What if Starfleet Outlived the Federation?

In the Star Trek series, the governmental body that Starfleet had to answer to was the United Federation of Planets. One presumes it was the Federation that created Starfleet.

Since the Federation is made up of many different planets with utterly different customs, and different ideas about right and wrong, it would not be at all surprising if there was a lot of interplanetary strife. And I don't really see Starfleet being sent to attack a planet that decided to drop out of the Federation.

But what if the Federation fell apart? What if issues arose to the point that nearly every planet in the Federation decided to drop out and go it alone?

Now, the most likely fate of Starfleet if the Federation fell apart is that the individual planets would demand pieces of Starfleet--- ships, starbases and the like.

But with the central authority having fallen apart, Starfleet might not be much inclined to meet those demands, especially as each world would have different ideas as to how much of Starfleet they were entitled to. Starfleet might choose to hang together just long enough for these things to be worked out in some authoritative way, and in time realize there is no authoritative body able to make that happen.

With the fall of the Federation, the biggest challenge faced by Starfleet would be how to deal with the loss of tax revenues. But if you are enough of a Star Trek geek, you may have noticed a certain lack of commercial space transport. There are not many private space liners or space freighters out there, perhaps because of the dangers of encountering hostile forces in an unarmed ship.

Starfleet, therefore, could continue by offering space transportation for a fee, and also providing defense of any private space transport for a fee. Planets who found themselves without adequate space transport after the Federation ended would be eager to avail themselves of the service.

There is also the possibility of selling defensive services. This would make Starfleet into a fleet of mercenaries. It could even degenerate into a protection racket if Starfleet people weren't such Big Damn Heroes. Various worlds might pay Starfleet ships to patrol near their star systems, catching any hostile vessels that might be coming their way.

The big culture shock for Starfleet people, the pampered children of the Federation taxpayer, would come as they had to start looking at the bottom line for the first time ever. Exploring strange new worlds would have to take a back seat to transporting passengers and cargo and doing routine patrols. I believe that in time they would have to wise up and add a Merchant Officer to their command crew, just as they have a Science Officer.

I think in time Starfleet would adapt, would perhaps even see the new order of things as beneficial to them. What do you think?

In a writing project of my own, Starship Destine, I've created a world in which something like the fall of the Federation has occurred in the past, and the Fleet has learned long ago to cope with that situation.



Please consider 'liking' us on Facebook.
http://www.facebook.com/NissaAnnakindt

Killing People with Science Fiction's Non-Lethal Weaponry

My first encounter with the concept of non-lethal weapons was the Star Trek phaser. You could set a phaser to stun, or you could set it to kill and seriously vaporize a guy.  

But even in the Star Trek universe phasers set to stun could go wrong and then you'd hear those immortal words, "He's dead, Jim."

How could that happen? Well, people differ in their physiology and state of health. It's like giving people sedatives. A dose that would subdue a raging NFL player might kill a little old lady with a heart condition. The same thing happens with any kind of stunning weapon. Force that can stun a strong person will kill other people.

In real-world efforts to create stunning weapons (such as tasers), that is a problem. No stunning weapon yet made that is effective enough to stop most people is harmless to all people, and fatalities have resulted. In addition, some experimental non-lethal weapons can cause permanent damage to a person.

In science fictional worlds, the fatal possibilities of a stunning weapon are enhanced if the weapon is also used on various types of aliens. No one stunning weapon can work on every possible type of alien without killing some of them routinely.

A stunning weapon with multiple settings might deal with this problem. You might have your team leaders order phaser setting 1 for alien race A, and phaser setting 2 for alien race B. That will help, a little. But there will still be the possibility of killing when you don't intend to, and so you can't really use your non-lethal weapon routinely on folks you absolutely cannot kill for some reason.

What about a non-lethal 'smart weapon'?  It would scan the oncoming target and know exactly how much 'ooomph' to give to the stunning weapon. This would work to keep your stunning weapon stun-only. But the other implications of the technology must not be ignored.

You cannot, for example, have your 'smart weapon' stunner render aliens unconscious with precision, drag the unconscious alien to the sickbay, and have your ship's doc complain he can make no sense of the alien's physiology. Your smart weapon has already made sense out of that alien physiology in seconds. You can not have mystery aliens if you have 100% accurate non-lethal smart weapons.

