RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,240
Posts: 5,438,811
Members: 24,958
Currently online: 444
Newest member: greatmovies

TrekToday headlines

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 5 2012, 03:08 PM   #61
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Starfleet Marine Corps

Ron Moore even claimed in a DVD commentary this is how it's done in the US Navy
He would have been correct until the 1990s. But US Marines were gradually withdrawn from USN shipboard security assignments after WWII, lingering the longest aboard ships that carried strategic weapons. The deployment of tactical or strategic nukes on surface ships has been drastically scaled back now, and while there no doubt are live warheads available to select vessels at select times, the training of the manpower to have them there has been scaled back, too, so probably very few ships actually carry such "secret" weapons nowadays.

Supposedly, nukes were rare strategic assets aboard the nuBSG battlestars, too, so perhaps Marine guard was warranted as standard for that reason? Perhaps lesser vessels, or battlestars armed with conventional weapons, would have been guarded by units without special status and/or less in the way of special training?

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5 2012, 04:00 PM   #62
Darkwing
Commodore
 
Location: This dry land thing is too wierd!
Re: Starfleet Marine Corps

Longinus wrote: View Post
I understant that it wouldn't be a stratetigally best possible arrangement, but I still think it would be something Federation might do. I could easily believe Federation not expecting needing an army.
Back when it was founded, yes. By Pike's & Kirk's time, they'd have realized the necessity.
UFP is not an unified nation state but an alliance of different worlds. It's more like EU than USA. Member worlds might not like the idea of large numbers of UFP troops permanently stationed on their territory. And yes, having a permanent army would make Federation more militaristic.
By TOS, it was a lot tighter than the EU. I grew up in a military town, and I'm sure the member worlds would look on it more like the US looks at our own bases (an economic boon) than the Japanese look at our bases there - and even they want them for the money more than they resent them for the "occupation", except when a flashpoint occurs, like the recent rape. And finally, no, having a military is not militaristic. It's what you do with it. Various states and territories brandished their state troops as a threat before federal troops replaced them, which IS militaristic. Also, please remember, not all of Starfleet is made up of touchy-feely big-idea idealists, and the civilian population would be even less so. I'm a more conservative idealist, and I'm constantly disgusted by the fellow sailors who believe in revenge more than justice. "Hang Manning, kill all the terrorists in Gitmo, etc". And civilians are just as bad. "OJ was framed/ OJ shoulda been convicted the first time". Politicians may start as idealists, but over time become pragmatic, then apathetic or corrupt, and prate about ideals they don't follow, and quietly change things behind the scenes.

Oh, and NATO and UN forces kinda operate the way I suggested, and they seem to work just fine. NATO has no army, UN has no army. Their member nations have armies that occassionally perform joint operations.
Which just means that, instead of having AN army, you now need to have 150 smaller armies, a recipe for divisiveness. And now they must have a lot more wargames to practice working together - which is one reason why, in addition to often being war criminals, UN peacekeepers are useless militarily - divided chain of command, jealousies between rivals, and lack of common training and coordination.
__________________
If you don’t drink the kool-aid, you’re a baaad person - Rev Jim Jones
Almond kool-aid, anyone? Or do you prefer pudding?- Darkwing
Darkwing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5 2012, 04:02 PM   #63
Darkwing
Commodore
 
Location: This dry land thing is too wierd!
Re: Starfleet Marine Corps

Longinus wrote: View Post
I cannot understand where this hardon for marines comes from.

Marines are soldiers on a ship. They fight. Starfleet security are dudes on a ship who fight. They fill the exact role marines would be used for.
Not really, MAs and Marines are nowhere near the same, even though a cursory glance makes it seem that way to a civilian.
__________________
If you don’t drink the kool-aid, you’re a baaad person - Rev Jim Jones
Almond kool-aid, anyone? Or do you prefer pudding?- Darkwing
Darkwing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5 2012, 04:18 PM   #64
Longinus
Commander
 
Longinus's Avatar
 
Re: Starfleet Marine Corps

Darkwing wrote: View Post
Not really, MAs and Marines are nowhere near the same, even though a cursory glance makes it seem that way to a civilian.
Considering the wide variety of duties a single Starfleet officer is expected to perform, they are easily roles similar enough. In real world people specialice way more than in Star Trek. See Timo's excellent post on O'Brien's duties.
Longinus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5 2012, 04:36 PM   #65
J.T.B.
Commodore
 
J.T.B.'s Avatar
 
Re: Starfleet Marine Corps

Hanukkah Solo wrote: View Post
I can't speak for the others, but I'm not arguing that there is or might be a Federation naval infantry/marine corps based on possible canon, only that there should be one based on logic.
Based on logic from what we've seen onscreen, I'm not sure I see a "should" there. The orbital capabilities of starships are shown to be so powerful and accurate, it seems quite possible that once you've won control of the orbital space, you've won everything.

