View Single Post
Old July 26 2013, 03:00 PM   #114
Location: This dry land thing is too wierd!
Re: Marines and Combat Personel?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
I'm not so sure. I think that UESPA is a "combined service" in the sense that both military and non-military organizations were fused together to form it under basically the same rationale as the shuttle program and/or NOAA: military officers have more operational experience, but certain scientific disciplines involve specialists from civilian fields.
I did say
DOD and any other stakeholding agency
, which may be the in-universe cause of some of the stupidity. If UE Solar Fleet merged with the Space Probe Agency to make UESPA, the Solar Fleet types would assume they're best suited to administer and lead the new force, while some of the SPA-types assumed the low-brow soldiers would know they're just supposed to provide muscle and get out of the brainiac's way. Picard being an inveterate reader and a lover of the past, over-identifies with the SPA chapter of Starfleet history.

Extrapolating further, it might very well be that the uniform colors on the Enterprise indicate what branch of the service they're originally from: blues are scientists and/or doctors, reds for civilian contractors, gold for commissioned officers.
I'd say red for logistics, technical support, engineering, civilian contractors, etc. Still, interesting idea.

This would certainly explain the broad inconsistency with the fact that members of the security department do not always wear red shirts and that some command-level officers (Scotty, in particular) do not wear gold ones. In the case of, for example, the Galileo Seven, we'd have Latimer (in a gold shirt) as a former fighter pilot assigned as a shuttle pilot for the Enterprise; Gaetano, a radiation specialist who also comes from a military background (and therefore wears gold instead of blue); Boma, a civilian scientist comissioned into Starfleet gets a blue shirt; Spock, joining Starfleet from the Vulcan Science Academy, also gets a blue; Scotty comes from a civilian job serving on a freight liner at Deneva Colony and is therefore a civilian contractor, along with Yeowman Mears, who is just a glorified secretary.
Which sounds like you're assuming the merger was in the late 2250s / early 2260s.

Strictly speaking, it didn't: ENT actually turns into NuTrek after a century and I'm privately of the opinion that it never had anything to do with TOS in the first place (and there's some in-universe support for this theory; see "Romulan Cloaking Device").
That's what I've come to. At first, I just hated the way ENT could not fit TOS, but after nuTrek came along, I decided it could probably fit there.

I agree, If I could find a way to definitively divorce TNG+ from TOS, then UESPA/Starfleet would be totally different discussion (the TOS fleet is, at the very most, a non-conventional military with a fascinating structure). It's having to make them consistent with EVERYTHING ELSE that makes things weird... but then, that's been true of TOS since at least 1976
that's an interesting idea.

Deneva under control of neural parasites whose population can only barely operate what little machinery is still operational on the surface... not exactly a test case (although I've been wondering for a long time why that episode had such a severe title with such a pussy ending; might play with this in a fanfic )
The Blish adaptation is where I learned that. Look it up if you don't have it.

Also, 22nd century Earth IS kind of an under-developed backwater. Also, FLORIDA.
Now, now, Terra in the 22nd century isn't under-developed, they just haven't caught up with the 23rd century yet. And what about FLORIDA?

I don't know if they'd be walking away from that unscathed, but it definitely wouldn't be a ship killer.
Again, Blish worked with the scripts, not the episodes, Kirk discusses it in the adaptation of the episode.

Not by much, considering that every warp-capable spacecraft in the Federation uses antimatter as a fuel source and civilian freighters clearly don't have much in the way of security (seeing how Earth is a crime-free utopia and all...) A 9/11 style terrorist attack against Earth would otherwise result in an "Obsession" style devastation of the entire planet, UNLESS said planet had some pretty formidable safety systems capable of containing that kind of accident.
That's a totally different argument than the idea of one machine-gunning down barbarian tribes.
We never saw any systems to shield from such attacks in TOS or TNG. But the sensors, computers, tractors, etc we did see would detect a ship (with antimatter powerplant) on a wrong course far enough out to warn them off, tractor them and hold them until they blew up or surrendered, and ended the threat short of their goal.

Who needs arsenal ships when you've got SSGNs? Nothing says "Respect my authority!" like a 150 Tomahawks and a SEAL team for dessert.
When you have a surface arsenal ship, you can have a lot more than 150 tomahawks, SM3s, etc. Maybe no SEAL team, but when you've got AEGIS and several times your tincan's own firepower on call, who needs SEALs? Your VBSS team can comb the wreckage just as well.

Total derail here, but I'm of the opinion that the Carrier Age is already over and America simply hasn't gotten the memo yet (we were late to the end of the Battleship Age too, so there's that). There are reasons why one would like to think supercarriers are still the end-all of naval power, but that's only because we've spent the last fifty years using them to bomb and intimidate third-world countries that have no real capacity to challenge us military.
Carriers are very useful for power projection, even against major powers. But yes, they are very vulnerable to subs. Riding shotgun on the Indy (we had a much cruder name for her) in the 90's, I realized we could sink her before she could react if we had wanted to.

Carriers aren't going away, and subs aren't going to become the queens of naval warfare. But we are probably going to have to jigger the formula a bit, which, to bring it back to Trek a bit, is something to work out for fleets. A lot of fans want to see Space Control Ships demonstrate the bad-assery of a carrier over a dreadnought, while other fans dismiss carriers in Trek as a joke.

In the event of an ACTUAL WAR with a world-class naval power -- say, China or Russia or some unholy alliance of Asian countries -- the carrier fleets would be giant targets for submarines, which would force American submarines to counteract them; entire naval battles would be fought and lost UNDER the ocean that nobody would ever see, and the carriers would go through the war (or be sunk before its end) without ever directly engaging an enemy warship. Add to that new technological touches -- supersonic SLCMs and submarine-launched UCAVs capable of competing with manned fighters -- and the aircraft carrier is as useless as a battleship.

End derail.
Can't agree entirely. Carriers are the diplomatic big stick of power projection; subs aren't visible enough to make the point that sailing a carrier somewhere does, and in fact, making it visible renders it vulnerable. And the new tech never meets it's promise, so those UCAVs will get shot down for the next few decades.
If you donít drink the kool-aid, youíre a baaad person - Rev Jim Jones
Almond kool-aid, anyone? Or do you prefer pudding?- Darkwing
Darkwing is offline   Reply With Quote