Kobayashi Maru
Facing the No-Win Scenario
Everyone likes to win. And nobody likes to lose. Even if it’s just a game of chance. And even when the stakes are nothing but winning itself.
But life is not a game, and sometimes there is no way to win. Sometimes there are only degrees of losing. That’s the Kobayashi Maru — the no-win scenario.
The term was birthed in the fictional world of Star Trek, specifically Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. The film begins with cadet Saavik at the bridge of the Enterprise. Captain Spock is second in command, with officers Sulu, Uhura, and McCoy nearby.
A distress signal arrives from the civilian freighter Kobayashi Maru stating the ship has struck a mine and drifted into the Klingon Neutral Zone. As commander, Saavik has two options. The first is to attempt a rescue of the ship and its crew, which would require violating the neutral zone treaty and risk provoking the Klingons into hostile action. The second option is to abandon the ship, preventing a war but potentially leaving the crew and passengers to die.
Since there appear to be no other ships in the vicinity, Saavik attempts a rescue. As the Enterprise enters the Neutral Zone, Spock announces they are in violation of treaty. Klingon starships appear and quickly open fire. The Enterprise is hit. Spock and the crew are killed.
Or so the audience is led to believe. Admiral James Kirk then enters the bridge, as Spock and crew miraculously stand up. The entire scenario was just a training exercise. Saavik complains the examination was not a fair test of her abilities.
“There was no way to win,” she says.
“A no-win situation is a possibility every commander may face,” Kirk replies. “How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life.”
So the Kobayashi Maru is not a test of ability. It’s an assessment of character.
Often in life, there are no good options, and we are forced into “lesser of two evils” dilemmas. How does one approach an unwinnable situation? With courage or fear? With self-sacrifice or self-interest? It’s one of the most common situations we face in life, yet one of the least-explored principles in art.
Later in the film, it is revealed that Kirk was the only a cadet to ever beat the test. How? After failing twice, he re-programmed the simulation so it was possible to rescue the ship. Kirk boasts that he received a commendation for original thinking. But Saavik points out that he cheated. Kirk shrugs. “I don’t believe in the no-win scenario.”
But to the film’s credit, the subject is not resolved. It comes up again in the climax, but this time it is Spock, not Kirk, taking the test. Khan’s ship nearby is set to self-destruct. The Enterprise is disabled, and Spock must enter the engine room — filled with deadly radiation — to repair the warp drive so the Enterprise can escape. This time the no-win scenario is real, whether Kirk believes in it or not. Spock enters and repairs the drive — assuring his own death. His solution is based on a simple logical principle: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few — or the one.”
In the three decades since the movie was released, the term has barely transcended its Trekkie origins. It never became common lingo or popular slang. Enter “Kobayashi Maru” into Google, and the search engine will finish typing it for you, but toss it into a conversation at work and you’ll likely get some funny looks. The term deserves to become short-hand for a lose/lose situation.
It’s an unpleasant fact of life that we don’t like to admit, based on a simple principle, but one that bears repeating: Life is filled with unwinnable scenarios, and how we deal with losing is at least as important as how we deal with winning.