Hanukkah Solo wrote: View Post
I don't particularly care for the "canon is the only thing that matters" argument, either, because in the end it's all fictional. It's all just made-up. No one part of it is really more valid than the rest except in our own minds.
Well, if you take that line of thought to its extent, it doesn't matter whether one episode completely contradicts the next, because it's all fictional.

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
I personally don't think they are, sicne they don't have seperate rank structure and we've seen security officers eventually rise to command positions and indeed, engineers and security are interchangeable. Which wouldn't really make sense if they were seperate branches.
Officers seem to have a specialties which aren't interchangeable but aren't necessarily exclusive of command, Spock and Scotty being prime examples. Why couldn't security just be another specialty like science or engineering?

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
But, I also don't get this attitude that pops up in this discussion all the time of "Marines can't handle security, that makes no sense." Like I said, no one complained when BSG had Marines covering all shipboard security, and Ron Moore even claimed in a DVD commentary this is how it's done in the US Navy.
Until the 1990s, USN cruisers, battleships and fleet carriers had an assigned Marine Detachment. Their shipboard duties originally included serving as gun crews as well as handling security, but after WW2 their role became largely traditional and ceremonial, and by the 1990s it was realized they would be better used elsewhere. The last carrier MarDet was reassigned in 1998.

Justin
J.T.B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5 2012, 06:04 PM   #66
neozeks
Captain
 
neozeks's Avatar
 
Re: Starfleet Marine Corps

Darkwing wrote: View Post
Back when it was founded, yes. By Pike's & Kirk's time, they'd have realized the necessity.
I think you're overestimating the centralization of the Federation. Even in the 24th century, it still strikes me as more similar to 19th century USA than today's USA. And at that point, if I'm not mistaken, most American ground troops were still state-raised.

Which just means that, instead of having AN army, you now need to have 150 smaller armies, a recipe for divisiveness. And now they must have a lot more wargames to practice working together - which is one reason why, in addition to often being war criminals, UN peacekeepers are useless militarily - divided chain of command, jealousies between rivals, and lack of common training and coordination.
There are ways to minimize the problems, like requiring every member planet military to train, organize and equip their troops according to Starfleet ground forces guidelines and having Starfleet oversee and command them (perhaps through an official umbrella organization called "the Federation Army"). Besides, I think it would be rather rare for these local armies to ever really work with one another. Defending the surface of one planet would be a mostly independent and self-reliant affair, largely unconnected to the defence of another planet (but connected to the naval war in space). And these troops would be stationary and wouldn't deploy "overseas" - Stafleet's own ground troops would be used for expeditionary missions, like you said yourself. Local troops could get federalized and deployed in support of Starfleet but I don't think there'd be much need for that. I have the feeling the Federation never really needed to fight a large ground war before the Dominion War.

Darkwing wrote: View Post
Not really, MAs and Marines are nowhere near the same, even though a cursory glance makes it seem that way to a civilian.
True, but how do we know to which category Starfleet security belongs?

Anyway, I don't think determining whether Starfleet security are Marines or not and whether they can fight well on land is all that important to the greater question of the existence of separate ground units. It doesn't matter. Even if they are Marines, they're still needed on their ships and starbases. Sure, you can use them for small scale short-term actions - but anything more than that (it doesn't have to be anything "militaristic", say you're conducting a large humanitarian mission on a war-torn planet and you need to protect your humanitarian workers) and you'll be leaving your ships and facilities vulnerable and undermanned. You need to have independent ground units.
__________________
What if it's a smart fungus?