In addition to the problem of your non-lethal weapon killing when not intended, there is an equal and opposite problem. You fire a stunning weapon at some raging maniac, and he doesn't go down. This is a major problem with real-world non-lethal weapons, and a reason why they are popular with policemen working in groups--- where some can carry more lethal weapons--- than they are for the lone person needing self defense. The last thing a vulnerable person wants to do is to get an attacker madder by firing an ineffective stunning weapon at them.

Your science fiction crew will, therefore, need lethal force as a backup, as in the Star Trek phaser which could be set to stun or to kill. Unless they are absolute pacifists in which case they will regularly experience casualties because of that stand.

What about non-lethal magical weapons/spells in fantasy worlds? Realism dictates that the 100% effective stunning spell/weapon would be unlikely. Now, if you have a fantasy world where only a tiny caste of wizards can do magic at all you might decide they can stun their enemies accurately--- but likely other wizards can defend against it. If, however, in your magical world any schoolchild with a magic wand can yell 'stupefy!' in an attempt to stun people, it is realistic to portray this stunning effort as variable in effect. The untrained child-wizard with indifferent level of Gifts might not achieve stunning effect at all, or do so only briefly, while the more trained person can stun effectively and for a sufficient amount of time to accomplish the goal.

Back to science fiction. If non-lethal weapons are so problematic, why have them at all? One major reason is the need to subdue people on board starships. You do NOT want to fire pistols on board the Enterprise and get the equipment damaged from stray bullets and shrapnel. A stunning weapon might at first be developed for shipboard use, and then migrate outward for situations where stunning is the only effective approach.

Please consider 'liking' us on Facebook.
http://www.facebook.com/NissaAnnakindt

Watching Western Shows as Old as I Am

Lately I've been spending wasting a lot of time watching really old Western tv series on the Encore Western channel. Which is kind of a funny thing.

Although I'm told that as a tiny girl I was enthusiastic about the Roy Rogers show and wore a red cowboy hat, by the time in my childhood where I actually remember things I wasn't a Western fan. Which was sad because it was about the only thing on television in those days.

I remember the routine when my mom, dad and brother would be downstairs watching Gunsmoke or some such show, while I was upstairs in my parents' bedroom watching old movies or The Avengers on the small black-and-white tv.

There were a couple of Western shows I did have a use for back then: The Wild Wild West, Alias Smith and Jones, The Rifleman, and, of course, Star Trek. (Star Trek? Well, Gene Roddenberry did allegedly think of calling the show 'Wagon Train to the Stars')

But now the world of television has changed. Besides the reality TV horror, the dramatic shows that remain tend to not be aimed at general audiences, but only at angry Leftists who enjoy anti-conservative and anti-Christian hate worked into their entertainment. Like that Law & Order episode that accused conservative commentators Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilley of condoning the murder of babies born to illegal immigrants. (Anyone who's actually watched Beck or O'Reilley knows they are notoriously against baby-killing, even the legal kind.)

So I haven't got attracted to many current television dramas other than those in Korean (subtitled) on KBS America. And these old Westerns came as a very pleasant surprise.

The ones I have been watching lately include Have Gun, Will Travel, Wagon Train, Rawhide, and Marshal Dillon (later renamed Gunsmoke.) And one I hadn't heard of before, Lawman.

Lawman, the story of Marshal Dan Troop and his young deputy sidekick Johnny McKay, was an excellent half-hour show which ran from 1958-1962. It premiered October 5th, 1958, the very day I premiered was born.

I like to spend time in this different world in which preachers are the good guys and not the killers, where men are gallant enough to treat women like ladies even when they are only saloon girls (hookers).

And there is some similarity in storytelling values between these old Westerns and the original Star Trek, which is a story about humanity's expansion into space, like settlers from Back East expanded into the Western territories.

My current WIP, a spaceship-based SF story, is turning out to be that kind of Western-in-Space thing, and I'm encouraging it. I've even looked up an article on how to write Westerns, 'Writing Western Novels Requires Specific Rules'.  I think most of these rules are adaptable to the writing science fiction and fantasy as well, particularly if you write from a Christian perspective. They are:

1. Point of view is limited to one or at most two main characters.
2. Foul language is impermissible.
3. Excessive sexuality is not OK. The Western hero and his lady remain largely virtuous.

