Starfleet Marine Corps

[Sci]

Longinus wrote:

---

EU makes laws that are binding to its members all the time and it is not a sovereign state...

The European Union is a sui generis entity -- something more than an alliance but less than a true sovereign state -- that has been evolving in the direction of becoming a sovereign state for decades. But that in-between status is unsustainable -- it will either become one or the other, because in-between cannot last. And indeed, the impossibility of having a monetary union without a fiscal union (just look at the crisis that horrible combo has produced in Greece) will inevitably push the E.U. to either become a sovereign state in its own right, or to fully dis-establish itself as a mere alliance.

As for negotiating the peace, obviously the Federation members (through the council or directly) have given the president the authority to negotiate on such a treaty. EU has representatives that negotiate on its behalf.

I could find no reference to the E.U. itself being able to sign and enact treaties with non-E.U. states in the Wiki article on E.U. external relations -- merely that E.U. diplomatic missions are delegated certain authorities from its member states for the day to day purposes of representation, particularly from the national embassies of whichever country is currently serving in the rotating Presidency of the Council of the European Union. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that E.U. member states still have to sign and ratify actual treaties, because they are the true sovereigns. Further, the E.U. is only delegated authority in certain areas, with most foreign policy remaining in the hands of the individual E.U. member states.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the Federation's member governments sign and ratify UFP treaties, nor indeed that they have the kinds of veto powers over Federation foreign policy possessed by E.U. member states.

Merry Christmas wrote:

---

It's a private lake, the HOA owns and controls the only boat launch, and home owners actually on the lake have all signed a covenance.

In other words, the HOA does not have the authority to issue a nation-wide speed limit. The Federation Council does.

Timo wrote:

---

Which seems to prove the point of Merry Christmas - it's never United Federation Starfleet.

I am truly at a loss as to what the distinction is between "Federation Starfleet" and "United Federation Starfleet." "Federation" happens to be the adjective to describe institutions of the UFP rather than "United Federation." Are we contending that Starfleet is not a Federation institution because it is the Federation Starfleet rather than called "the United Federation Starfleet?"

Are we also contending that the Royal Navy is not the United Kingdom's navy just because it doesn't have the term "United Kingdom" in its name?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Timo wrote:

---

As for Starfleet infantry using Air Force ranks, why needlessly confuse matters? We never hear of such a thing happening in Star Trek.

Maybe we should.

I mean, it doesn't really make much sense having, say, an Admiral in charge of troops, does it? Admirals are in charge of FLEETS. Their responsibility is ships, not ground troops.

Separate rank systems exist for a reason.

[Star Wolf]

Plenty of US/UK Admirals have had ground troops under their command. In the past the force may have been large enough to rate their own Colonel or General who said yes sir to that Admiral.

[Longinus]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

Maybe we should.

I mean, it doesn't really make much sense having, say, an Admiral in charge of troops, does it? Admirals are in charge of FLEETS. Their responsibility is ships, not ground troops.

Separate rank systems exist for a reason.

There is no practical reason, it is just a meaningless tradition. The leader can be called Head Chef and the organisation works just as well.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ It's not meaningless. As I said, separate rank systems exist for a reason. When's the last time you saw a Navy which had ranks like Major or Colonel or General (well, outside of Babylon 5 of course ) or a Marine Corps or Army with commanders and admirals?

[Star Wolf]

The Colonial fleet, or at least what was left of it. Funny how their "warriors" lead their Marines into battle.

[Longinus]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

^ It's not meaningless. As I said, separate rank systems exist for a reason.

This reason being? That it has been so in the past is not a reason. It makes no practical difference what the various ranks are called.

This whole discussion seems to boil down to some peaople's fixation on nomenclature; Starfleet security personnel cannot do ground combat because they're not called 'marines' and have naval ranks.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Star Wolf wrote:

---

The Colonial fleet, or at least what was left of it. Funny how their "warriors" lead their Marines into battle.

Yeah, I always thought that was odd as well. Probably because they didn't want to come up with the uniform which would most likely never be used again. (The exactly one Marine officer who ever appeared in that show was wearing civilian clothes at the time!)

[The Wormhole]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

^ It's not meaningless. As I said, separate rank systems exist for a reason. When's the last time you saw a Navy which had ranks like Major or Colonel or General (well, outside of Babylon 5 of course ) or a Marine Corps or Army with commanders and admirals?

