Should Hugh Have Been Used To Destroy The Borg?

[Deepcrush]

Wait, how stupid is it that someone thinks the Borg are NOT THREAT TO THE UFP? Really, if this is as far as your thoughts go then just leave. There is no hope for you. Next we'll talk about how we should have left NAZI Germany alone since they were only trying to improve the world...

[Atekimogus]

Wait, how stupid is it that someone thinks the Borg are NOT THREAT TO THE UFP? Really, if this is as far as your thoughts go then just leave. There is no hope for you. Next we'll talk about how we should have left NAZI Germany alone since they were only trying to improve the world...

I never said they are no threat to the UFP. I just said that I don't think their actions up to the point of the hugh episode justify the extermination of their whole race. (Even moreso considering the morals of the 24th century.)

To the point of the Hugh episode they didn't really know much about the borg. Two encounters, yes with wolf 359, and yes, presenting a very serious threat but on the scale of justifing the destruction of all borg (and all species currently assimilated within the collective)? I am not really sure about that. Fighting them tooth and nails, yes. But completely erradicating them? Let us examine why they changed their mind in the episode. Like most on this board they agree in the beginning that they should use it to destroy all borg. All pro-arguments (there are only soldiers etc., every single borg is a legitimate target etc.) are true but then they discover an amazing thing. A single borg can be freed of the collective and made an individual and as individual they are rather nice chaps, certainly no threat and bent on destroying anyone. Now given that knowledge do you still think they were justified to destroy them all? Are they not morally obliged to first use EVERY means possible to try and help them and not just nuke them and good ridance? Why use this extreme means if you know there is a way to neutralize the threat without killing them?

What about the Husnock? They have nothing to do with the borg except they present a race completely destroyed for their transgressions. If this happens because Picard pushes the red button or because of a magical god-being makes no difference imho. Now there are obviously omnipotent or nearly omnipotent beings in the star trek galaxy beeing capable of such feats, and yet even the one who destroyed all the Hushnock (who are described as the scum of the galaxy and serious threat to anyone) thought it was a great crime and that he had no right whatsoever to do it.

Now all of you obviously think that the complete annihalation of the borg is justified and a good thing and I won't argue it anymore, but consider this:

What about the neighboring other empires? Let us say the UFP would have destroyed the Borg? A seemingly mortal enemy but, to be honest, up until this point the UFP lost probably much more people to the Romulan War, the Klingon Cold War, the Whale probe, the Cardassian War or hover shuttle crashes in the same year.
Now if I were the Tholian, Cardassian or Romulan empire I would be rather uneasy considering the willingness of a rather hostile neighbor to commit mass murder on a race they deem a direct threat to them. Now no matter if the borg massacre is justified or not, how long do you think it takes the next empire to feel justified using the same methods against their mortal enemy even moreso if they already showed the willingness to use said means to advance their cause? (Arguable the same is true for the founder-virus. If we assume they would have only won the war by exterminating the founders, even if at first all congratulate them for saving the quadrant, how long would you think it takes before this decision bites them into their backsides?)

[Mikey]

Let me start out of order:

I won't argue it anymore

Nobody said you shouldn't. I think I can safely say that we all appreciate a debate, when the side with which we disagree comprises rational argument rather assholery. Deep saying a point is "stupid" is pretty much the same as the rest of us saying "I disagree."

Now, on to the meat of the matter:

I just said that I don't think their actions up to the point of the hugh episode justify the extermination of their whole race.

Again I feel compelled to point out the fact that the extermination of the race wasn't the aim of the Hugh-virus. Genocide was never the goal; the fact that a huge number of enemy soldiers would die (huge, as in: "all of them") was a by-product. A trifling point, perhaps, compared to the death total; but an important one, I think, if we're discussing the morality of the use of the weapon.

Even moreso considering the morals of the 24th century.

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but personally I can't argue from the base of my 24th century morals, only from that of my 21st century ones.

but on the scale of justifing the destruction of all borg

See above; additionally, that scale was only being considered because an effective opportunity against the Borg on a smaller scale was not extant.

and all species currently assimilated within the collective

A nice appeal to our sense of protecting the innocent; but those species can be effectively considered to no longer exist - at least the members which had been assimilated. In other words, a human or Romulan or El Aurian or whoever that had been assimilated can no longer be considered to be a human (or whatever,) but rather can only be considered to be a Borg.

Fighting them tooth and nails, yes. But completely erradicating them?

This is a fallacious distinction, when your only method of fighting them tooth and nail entails eradicating them.

A single borg can be freed of the collective and made an individual and as individual they are rather nice chaps... Why use this extreme means if you know there is a way to neutralize the threat without killing them?

It is impractical enough to free every drone in the Collective one-by-one to consider it a non-option.

What about the Husnock? They have nothing to do with the borg except they present a race completely destroyed for their transgressions. If this happens because Picard pushes the red button or because of a magical god-being makes no difference imho. Now there are obviously omnipotent or nearly omnipotent beings in the star trek galaxy beeing capable of such feats, and yet even the one who destroyed all the Hushnock (who are described as the scum of the galaxy and serious threat to anyone) thought it was a great crime and that he had no right whatsoever to do it.

