binder%dosadi.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (07/12/84)
From: binder%dosadi.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (The Stainless Steel Rat) Attempts to clear some of the issues presented re: Enterprise, renaming, decommissioning, courts-martial, etc. The use of a ship name is in no way tied to the class of that ship other than by convention. US Navy battleships have been for some time named for US states, cruisers for cities, etc. But there have been many deviations, especially among aircraft carriers, which have borne names ranging from the Presidents (Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy) to an erstwhile Secretary of the Navy (James E. Forrestal) to insects (Wasp, Hornet), Revolutionary War battles (Lexington, Yorktown, Saratoga) and off-the-wall names like Enterprise. The first Enterprise wasn't an aircraft carrier; if memory serves me correctly, she was a corvette or a frigate, under sail. The second and third Enterprises were other classes. The most recent Enterprise is a space shuttle, albeit one that will never fly. So there is no real problem with naming an Excelsior-class ship "Enterprise". But it's an UGLY ship! And it's a dreadnought, which is clearly too big to go gallivanting about the galaxy at the whim of an unregenerate gadabout like Kirk - it would be like assigning an aircraft carrier to courier service. I suspect that there will be a new class of heavy cruiser, of which one ship can be a new Enterprise. Ships are decommissioned when they have outlived their usefulness. The US Navy is REcommissioning a SECOND mothballed World War II battleship to join the New Jersey; my son, who is usually right about this sort of thing, says it will be the Missouri. There are many other ships of the same vintage still in use, from refitted light cruisers down to lowly minesweepers and sub tenders. And the USS Constitution, built in 1797, is, believe it or not, a fully commissioned frigate in the US Navy. Granted, the Constitution is a special case, but she serves to underscore the "usefulness" aspect. So 20 years is not too old for a ship - the Enterprise of ST could certainly have been found a berth, even if it were as a yacht or ferry craft. Her 2-1/2 year refit before STTMP is proof that Starfleet was willing to spend LOTS of money to keep her in service; it is hardly consonant with such determination that she'd be decommissioned only a few years later. Courts-martial are the exclusive province of the military. If it so chooses, the military can, after holding its own trial, remand a prisoner to civil authority for further trial by same. As for Kirk's disobedience of orders and vindication for having so done, I cite the case of Lieutenant William Calley, who is serving a life term for the extermination of the people of My Lai in 1968. It was made very clear during his trial that what he did was wrong (that's why they threw the poor sod in jail!), but had he refused to follow the orders that led to the massacre, then Calley would have been tried and convicted of wilfully disobeying a direct order given him by a superior officer. Under combat conditions, EVEN IF NOT DURING A DECLARED WAR, such disobedience is classed as desertion under fire, and the prescribed punishment is death by firing squad (cf Private Edward Slovik, WWII, executed for desertion in the European Theatre). Applying this precedent to James T. Kirk, and given the recidivistic nature of his behaviour, the proper course for Starfleet would almost certainly be to have shot him long ago. The argument that such an execution, or even the lesser punishment of cashiering him, would be a waste of talent doesn't bear up, as no military organisation can afford to have a commander who will not follow orders. It is deemed beneficial to destroy a miscreant, even a talented one, in light of the example the affair will set for others who might be contemplating similar offences.