Another good point that authors of other genres might borrow is the fact that a Western male hero is a man's man, not a woman's fantasy of a perfect, sensitive mate. The Western hero doesn't spend hours talking about his feelings, or taking his gal on shopping trips to upgrade their wardrobes. He doesn't cook for her, do the dishes, or mind the baby while the gal goes out to climb a corporate ladder. He's a strong, silent type who'll put his life on the line to save the lives of those who are vulnerable.

Watching Western Shows as Old as I Am

Lately I've been spending wasting a lot of time watching really old Western tv series on the Encore Western channel. Which is kind of a funny thing.

Although I'm told that as a tiny girl I was enthusiastic about the Roy Rogers show and wore a red cowboy hat, by the time in my childhood where I actually remember things I wasn't a Western fan. Which was sad because it was about the only thing on television in those days.

I remember the routine when my mom, dad and brother would be downstairs watching Gunsmoke or some such show, while I was upstairs in my parents' bedroom watching old movies or The Avengers on the small black-and-white tv.

There were a couple of Western shows I did have a use for back then: The Wild Wild West, Alias Smith and Jones, The Rifleman, and, of course, Star Trek. (Star Trek? Well, Gene Roddenberry did allegedly think of calling the show 'Wagon Train to the Stars')

But now the world of television has changed. Besides the reality TV horror, the dramatic shows that remain tend to not be aimed at general audiences, but only at angry Leftists who enjoy anti-conservative and anti-Christian hate worked into their entertainment. Like that Law & Order episode that accused conservative commentators Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilley of condoning the murder of babies born to illegal immigrants. (Anyone who's actually watched Beck or O'Reilley knows they are notoriously against baby-killing, even the legal kind.)

So I haven't got attracted to many current television dramas other than those in Korean (subtitled) on KBS America. And these old Westerns came as a very pleasant surprise.

The ones I have been watching lately include Have Gun, Will Travel, Wagon Train, Rawhide, and Marshal Dillon (later renamed Gunsmoke.) And one I hadn't heard of before, Lawman.

Lawman, the story of Marshal Dan Troop and his young deputy sidekick Johnny McKay, was an excellent half-hour show which ran from 1958-1962. It premiered October 5th, 1958, the very day I premiered was born.

I like to spend time in this different world in which preachers are the good guys and not the killers, where men are gallant enough to treat women like ladies even when they are only saloon girls (hookers).

And there is some similarity in storytelling values between these old Westerns and the original Star Trek, which is a story about humanity's expansion into space, like settlers from Back East expanded into the Western territories.

My current WIP, a spaceship-based SF story, is turning out to be that kind of Western-in-Space thing, and I'm encouraging it. I've even looked up an article on how to write Westerns, 'Writing Western Novels Requires Specific Rules'.  I think most of these rules are adaptable to the writing science fiction and fantasy as well, particularly if you write from a Christian perspective. They are:

1. Point of view is limited to one or at most two main characters.
2. Foul language is impermissible.
3. Excessive sexuality is not OK. The Western hero and his lady remain largely virtuous.

Another good point that authors of other genres might borrow is the fact that a Western male hero is a man's man, not a woman's fantasy of a perfect, sensitive mate. The Western hero doesn't spend hours talking about his feelings, or taking his gal on shopping trips to upgrade their wardrobes. He doesn't cook for her, do the dishes, or mind the baby while the gal goes out to climb a corporate ladder. He's a strong, silent type who'll put his life on the line to save the lives of those who are vulnerable.

What is an anti-hero?

There seems to be some confusion over the writing term 'anti-hero'.

An anti-hero is exactly the same as a novel's hero, except he is made out of antimatter. The hero is made of matter.

If an anti-hero touches a hero, the universe blows up. There was a Star Trek episode that proves it. It featured the cute brother from 'Here Come the Brides' with a weird beard.

Blowing up the universe is usually a bad thing, unless you are the Doctor and are hanging out with Amy Pond. However, if you happen to have a hero and an anti-hero and just the right sort of jar, you should be able to channel the power of the resulting matter-antimatter explosion in such a way as to make a starship go really, really fast.

I'll bet the Mythbusters could do it with enough duct tape.

Don't touch him, he's antimatter!