When submarines became widely used there was an aversion and denouncement of them as ungentlemanly and their use akin to being a war criminal. But submarines can break an ocean going foe by being able to conceal themselves in the depths of the ocean, and attack targets with impunity. Today, capable of carrying nuclear tipped ICBMs, they are the most powerful weapon in our military today.
So, why on Earth would you, as a leader of some futuristic space nation, deny your armed force this capability? And, on top of that, allow a foe who has sworn to destroy you, have that same capability which you've agreed not to have?
It's just another notch of stupidity in a show that claims to be high brow, but is, in reality, a lame brained excuse to look at psychological issues, even when the plot doesn't make sense or has massive loop holes and other forms of illogic in the story.
I just can't wrap my skull around why this show continues to get praises for lapses in good thinking. Could not the plot have been reworked to show a deficiency in cloaking technology, or some more pragmatic idea to show why Star Fleet doesn't use that Romulan gizmo?
But no, instead the plot and logic thereof or unimportant. According to the producers what's important is that the emotional clash between officers and the idea of a mutiny on a starship for idiotic story reasons.
Production values are first rate; sets, acting, makeup ... eh, the SFX are a little lacking but passable, but aside from that, the story is flimsy.
If you're going to postulate a mutiny on a volunteer service vessel, then maybe you can ash-can your ivory tower sociology mind and take your ego and shove it some place dark, dank, and full of foul odor, because the condescension here reeks of idiocy.
Reason; you mutiny because you're captain is abusive, immoral, unbalanced, and has put ship and compliment in danger. Not because he's breaking a treaty. Treaties are broke all the time. It's the scale and impact that's important. This episode fails that criteria story- wise.
I've said it once, I've said it many times, if I helmmed this show, then it would have been much different.
So, why on Earth would you, as a leader of some futuristic space nation, deny your armed force this capability? And, on top of that, allow a foe who has sworn to destroy you, have that same capability which you've agreed not to have?
It's just another notch of stupidity in a show that claims to be high brow, but is, in reality, a lame brained excuse to look at psychological issues, even when the plot doesn't make sense or has massive loop holes and other forms of illogic in the story.
I just can't wrap my skull around why this show continues to get praises for lapses in good thinking. Could not the plot have been reworked to show a deficiency in cloaking technology, or some more pragmatic idea to show why Star Fleet doesn't use that Romulan gizmo?
But no, instead the plot and logic thereof or unimportant. According to the producers what's important is that the emotional clash between officers and the idea of a mutiny on a starship for idiotic story reasons.
Production values are first rate; sets, acting, makeup ... eh, the SFX are a little lacking but passable, but aside from that, the story is flimsy.
If you're going to postulate a mutiny on a volunteer service vessel, then maybe you can ash-can your ivory tower sociology mind and take your ego and shove it some place dark, dank, and full of foul odor, because the condescension here reeks of idiocy.
Reason; you mutiny because you're captain is abusive, immoral, unbalanced, and has put ship and compliment in danger. Not because he's breaking a treaty. Treaties are broke all the time. It's the scale and impact that's important. This episode fails that criteria story- wise.
I've said it once, I've said it many times, if I helmmed this show, then it would have been much different.