Is it better to let the council die or save them in ME1?

Its too bad Shepard couldn't ask Hackett what he meant when he said he thought Cerberus would try something? Another one of those questions I would have liked Shepard to ask in the trilogy.

What's this old mikefest-Hackett blood feud thing? Does that mean there's a youngster dromedary-Hackett love connection that will never end, I suppose.

What does that have to do with finding a way to stop the reapers?

Besides Horizon, what other colonies had defenses?

Winning a decisive clash is one thing, securing a space Syberia with patrols is another. The state as per around when those colonies were established was like this:

Revelation, chapter 1.

For my cannon playthrough, I save the Council. I don't give two shits about the council members, but consider what the job of a Spectre -IS-... Preserve Galactic stability by whatever means necessary. Letting the Destiny Ascension be destroyed fails this goal in two respects:

1) The council is the governing body of Citadel space. When a government has a dispute, the Citadel Council is the body that settles it peacefully. If they all die, then of course they will be replaced, but in the meantime political and possibly military chaos will rule the day in the event of a "dispute". And who is to say they are not replaced with someone worse? After playing the series, you know how it turns out, but at the time you have no way of knowing what killing the entire council would do. The only certainty is that letting them die disrupts Galactic stability.

2) The Destiny Ascension is not just any ship. It crews an average of 10,000 people, has more firepower than the rest of the Asari Fleet combined, and the ship is a symbol of the Citadel Fleet. People are comforted and awe inspired when the dreadnaught flies over head. At the time you first see the ship, it is viewed as a flying fortress that no sane person would dare to take on. A mythology that is used to make the enemies of the Council races thinking twice before making a move against Citadel Space. Again, meta-gaming, you know that the Destiny Ascension's destruction means little in the grand scheme of things. At the time, however, you have no idea what will happen if Citadel Space's biggest gun gets destroyed. Maybe nothing or maybe the Batarians, Krogan, Vorcha and whatever else out there gets it in their collective heads that the Citadel is softened up and it's time for the killing blow. You don't know. The only certainty is that letting the Destiny Ascension be destroyed disrupts Galactic stability.

You are a Spectre. Maintaining the balance is the job description. Most of the "grey area" decisions you make in the series can be put through this lens. Spare the Rachni Queen or kill her? Save the council or don't? Rewrite the Geth heretics or destroy them? Save the Collector base and hand it over to Cerberus or destroy it? Cure the Genophage or sabotage it?

Instead of asking if a decision is "right", ask if this decision will disrupt galactic stability.

That's the job.

All true, but again the mythology around the Destiny Ascension is that it's invincible. The idea that it could be defeated would not enter their minds. From that perspective, it makes sense (deluded as it is) for the Destiny Ascension to remain in the battle AND house the council. This is what happens when you believe your own propaganda. It would make more tactical sense for the council to have a private shuttle with FTL capability on standby in case of attack. As soon as the alarms sound, they are immediately evacuated to a bunker on an asteroid/moon/planet in a near by star system or pull a Geth move and have a secret uncharted station in interstellar space for the council to hold up. But that's not what they have.

As for Hackett, his silence at the time indicates where he stood on saving the Destiny Ascension or letting it be destroyed. He doesn't object to saving the ship or abandoning it. I suppose it breaks down to the cold calculus of war. Sacrifice 20 Turain cruises and 8 Alliance frigates with a combined crew size of around 8,000 to save one ship with a crew of 10,000. OR sacrifice the dreadnaught to reserve your smaller ships. But then, the purpose of smaller ships in a flotilla is to protect the heavy. Every aircraft Carrier sails with a battle group whose purpose is to protect the carrier and sacrifice themselves if need be. Ultimately, is it worth it? I don't know. From Hackett's silences I assume he doesn't either. As the first Human Spectre, it's Shepard's call and he backs your play.

Metagaming... I think it's only a difference of 30 or 40 war asset points and some positive or negative views towards humanity. In the macro, this "choice" doesn't really matter. in the micro, do you kill 8,000 or 10,000?

You and I don't live in the MEU. The NPCs revere that ship. Just look at the way the crew reacts when you pull into the Citadel for the first time and see the Destiny Ascension fly by.

Consider it like this... You have a militia armed with hand guns, but one of you has a Bazooka. Your target is a fully armored Humvee with a minigun on top... The first target the enemy will have is the person with the bazooka.... there is a reason for that... That person is the only one with a weapon worth being worried about.

The only reason the Alliance and Turian ships damage Sovereign at all is because it's barriers drop. How destroying robo-Saren does that, I still don't understand, but fine. Before the barriers are down, their weapons are useless. The Ascension boasts to have more raw fire power than the rest of the Asari fleet combined. Even Ashley says about the Destiny Ascension, "Look at that monster. It's main gun could rip through the barriers on any ship in the Alliance fleet." If true, the Destiny Ascension may be the only ship (at the time) capable of doing any damage to a Reaper Capital ship. There is a reason Sovereign doesn't move in until the Destiny Ascension is in retreat from the Geth.