[horatio]

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

It's not ideology though, it's the nature of what they are

Once you seperate the drones from the hive mind they are a just cyborgs who are a bit lost but behave more or less like humanoids do.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

You can defeat a human government and reintegrate their population into society. You can't do that with the Borg, the Borg have no government to defeat. To defeat them, you have to defeat them all. Literally Trillions of people lost their lives due to Picard's inaction. What do you say to them?

As far as I know the Borg didn't start a large scale attack upon the Federation between "I, Borg" and FC. In case you refer to the other lifeforms the Borg attacked and assimilated I'd guess that they assimilated more people than they killed.
Now do you slaughter these trillions of assimilated lifeforms or do you attempt to liberate them?

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

sure, you are seperating them from their collective existance. But that doesn't really change the nature of what they are when they are in their collective state. The decision that Picard was facing really comes down to this, the lives of the innocent VS the lives of the guilty. Either way, lives were going to be lost. He made the wrong choice.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

Originally Posted by horatio

As far as I know the Borg didn't start a large scale attack upon the Federation between "I, Borg" and FC. In case you refer to the other lifeforms the Borg attacked and assimilated I'd guess that they assimilated more people than they killed.
Now do you slaughter these trillions of assimilated lifeforms or do you attempt to liberate them?

If that was an option, they would have done that. That would of course be the ideal way to deal with them.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

You can approach it from a trade-off between lives perspective but I like to view it from the angle of whether Borg genocide is right or wrong.

It can only be right if the Borg drones and the Borg ideology are inseparably connected with each other. "I, Borg" showed that this is not the case, at least not physically. I am glad that the Americans didn't approach Nazi Germany in '45 with a Nechayev attitude.
Yet on a practical level it seems to be impossible to liberate the drones from the hive mind. Regeneration showed how quickly a buch of stranded drones can build up a new collective. They are a virus and you have to crush them.

It seems to be impossible, that's the key. Our knowledge is limited so what happened to Hugh and the other drones who were picked up by Lore might be possible on a large scale. Picard thought about this whereas Nechayev only thought in terms of military logic.

I object the death penalty not because I'd have any problems with the execution of rapists and murderers but because of our human imperfections. That's precisely why I also object to a "defensive genocide" which sounds like one of the most nasty euphemisms I have ever heard.
It's funny how TNG didn't make much of a fuss of Nechayev's position whereas in DS9 it was clear that Section 31 was about to violate the basic principles of the Federation when they planned the genocide of the Dominion.

You could argue that the it was Nechayev's job to think only interms of the military logic of the situation. Her primary concern was the safety of the Federation.

And the Federation faced no immediate threat from the Borg at that time, that's also true.

I'm not saying Picard was right, nor that he was wrong. But there are ways to look at it. And Picard's decision had repercussions that would have cost lives anyway.

How many Borg would have been destroyed? We don't know. Billions likely. But how many lives were destroyed and people assimilated because they weren't? We don't know. But we know it wasn't none. What if more died than would have been lost with the Borg? You may like to think of it differently, that's fine, but the lives trade-off is a factor.

It's not a black and white issue.

The section 31 argument enters play though. And the idea that they represent the dirty work that has to be done to keep a power safe from enemies.

You argue that the Federation (since I don't believe that S31 acted without someone in the Federation aware of it's existence. There are of course arguments to the contrary, but I don't subscribe to them) betrayed it's principles by planning the genocide of The Founders.

Now, I would not in principle disagree with that as a statement. It's not what the Federation was purported to stand for.

But in reality, if the Federation had not been prepared to do so, the Federation would have fallen to The Dominion. They were not going to win on a traditional conventional basis. Sticking to it's principles during the War would have led to it's destruction and the enslavement of it's population (and also the extermination of Earth specifically per the Founders plans).

Which is the difference between theory and reality and why War is never glorious and clean. Everyone in it has no choice but to get dirty when simple survival is at stake.

And you could argue that Sisko's decision to bring the Romulans into the war was a similar choice that he had the ability to make. Picard would never have done what Sisko did. Not ever in that manner.

Picard was the embodiment of GR ideas, and an idealist himself mostly. But Sisko - who was less so - was able to make the decisions during wartime that others could not.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

If that was an option, they would have done that. That would of course be the ideal way to deal with them.