Last edited by neozeks; December 5 2012 at 08:05 PM.
neozeks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5 2012, 06:17 PM   #67
George Steinbrenner
Fleet Admiral
 
George Steinbrenner's Avatar
 
Location: Mr. Laser Beam is in the visitor's bullpen
View George Steinbrenner's Twitter Profile
Re: Starfleet Marine Corps

neozeks wrote: View Post
Local troops could get federalized and deployed in support of Starfleet but I don't think there'd be much need for that.
Actually, there was supposed to be a scene in Homefront / Paradise Lost where that exact thing happens: we would have seen Jaresh-Inyo "federalizing" United Earth forces to assist in the crisis. But it got cut for time.
__________________
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
George Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5 2012, 07:42 PM   #68
timmy84
Commodore
 
timmy84's Avatar
 
Location: Washington
View timmy84's Twitter Profile
Re: Starfleet Marine Corps

I have no doubt several worlds have independent military worlds. I'm also willing to believe several worlds have disbanded anything resembling a military since they are deep within the Federation and therefore don't need a military (so border worlds and worlds with strong military traditions probably still have planetary militaries).

I still don't believe that Starfleet (or the Federation) has a dedicated Army/ Naval Infantry/ Marine Corps / whatever you want to call it. We can debate this by todays standards, but thats us trying to put our beliefs on a fictional universe thats supposed to be better then us.

And if grade schoolers are learning calculus, then I think Red Shirt (Gold Shirt?) Number 52 also knows how to flank the enemy when needed and throw a photon grenade.

__________________
the cake is a lie.
timmy84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5 2012, 10:04 PM   #69
Darkwing
Commodore
 
Location: This dry land thing is too wierd!
Re: Starfleet Marine Corps

[/QUOTE]
I think you're overestimating the centralization of the Federation. Even in the 24th century, it still strikes me as more similar to 19th century USA than today's USA. And at that point, if I'm not mistaken, most American ground troops were still state-raised.[/QUOTE]
They were recruited by locale, but trained by federals and employed federally. Regardless, the UFP seems to me to be a mix of 18th century fleet, 19th century colonies, and 21st century metropolisi. Earth seems like a melange of NY, SF, and other major cities.

There are ways to minimize the problems, like requiring every member planet military to train, organize and equip their troops according to Starfleet ground forces guidelines and having Starfleet oversee and command them (perhaps through an official umbrella organization called "the Federation Army"). Besides, I think it would be rather rare for these local armies to ever really work with one another. Defending the surface of one planet would be a mostly independent and self-reliant affair, largely unconnected to the defence of another planet (but connected to the naval war in space). And these troops would be stationary and wouldn't deploy "overseas" - Stafleet's own ground troops would be used for expeditionary missions, like you said yourself. Local troops could get federalized and deployed in support of Starfleet but I don't think there'd be much need for that. I have the feeling the Federation never really needed to fight a large ground war before the Dominion War.
Exactly what I described, except that having a UFP Army means that those soldiers rotate from one planetary garrison to another, helping keep them from stagnating or developing excessive local loyalty that might override loyalty to the UFP overall.

Darkwing wrote: View Post
Not really, MAs and Marines are nowhere near the same, even though a cursory glance makes it seem that way to a civilian.
True, but how do we know to which category Starfleet security belongs?
I'd assume Security were like Masters-at-Arms, based on seeing them in action, and not being impressed with the combat abilities of redshirts in most episodes. That, and marines have a clannishness that differs from sailors and soldiers.

Anyway, I don't think determining whether Starfleet security are Marines or not and whether they can fight well on land is all that important to the greater question of the existence of separate ground units. It doesn't matter. Even if they are Marines, they're still needed on their ships and starbases. Sure, you can use them for small scale short-term actions - but anything more than that (it doesn't have to be anything "militaristic", say you're conducting a large humanitarian mission on a war-torn planet and you need to protect your humanitarian workers) and you'll be leaving your ships and facilities vulnerable and undermanned. You need to have independent ground units.
I also liked the Diplomatic Protection Group we saw in Rules of Engagement (Morwood).
timmy84 wrote: View Post
I have no doubt several worlds have independent military worlds. I'm also willing to believe several worlds have disbanded anything resembling a military since they are deep within the Federation and therefore don't need a military (so border worlds and worlds with strong military traditions probably still have planetary militaries).
Possible, but I'd think that in the early days, the UFP would exert a lot of pressure to consolidate forces into the federal level - and we see that somewhat with the Green Fleet - those Starfleet ships crewed solely by Vulcans - and the Blue Fleet, FASA's proposed Andorian-crewed ships. They're Starfleet vessels, but operated under the aegis of a founding race FOR the UFP.
I still don't believe that Starfleet (or the Federation) has a dedicated Army/ Naval Infantry/ Marine Corps / whatever you want to call it. We can debate this by todays standards, but thats us trying to put our beliefs on a fictional universe thats supposed to be better then us.
And how is it "better" to disarm and forego a military? That's foolhardy. Trying to make a more enlightened, responsible military makes sense, as long as it doesn't get out of hand and render that force useless. We did that in history, with the Society of Cinncinatus establishing the primacy of civilian control over the military, with the Nuremburg ruling, the Geneva convention, etc.
And if grade schoolers are learning calculus, then I think Red Shirt (Gold Shirt?) Number 52 also knows how to flank the enemy when needed and throw a photon grenade.
Based on episodes, I'd say about as well as a vidiot playing Call of Duty could
__________________
If you don’t drink the kool-aid, you’re a baaad person - Rev Jim Jones
Almond kool-aid, anyone? Or do you prefer pudding?- Darkwing
Darkwing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5 2012, 10:40 PM   #70
Longinus
Commander
 
