What was a civilian fuel ship doing in the Klingon Neutral Zone in the first place?
By Rich Kozlovich
For Star Trek fans this is a well known story, and recently this scenario came up in an article, Will the Deep State Be Beaten via a ‘Kobayashi Maru Maneuver by DOGE Team?, forcing Democrats to "defend the indefensible" with their obnoxious, brash, senseless, outrageous claims regarding Trump's policies, while failing to offer any coherent
answers.
As for this idea that what Trump is doing isn't what America voted for, well, it appears that's exactly what America voted for as 60% favor expanding oil and gas production, 59% favor declaring emergency at southern border, and Trump
has put Democrats in the position of opposing his massively popular
positions — “defending the indefensible” — and they have no coherent
answers.
Being a Star Trek fan over the years (I don't like the new woke stuff) I always liked that "no win" scenario. Everyone taking the test knew if they attempted a rescue, the test was unbeatable, you were dead, the crew was dead, and the ship was destroyed, unless you cheated as did cadet Kirk. He says he didn't cheat, he altered the parameters of the program....he cheated.... and he says he did it because he didn't believe in a no win scenario, and claimed he received a commendation for initiative. He cheated because he wanted to win.
That was from the original Star Trek series, but in a later movie what he received wasn't a commendation. At least initially, and then he received a command. As I said, it's fiction! So as I go through this keep that in mind, but nonetheless there's a lot to be gleaned regarding the Kobayashi Maru scenario as there are six issues surrounding this whole Star Trek story that are instructive.
- First, it's fiction.
- Secondly, this story is predicated on the Bretton Woods cold war idea it's America's job to resolve all the world's problems. That's the philosophical framework for this scenario, making the assumption the Star Fleet captains would risk destruction and the lives of their crew to save a completely defenseless victim.
- No one in any of these shows dealing with this ever asks why that fuel ship was there in the first place? The Neutral Zone was huge, and the distances between the neutral zone
and the federation planets was also huge. So, where exactly were they
going and how did they get there?
- What if this is just a trap to start a war? No single star ship would survive, and they knew it.
- No one ever explains "rationally" throughout all the various Star Trek TV manifestations and movies why the federation ever agreed to an arms limitation, meaning cloaking devices for their star-ships. They claimed it was to get a peace treaty? Really? Is that in any way sound rational? Everyone else had one, and it was huge advantage, and remember in the original show this vessel was surrounded by a lot of cloaked Klingon ships just waiting for them to attempt a rescue.
- Why would an enemy, especially those with tyrannical violent militarized cultures having such an advantage agree to such a treaty, and if they did, why would they honor any such a peace treaty? It's all irrational, but it's instructive.
The Kobayashi Maru scenario is exactly like so many issues surrounding us today, including the Russo/Ukrainian War. Entirely too much information is left out, too many lies have been told, too much corruption and backstabbing has take place, and done so deliberately, and now those lies and misdirection from the media, politicians, and the Deep State are coming home to roost.
What would I have done as a cadet faced with the Kobayshi Maru scenario? Nothing! They got themselves in that mess, let them get themselves out, as there were much larger issues at stake, like potentially starting another interstellar war. How would the admirals have like it? I have no idea since it appears all the cadet captains tried to save that ship, and they all died, except the one who cheated.
It's kinda like the Russo/Ukrainian War. They got themselves in that mess, let them get themselves out, it's not our fault nor is it our responsibility. As for this idea that Putin had to attack because he was afraid of NATO, that's nonsense. (more here) Putin recently noted that Europe's leaders will eventually come to Trump wagging their tails. Why is that profound? Because that totally undermines his claim he had to attack Ukraine to defend against NATO. He knew those manning NATO's walls are a bunch of wimps, and he had nothing to fear from them, his aggression was all about revanche, acquiring lost territory, and this is all on Putin.
Vice President Vance torched Europe's leaders, and beat up the globalist oligarchs,
putting them on notice, we don't care what you think, what you say, or
what you do, and they hated it, with German Defense Minister Boris
Pistorius saying , “This Is Not Acceptable!” Well listen up Boris, you don't have a say any longer. Their hypocrisy and back stabbing has been unending, along with other corrupt self serving schemes such as the EU continued to buy Russia fertilizer through out the war, and Trump isn't going to tolerate it.
Trump
is working to bring an end to this war, and he's cutting out all the
players who are obstructing any agreement, that being Europe's leaders and Zelenskyy, who are all have a hissy fit over that,
which is understandable, but they've done nothing that works, offer
nothing that works, never will agree on anything except keeping the war
going, and wanting America to pay for it. Even much of the weaponry
we've given to Ukraine has ended up on the black market, and the money
has been diverted, but we don't know where, since Joe Biden wouldn't allow it to be tracked. So why
should we care what Zelenskyy thinks?
But the EU isn't the only ones upset. The D.C. War Party is angry also, but like the others, they're out of the talks also. However, I do find it interesting NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte
tells Europe to stop whining about being left out of the peace talks,
saying if they want to be a part of the debate then come up with
concrete ideas. But that's not gonna happen, and that's why Trump is
dumping them.
Now for the questions not asked.
What I wonder about is this new issue regarding what's being called Ukrainian Economic Colonization over the vast mineral deposits in Ukraine, and the ability to mine them
making Ukraine a very wealthy nation.
Well, if that was true, and I'm
assuming it is, then why didn't they take advantage of that before this? If they had and had become a very wealthy nation they would have been capable of buying, or even better yet,
manufacturing all the military hardware necessary to defend themselves and preventing an attack in the first place. Why didn't they?
If that's part of the deal then we're talking American boots on the ground in order to enrich investors, and in my view, that's no deal at all, it's a Kobayashi Maru scenario, and I still say they created this mess, let them fix it, or not.