Well, you could argue they tried liberating them when they left Hugh to infect his ship. In a kind of 'let's not take responsibility but just see what happens' kinda way.

As we saw in season 6/7 though - that didn't work out overly well. The Borg became lost and fell under the control of Lore, who then wanted to use them to destroy the Federation anyway.

One threat not dealt with one way at an earlier point, became another threat to be dealt with later.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

sure, you are seperating them from their collective existance. But that doesn't really change the nature of what they are when they are in their collective state. The decision that Picard was facing really comes down to this, the lives of the innocent VS the lives of the guilty. Either way, lives were going to be lost. He made the wrong choice.

No, it does indeed not change their nature when they are under the influence of Borg ideology and I acknowledged the difficulties to seperate them on a practical level.

You couldn't seperate Nazis from Germans in 1945 either and it is not just a matter of getting rid of a government (former Nazis were in top government positions until the seventies, we had a governor who did say in the seventies "what has been right then cannot be wrong today"), it's a matter of convincing a people that there is a better way of life.
Something like the Morgenthau plan seemed to make a lot of sense but the Americans did choose the risky and stony path ... and guess what, it payed off.

What I tried to suggest is that Picard's attempt to explore liberation instead of considering genocide as the only option cannot be considered to be wrong. There are always options and if you don't explore them before you commit to a radical solution you are lazy and evil.
Ironically one point of the Borg was to show that evil and monoism often go hand in hand. Sauron with his one eye and one ring is another example for a personification of monoistic evil in fiction.

[kevin]

Yes, Picard decided to explore another option.

That option also had effects that cost lives and which threatened the Federation. The Borg came back and attacked again. The Borg set loose attacked under Lore's leadership. The Borg in the Delta Quadrant continued to assimilate and tried to attack Earth again in 'EndGame'.

Picard's actions in 'I, Borg' stopped nothing. He tried another avenue. But it did not work.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

And you could argue that Sisko's decision to bring the Romulans into the war was a similar choice that he had the ability to make. Picard would never have done what Sisko did. Not ever in that manner.

Picard was the embodiment of GR ideas, and an idealist himself mostly. But Sisko - who was less so - was able to make the decisions during wartime that others could not.

There is a large difference between tricking the Romulans into the war, implementing a spy at the top of the main intelligence agency of your archenemy ... and planning the genocide of a ruthless enemy who is about to crush you.
And even if you consider it as OK, can your project the implications of killing all the Founders? How will the Vorta react? Will they become reclusive and mourn the death of their Gods or will they go berserk upon you or peaceful Gamma Quadrant species? Might you have saved yourself at the cost of the Gamma Quadrant?
Unintended implications and the lack of considerating them beforehand (as far as it is possible) is one of the main reasons for the Prime Directive and also a minor reason against genocide.

By the way, this kinda feels like one of this torture debates which have emerged in the public sphere in the last few years. Some people say that we talk at least about torture and certainly torture far less people than Non-Western countries. I have a quite radical opinion. In a decent society there are certain taboos such that it wouldn't be possible to publically talk about the potential virtues of torture or genocide without becoming an "unperson" (uuhh, nasty Orwellian word but as a closet-communist I like it ).

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

Originally Posted by horatio

No, it does indeed not change their nature when they are under the influence of Borg ideology and I acknowledged the difficulties to seperate them on a practical level.

You couldn't seperate Nazis from Germans in 1945 either and it is not just a matter of getting rid of a government (former Nazis were in top government positions until the seventies, we had a governor who did say in the seventies "what has been right then cannot be wrong today"), it's a matter of convincing a people that there is a better way of life.
Something like the Morgenthau plan seemed to make a lot of sense but the Americans did choose the risky and stony path ... and guess what, it payed off.

What I tried to suggest is that Picard's attempt to explore liberation instead of considering genocide as the only option cannot be considered to be wrong. There are always options and if you don't explore them before you commit to a radical solution you are lazy and evil.
Ironically one point of the Borg was to show that evil and monoism often go hand in hand. Sauron with his one eye and one ring is another example for a personification of monoistic evil in fiction.

But that is kind of my point, you can defeat a human enemy by toppeling it's government and reasoning with it's people. You can't reason with Borg, they aren't individuals. You can't bargain with them, you can't negotiate with them.