Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site wjvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!pesnta!wjvax!ron
From: ron@wjvax.UUCP (Ron Christian)
Newsgroups: net.startrek
Subject: Re: Proposed Solution to Kob.Maru Scenario
Message-ID: <419@wjvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Apr-85 12:43:35 EST
Article-I.D.: wjvax.419
Posted: Thu Apr 18 12:43:35 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Apr-85 01:23:01 EST
References: <401@psivax.UUCP>
Organization: Watkins Johnson, San Jose, Calif.
Lines: 30

Re: Those who suggested that the distress call from the K. Maru
should be ignored.

We've said over and over that it's a no win situation.  Ok.  You
get a distress call, and you are REQUIRED (probably by federal
regulations) to respond.  Responding puts you in a situation where
you get killed.  This is not an unreasonable scenerio considering
the military nature of your job.  The test was designed to record
cadet's reactions to such a situation.

The real question is, do you believe that you must bravely give your
life for your country/federation/whatever if the situation warrents
it, or do you believe, like Captian Kirk (and, by the way General
Patton and others) that your goal is both to complete your mission AND
somehow survive?

I think the main theme of STII pointed out a major point of debate on
the preceved purpose of military life.  That is, a soldier dying bravely
and gallently as opposed to being sneaky and underhanded but getting the
job done.  And surviving.

I don't think I've expressed this very well.  Maybe we should kick this
idea around a little more.  But *I* think trying to out-guess the K. Maru
situation is a null excercise.  Besides Kirk already found the answer
to that one...
-- 
--
	Ron Christian  (Watkins-Johnson Co.  San Jose, Calif.)
	{pesnta,twg,ios,qubix,turtlevax,tymix,vecpyr,isi,idx}!wjvax!ron
	"What do you mean you backed it up the wrong direction???"