[PapaBear3625]

The test wasn’t devised to see how you win. It was devised to see how people held up under circumstances that led to defeat. This is a critical aspect of leadership.

I could see the instructors being sufficiently impressed at Kirk's ability to think outside the box (and thus snatch victory where everyone else has been defeated) that they would give him a pass on this.

It is better to have an officer who is very good at not losing, than one who has proven his ability to gracefully accept the deaths of his command.

[DoughtyOne]

I appreciate the premise. That kind of an observation was made up thread, and I responded to it.

I’ve pretty much said too much here on this already. It’s a discussion on an aspect of science fiction, that I think touches on ethics.

Take care.

[longtermmemmory]

McCain vs Reagan

[RansomOttawa]

I could see the instructors being sufficiently impressed at Kirk's ability to think outside the box (and thus snatch victory where everyone else has been defeated) that they would give him a pass on this.

And in fact, that's what happened: Kirk got a commendation for "original thinking."

Of course in Wrath of Khan, you see both sides of the coin: Kirk has cheated death so many times that he finds himself unprepared for the "no-win scenario" of Spock's death.