You know what not done with unpopular Trek opinions today. Just saw another post comparing Jack Crusher with Michael Burnham. It was saying they both made choices which killed hundreds of people, but Michael had to spend three seasons working redemption back to the bridge, whereas Jack Crusher is handed the position 10 mins later.
Episode 10 of Strange New Worlds showed an alternate timeline in which Pike remained Captain of the Enterprise during the Romulan incursion. In that storyline Pike tried negotiation – tried peace ala what Captain Georgiou was going for – and it ultimately led to a Romulan war. In the real TOS episode Kirk blew up the ship. He showed strength against the Romulans. They knew StarFleet wasn’t weak and there was no war.
Unpopular opinion but erm isn’t that the argument Michael was making?
Really unpopular opinion. The only reason there was a Klingon war is because they stopped Michael before she could finish. If she had actually done what she said needed to be done, then it might have been like Kirk and the Romulans – war averted. Instead they stopped her, locked her up, called her traitor, and then there was a war. Of course her gambit might not have worked but there was no guarantee Kirk’s actions against the Romulans would have worked either. What he did was only ok because it worked.
So I totally agree with the unfair comparison of Michael and Jack – raw deal for Michael, Jack is getting off Scot free and we all know why. But Michael didn’t really deserve any of the crap in the first place.
Also Michael was trying to save lives and stop a war. Jack basically started one. He was the essential component to sending the signal, which then got hundreds killed, and he handed himself over of his own free will. They are not the same.