What about them? What the Douwd feels about what he'd done has no bearing on this. If, however, you want to compare, there is an important distinction. The Douwd destroyed the Husnock race in a fit of pique; we are discussing destroying the Borg as a side effect in an attempt to defend the UFP from them.

What about the neighboring other empires?

What about them? There are obviously - both explicit and implicit - conventions of war established between the major "conventional" powers. The Borg showed no sign of willingness to abide by such things or even a willingness to discuss such things - indeed, they showed no sign even of copmprehension of such things. The Hug-virus would therefore be simply fighting the Borg on the terms which they themselves have chosen.

[Deepcrush]

Nobody said you shouldn't. I think I can safely say that we all appreciate a debate, when the side with which we disagree comprises rational argument rather assholery. Deep saying a point is "stupid" is pretty much the same as the rest of us saying "I disagree."

No, I meant "he's fucking stupid"... But still you're not to far off.

[Mikey]

[kostmayer]

Does anyone think Picards behaviour in First Contact was a little out of sorts with his attitude towards Hugh?

He seemed perfectly willing to throw his crewmembers into a hopeless fistfight with the Borg in order to prevent them over taking the Enterprise, when self destruction was a perfectly logical action. I would even suggest they should have destroyed the Enterprise the moment the Borg took command of engineering to prevent even the slightest risk of the ship, and then Earth being assimilated.

Yet in "I, Borg" he wouldn't sacrifice Hugh in order to wipe out the Borg. If I remember rightly, the problem wasn't in using a virus to wipe the Borg out, but that they were using Hugh, now an individual life form, do deliver it. As for the argument that they would also be wiping innocent people who had been assimilated, what about all the people who were assimilated since, as a consequence of them not using the virus.

[Mikey]

Well, I think you answered your own question. In "I, Borg" Picard seemed to be deliberating about an individual that had somehow transcended Borg-dom, while in FC he was fixated on "the Borg" as a general evil.

That's a facile analysis, however, because in reality anyone who was angry enough with the Borg to act as he did in FC, would naturally have been blinded to the difference between Hugh and any other drone.

[Sonic Glitch]

That's a facile analysis, however, because in reality anyone who was angry enough with the Borg to act as he did in FC, would naturally have been blinded to the difference between Hugh and any other drone.

Well with Hugh, he stopped and met and talked to the individual not just another Borg drone. It's a bit more difficult once you've met someone. Maybe his change of attitude was based on his regret on not using Hugh in the first place?

[Mikey]

Possible. It seems odd, though - if anything, his hatred toward the Borg would have been stronger the less time distanced himself from BoBW, and it would've been unlikely he'd have even given Hugh a second thought.

[kostmayer]

The idea of using Hugh as an instrument for Genocide was rather un-Picard like. As calm and rational he might have seemed, perhaps his hatred of the Borg was motivating him as much as his desire to remove a threat against the Federation. Over the course of the episode he was talked down, much like he was in First Contact.

[Captain Seafort]

Possible. It seems odd, though - if anything, his hatred toward the Borg would have been stronger the less time distanced himself from BoBW, and it would've been unlikely he'd have even given Hugh a second thought.

On the other hand, in FC the Borg were an immediate threat, and even then he managed to keep up the pretence that he was behaving rationally until it got to the point that abandoning and destroying the ship was the logical option. In "I, Borg" he was dealing with a single individual that did not pose a direct threat, so it was a lot easier for him to keep his loathing of them hidden. Even then it slipped out at times - "it's not a person dammit, it's a Borg!"

[Captain Seafort]

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but personally I can't argue from the base of my 24th century morals, only from that of my 21st century ones.

Besides which 24th century morals are pretty shitty. "Extermination is preferable to cultural contamination" being among the worst.

[Sonic Glitch]

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but personally I can't argue from the base of my 24th century morals, only from that of my 21st century ones.

Besides which 24th century morals are pretty shitty. "Extermination is preferable to cultural contamination" being among the worst.

Well, I believe that's based on the idea that cultural contamination leads to extermination. Or something like that.

[Atekimogus]

I just said that I don't think their actions up to the point of the hugh episode justify the extermination of their whole race.

Again I feel compelled to point out the fact that the extermination of the race wasn't the aim of the Hugh-virus. Genocide was never the goal; the fact that a huge number of enemy soldiers would die (huge, as in: "all of them") was a by-product. A trifling point, perhaps, compared to the death total; but an important one, I think, if we're discussing the morality of the use of the weapon.

Isn't that just a nice way of saying the end justifies the means? That is more or less the part were I have a problem with, the prevention of the possible destruction of the UFP (which might not even happen) seems not justification enough to commit holocaust. Even if you state that your goal isn't the complete destruction of the race, should you not consider the consequences of your actions if they lead to such an end?