For a while, Canada's military used the same ranks in all its branches. Yes, that means Canada's Navy used Army ranks. Colonels commanded boats, Generals commanded fleets.

This is no longer the way, the Canadian Navy is using tradition naval ranks these days, although some of the enlisted men still use army ranks. I know a guy in the Canadian Navy who hold the rank Corporal. My point is that there are real world precedents for army ranks to be used in the navy.

[J.T.B.]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

^ It's not meaningless. As I said, separate rank systems exist for a reason.

But what is the reason, aside from evolving separately over a long period? There is no essential requirement for a certain set of titles over another. The US Navy's Seabees are organized into a Naval Construction Division commanded by a rear admiral, regiments commanded by captains ("commodores"), battalions commanded by commanders and companies commanded by lieutenants. Everyone understands and it has worked well for 70 years.

Justin

[Darkwing]

Merry Christmas wrote:

---

It's a private lake, the HOA owns and controls the only boat launch, and home owners actually on the lake have all signed a covenance. A nearby HOA decided to ban fueled motors on their lake. A few years back a third HOA held a private boat (placed a lean?) until the violating owner from out of the area paid a two hundred dollar "usage fee."

If they own the lake they can do that. If they own the dock, but not the lake, then that boat owner could have gotten that lien removed without paying them. Of course, he'd have paid a lawyer a lot more, but sometimes it's worth it.

Darkwing, it has to do with control. If the Federation isn't a state, but it's allied members can exercise control over a area of interstellar space, then they are in fact in control of that space.

If the Federation can't exercise control, then it doesn't make any different if they're a state or a alliance, they don't control it.

I always saw the UFP as a federal gov't, and the alliance talk as a sop, much as we allow Texans to think we'd ever let them exercise that secession clause in their state constitution.

[Darkwing]

At one time, all services used the same ranks: Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant, and enlisted man. This is why navy captains are equal to army colonels. Over time, each service developed their structures to suit themselves. Yes, some folks revise that and use one structure. And it works. But it does have a flaw. A ground-pounder with a naval rank feels slighted ("I'm a soldier, dammit, not a squid!"). Sailors with army rank feel less esprit de corps than squids who are actually called by naval rank. I know I'd be pretty ticked if someone told me that I had to be a sergeant now instead of a petty officer!

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

For a while, Canada's military used the same ranks in all its branches. Yes, that means Canada's Navy used Army ranks. Colonels commanded boats, Generals commanded fleets.

This is no longer the way, the Canadian Navy is using tradition naval ranks these days, although some of the enlisted men still use army ranks. I know a guy in the Canadian Navy who hold the rank Corporal. My point is that there are real world precedents for army ranks to be used in the navy.

But by the same analogy, the Canadian Forces' brief use of the same rank system in all of its commands didn't last very long, did it? They went back to the old systems fairly quickly after unification. Who's to say the same thing didn't happen in Starfleet? They could have a single, unified military command, like Canada, and yet have unique rank systems.

[J.T.B.]

Darkwing wrote:

---

I know I'd be pretty ticked if someone told me that I had to be a sergeant now instead of a petty officer!

That's what happened pretty much overnight for the Royal Naval Air Service when the RAF was established in WW1. Everybody got through it all right.

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

But by the same analogy, the Canadian Forces' brief use of the same rank system in all of its commands didn't last very long, did it? They went back to the old systems fairly quickly after unification. Who's to say the same thing didn't happen in Starfleet? They could have a single, unified military command, like Canada, and yet have unique rank systems.

Yes, but the Canadian example was a service which had strong predecessor traditions and would be working closely with services of other nations who still used those traditional conventions. Creating a new service, integrating different traditions, languages and cultures, would make it much easier to go with a "clean slate" system of ranks. Again, what is inherent in "ground" operations that requires a certain system of titles?

Justin

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ It's inherent in the very meaning of the words: From wikipedia:

The word "admiral" in Middle English comes from Anglo-French amiral, "commander", from Medieval Latin admiralis, admirallus. These themselves come from Arabic "amir", or amir-al- أمير الـ, "commander of the" (as in amir-al-bahr أمير البحر "commander of the sea").[

The rank of general came about as a "captain-general", the captain of an army in general (i.e., the whole army). The rank of captain-general began appearing around the time of the organization of professional armies in the 17th century. In most countries "captain-general" contracted to just "general".