Longinus's Avatar
 
Re: Starfleet Marine Corps

Seeming occassional incompetence of the Starfleet security people is just a TV thing. Writers and actors are not experts of military tactics. It is not like the supposed super warriors like Klingons and Jem'Hadar appear much more competent.
Longinus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6 2012, 02:30 AM   #71
The Wormhole
Admiral
 
The Wormhole's Avatar
 
Re: Starfleet Marine Corps

J.T.B. wrote: View Post
[
The Wormhole wrote: View Post
I personally don't think they are, sicne they don't have seperate rank structure and we've seen security officers eventually rise to command positions and indeed, engineers and security are interchangeable. Which wouldn't really make sense if they were seperate branches.
Officers seem to have a specialties which aren't interchangeable but aren't necessarily exclusive of command, Spock and Scotty being prime examples. Why couldn't security just be another specialty like science or engineering?
I based my comment on the fact that when Captain Jellico took command of the Enterprise, he immediately re-assigned half the engineers to security. Security is obviously not a different branch from the rest of Starfleet.
__________________
"Internet message boards aren't as funny today as they were ten years ago. I've stopped reading new posts." -The Simpsons 20th anniversary special.
The Wormhole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6 2012, 02:41 AM   #72
Geoff Peterson
Fleet Admiral
 
Geoff Peterson's Avatar
 
Location: 20 feet from an outlet
Re: Starfleet Marine Corps

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
J.T.B. wrote: View Post
[
The Wormhole wrote: View Post
I personally don't think they are, sicne they don't have seperate rank structure and we've seen security officers eventually rise to command positions and indeed, engineers and security are interchangeable. Which wouldn't really make sense if they were seperate branches.
Officers seem to have a specialties which aren't interchangeable but aren't necessarily exclusive of command, Spock and Scotty being prime examples. Why couldn't security just be another specialty like science or engineering?
I based my comment on the fact that when Captain Jellico took command of the Enterprise, he immediately re-assigned half the engineers to security. Security is obviously not a different branch from the rest of Starfleet.
I would assume there is some cross training between engineering and security. Both would have some expertise on the function and operation of the ship weapons. So pulling engineers off other areas to focus on maintaining the ships weapons makes sense.
__________________
Nerys Myk
Geoff Peterson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 6 2012, 09:15 AM   #73
Drago-Kazov
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Starfleet Marine Corps

Longinus wrote: View Post
Seeming occassional incompetence of the Starfleet security people is just a TV thing. Writers and actors are not experts of military tactics. It is not like the supposed super warriors like Klingons and Jem'Hadar appear much more competent.
I bet there are some former military guys who would help them even for free. I hope they will use some better military tactics in all future Trek. This is not the 60s.
Drago-Kazov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6 2012, 09:44 AM   #74
Elvira
Vice Admiral
 
Elvira's Avatar
 
Location: t'girl
Re: Starfleet Marine Corps

And fighting ability/martial art too. I'll give TOS a pass, but there's no excuse for TNG (and later series) not hiring a professional trainer to work with the actors for fight scenes on some of the episodes, especially Worf.


__________________
.
no mere mortal can resist the evil of the thriller
Elvira is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6 2012, 10:48 AM   #75
Drago-Kazov
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Starfleet Marine Corps

It would be nice to see some asian martial arts in Trek.
Drago-Kazov is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.