(On a side note, I am not sure where this point comes from, iirc it seems pretty much clear that Picard knew exactly what they were talking about. It doesn't matter if they paraphrase it as "stopping them" etc. the effect of the virus on the borg and the consequences seem clear to anyone, but maybe I need to watch the episode again, maybe their original goal was just to hinder, dissolve etc. the collective with unfortunate side effects.)

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but personally I can't argue from the base of my 24th century morals, only from that of my 21st century ones.

True, I phrased that poorly. What I meant was that - at least during TNG - they seem to adhere to a moral code more strictly than we do nowadays, more concerned with doing the right thing than being practical. We might agree on turning the other cheek, they actually try to live it.

This is a fallacious distinction, when your only method of fighting them tooth and nail entails eradicating them.

Is it? How do you know that? I am not saying they did just fine during Wolf 359 but on the other hand they were able to beat them in the end. With estimated years to the next encounter and new technologies waiting in the lines it seems nuking them out of the universe seems far from the only option they had and vastly out of proportion. Now we might call Starfleet once more stupid idiots but it was mentioned that the UFP considered the borg less and less of a threat to the point were they didn't even finish the defiant prototype.

It is impractical enough to free every drone in the Collective one-by-one to consider it a non-option.

At the time of the Hugh episode you are correct, yet given the relative easy they were able to infiltrate the collective during BobW, manipulate it for the Hugh virus etc. I wonder if one could not at least acknowledge the possibility that - although considered impractical at the time - this could very well change in the not to far away future.

The Douwd destroyed the Husnock race in a fit of pique; we are discussing destroying the Borg as a side effect in an attempt to defend the UFP from them.

And destroying them at the time of BobW would seem more justified to me than at the time of the Hugh episode. Now the UFP wasn't in a fit of pique but surley on their last leg. If Data wouldn't have put them to sleep just on the cube but wiped the whole race out with the virus it would be somewhat understandable. But at the time of the Hugh episode the borg are far less of a threat. They were beaten - although barley - at their last encounter and now, despite being within reach are not attacking, in fact they largely ignore the away team etc. .

Now you might say timing is irrelevant but to me it seems like someone threatens to kill you and then gives you a bloody nose. Since his actions are consistent with his announcement to kill you, you are of course justified to defend yourself in every way possible. But later you encounter the same guy and although he shows no signs of aggressions (or is at least of no immediate threat) you calmly decide to kill him just to be sure he is of no threat to you anymore. One is self-defense, the other is murder.

[Captain Seafort]

Isn't that just a nice way of saying the end justifies the means? That is more or less the part were I have a problem with, the prevention of the possible destruction of the UFP (which might not even happen) seems not justification enough to commit holocaust. Even if you state that your goal isn't the complete destruction of the race, should you not consider the consequences of your actions if they lead to such an end?

It's not "ends justifying the means", but a matter of the intent and method used - ending the Borg threat by crippling their military C3. The fact that this would cause 100% casualties among their active armed forces is merely a side effect.

True, I phrased that poorly. What I meant was that - at least during TNG - they seem to adhere to a moral code more strictly than we do nowadays, more concerned with doing the right thing than being practical. We might agree on turning the other cheek, they actually try to live it.

Their moral code states that it's better to leave a species to be annihilated than to save it. It is therefore a load of horseshit.

Is it? How do you know that? I am not saying they did just fine during Wolf 359 but on the other hand they were able to beat them in the end.

Through pure chance that a) they were able capture Locutus, b) the Borg didn't disconnect Locutus, c) they were able to access the collective network and d) the regeneration programme wasn't protected in the same way as other critical systems.

With estimated years to the next encounter and new technologies waiting in the lines it seems nuking them out of the universe seems far from the only option they had and vastly out of proportion. Now we might call Starfleet once more stupid idiots but it was mentioned that the UFP considered the borg less and less of a threat to the point were they didn't even finish the defiant prototype.

They certainly finished the Defiant prototype, they simply abandoned it after the problems encountered during trials, and presumably shifted resources to longer-term programmes. I've seen no evidence in any Borg appearance that Starfleet considered them any less of a threat than in BoBW - the key evidence is the bollocking Picard got from Nechayev over his failure to deploy the virus with Hugh.

At the time of the Hugh episode you are correct, yet given the relative easy they were able to infiltrate the collective during BobW, manipulate it for the Hugh virus etc. I wonder if one could not at least acknowledge the possibility that - although considered impractical at the time - this could very well change in the not to far away future.

And in the meantime the Borg would remain an existential threat. You cannot dismiss a golden opportunity to remove or reduce such a threat on the grounds that you might develop an alternative solution at some unknown point in the future.

despite being within reach are not attacking, in fact they largely ignore the away team etc. .

The Borg have never attacked small away teams that we're directly interfering, and in this case would you expect a scout to take on a battleship?

But later you encounter the same guy and although he shows no signs of aggressions (or is at least of no immediate threat) you calmly decide to kill him just to be sure he is of no threat to you anymore. One is self-defense, the other is murder.

What's this got to do with the situation at hand? Would you expect soldiers in the middle of a war to wait until the enemy has spotted them and opened fire before shooting back?