vicious chewing out by Janeway and Janeway openly questions her promotion to chief engineer, while Tuvok suffers a worse fate - the loss of Janeway's faith in him that continues the rest of the series. I mean, she still relies on him, but never to the extent that is hinted at in Caretaker

[@maevekirkland9452]

In First contact. Picard had a reason to go to earth. He waited until he heard "Starfleet command, we need reinforcements" before he gave the order. Starfleet General Orders allow a captain to rescind orders given by the admiralty in the case of a distress call. which Picard interpreted "We need reinforcements" as a distress call.

[@malonius5]

The show creators set the story in a quasi-military organization to ground the characters in a relatable situation for us the viewer. What would real people do in a post-scarcity, self-actualization society? Who the hell would choose to bus tables at Sisko's restaurant in New Orleans or load wine shipments into shuttles at Chateau Picard? In Starfleet, people have a specific job and a boss and they have to follow orders if they want to get promoted to captain or division chief. They face danger and scarcity because they're on the frontier. I don't know if we could relate to average Earth citizens.

[@laswastedyouth]

Ha, yes!! I was hoping you’d tackle this question at some point!

[@wtaione]

Hey Steve, You mentioned disobeying orders from evil Admirals and It got me thinking; There's been an awful lot of evil Admirals in Star Trek over the years. Maybe enough to do a Trek Actually about them? Thank's for all the great content! I've only recently found your channel but its been a great respite from an otherwise abysmal year.

[@kaitlyn__L]

"Who is Star Trek's Worst Evil Admiral?" from 5 months ago :) a rare one to not have "actually" in the title!

[@siphesihledlokolo4313]

I'd say they do but there's plenty of flexibility (especially if you're one of the main characters). Great content as always 👏🏾👍🏾

[@Madbmberwhatbmbsatmidnight]

How do I know if I’m a “main character” and can therefore break the rules when I feel like it?

[@shadowhenge7118]

Its kind of like our military, but looser. Soldiers dont have to follow an order that is unconstitutional, usually. Star Trek seems to give a lot of headroom for dping the right thing.

[@kaitlyn__L]

@@shadowhenge7118 that's a good way of thinking about it. The Federation put its money where its mouth is WRT having Ethics be so important. They don't just say it's important to them, they outright seem to let their officers refuse any order they deem unethical. I suppose it's a decent defense mechanism against all those evil admirals...

[@lolthien]

Going through watching TNG with my wife for the first time. And I suppose 'Conspiracy' (which we just watched last night) could count as bucking the chain of command. By the end of that episode Picard and Ricker have actually left a swath of death in their wake. Killed admirals, and left headless charred caved in corpse of the assistant behind with exploded aliens splattered everywhere. Nothing much comes of that, other than Picard saying in his log, "I hated having to kill some aliens, that's not why I'm here." Didn't mention killing the admirals and captains (shooting one of them them in the back as they ran away, no less). And apparently no one else in Star Fleet gave much of a care about it.

[@jauregi2726]

Thanks for another great video 🖖

[@1chiTheKiller]

I appreciate that you recognize that bucking authority, provided it is for the right reasons, is important, and justifiable. I think in normal modern day society, we have FAR too many people who act as if respecting and obeying authority is paramount. If authority would force me to do something horrible, or to deal with an organization I'm a part of's terrible decisions, I am not going to respect or follow that authority. I've always been wary of authority anyway, and it is always infuriating when people around me say I need to respect authority, or obey an authority's orders unquestionably.

[@Stephen-Fox]

"Peacekeeping and humanitarian" ...Sounds a lot like how both the US and UK describe a lot of their military operations, come to think of it.