www.ditl.org

Precisely, Seafort.

Okay...

Not raising the shields in WoK

Stranding Khan in the first place at Ceti Alpha V

Exploring the Murasaki 312 Quasar instead of delivering medical supplies to Makus III.

Destroying Va'al.

His actions at Iotia.

Arming the natives of Tyree's planet to 'maintain the balance of power'.

Taking over the Enterprise during TMP instead of leaving the more-familiar Decker in charge.

Have I missed any? Are there any more or any disputes with them?

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:Destroying Va'al.

What else could he have done? Yes, the outcome was shit for the locals, but Kirk's job was to ensure the safety of his ship and his crew.

His actions at Iotia.

It got him and his people off the planet, and established trading relations with the Iotians.

Arming the natives of Tyree's planet to 'maintain the balance of power'.

Making the best of a bad situation IMO. He applied the minimum boost in weapons technology required to prevent the Klingons getting a strategic hold on the planet.

I'd argue against replacing Decker being a bad decision.

On the one hand, Kirk's unfamiliarity with the Enterprise did risk the ship during the wormhole thing. But that's the only time it was a factor in the mission at all, and the crew picked it up easily enough.

But against that, Decker pushed for a more aggressive stance against V'Ger when they first arrived; that alone might well have led to the ship being destroyed. Kirk was the one who pushed Decker to bond with the Ilia probe, which Decker was very against. And the ultimate resolution depended on some pretty classic Kirk moves - bluffing a vastly superior enemy with his "clear the bridge" for instance. Whilst Decker did contribute a lot to the mission - and indeed it was he who ultimately resolved it - without Kirk along, I doubt they would have won the day.

Arming the natives of Tyree's planet to 'maintain the balance of power'.

I think this was about the best he could do in that situation. What else could he do? As I see it, his choices were basically to leave the hill people to be exterminated, arm them equally, or give them superior weapons to destroy the villagers in turn. Number one is a defeat. Number three would just provoke the Klingons into doing the same for their side - with the potential of war with the Klingons directly if Starfleet tried to stop them. What he did was about all he could do.

All right, any rebuttals from the posters that put those decisions up?

Oh and by the way, replacing Decker wasn't Kirk's decision anyway, Kirk may have asked for it to happen but it was Admiral Nogura who made that call.

Seafort wrote:
What else could he have done? Yes, the outcome was s**t for the locals, but Kirk's job was to ensure the safety of his ship and his crew.

By Kirk's very words a Starship Captain would be willing to sacrifice both his ship and crew before interfering in the natural development of the society. Not the option I'd choose personally, but they never tried separating the saucer to escape, or anything else.

Striker wrote:
Arming the natives of Tyree's planet to 'maintain the balance of power'.

Well, after kicking the Klingons out, he could have simply used the transporter and REMOVED the weapons. At that time they were only supplied, and hadn't been manufactured by the natives yet.

Seafort wrote:
It got him and his people off the planet, and established trading relations with the Iotians.

First, he could have gotten his people off the planet with a rescue party as well, or had subcutaneous transponders put in for easy rescue once he had an idea there was a risk of capture.

Second, to obtain said trading rights he completely reorganized the planets government, leaving the Federation as the "God Father"



Now, regarding Decker....as I said, he could have left Decker as Captain of the Enterprise (i.e. in command of the ship), while himself assuming command of the overall mission (we've seen it done before). And Admiral Nogura wouldn't have given Kirk command if Kirk hadn't gone in raising hell and pestering him. Granted, Kirk's experience saved Earth........however, his ignoring EVERYBODY'S warnings and ignorance about the refit COULD have had dire effects. Your looking at it from hindsight, but going in he didn't even know that a system as critical as his ships phasers had been altered (a problem he had Scotty correct in the novelization).

I wouldn't put exiling Kirk down as one of his worst command decisions - it may have very bad consequences at the end of it, but thats not the same thing. Although I do think someone should have checked on them sooner.

Banishing Khan was a terrible decision because it wasn't Kirk's to make. Khan was a civilian, and should have been remanded to the court system for trial and sentencing.

Mikey wrote:Khan was a civilian, and should have been remanded to the court system for trial and sentencing.

We don't know that. The Nuremberg Trials were held under allied military jurisdiction, so there's precedent there for trying senior political figures under military law if he was being tried for offences committed during the war. Moreover, he committed piracy and incitement to mutiny in his attempt to seize the Enterprise, which might also have given Kirk jurisdiction.

Kirk's banishment of Khan had nothing to do with any allegations of war crimes, nor was Kirk a military tribunal.

All right, looks like definite ones are:

Not raising the shields in WoK

Exploring the Murasaki 312 Quasar instead of delivering medical supplies to Makus III.


Good arguments for and against:

Stranding Khan in the first place at Ceti Alpha V

His actions at Iotia.

Arming the natives of Tyree's planet to 'maintain the balance of power'.

Taking over the Enterprise during TMP instead of leaving the more-familiar Decker in charge.


I think this would be a good list, myself. They run the gamut from 'reasonable, but might've done better' to 'Good God, man! What were you thinking???"

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:I think this would be a good list, myself. They run the gamut from 'reasonable, but might've done better' to 'Good God, man! What were you thinking???"

I think the fact that he is so balanced is what makes him an interesting character. Much like Sisko.

Hey, alot of his decisions are judgment calls. I'm with Deep on this one. As O'Brien said "I wasn't in command that day."

Mikey wrote:Kirk's banishment of Khan had nothing to do with any allegations of war crimes, nor was Kirk a military tribunal.

So we're down to the more immediate charges - piracy and incitement to mutiny.

kirk's greatest mistake for me was not 'boffing' the cetacean biologist lass in st:iv and not blowing up the russian whaler in said film...