RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,540
Posts: 5,513,241
Members: 25,142
Currently online: 466
Newest member: lergondo

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


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 > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 9 2013, 06:52 PM   #331
KGator
Lieutenant Commander
 
KGator's Avatar
 
Location: Mentally? . . . that's debatable.
Re: Scotty and his military comment

OneBuckFilms wrote: View Post
Then what is your cirteria? Define a military organisation. What traits/activities must an organisation have to be considered military in your eyes?

To my eyes, "unquestionably" is becoming a questionable proposition, considering that is can only really be applied to the 22nd Century with any credibility.
To piggie back on what OneBuckFilms says I'm really surprised no one has questioned why police are not considered military since they are also (obviously) an armed force.

Not to go into any detail but that goes back to the laws of armed conflict that exempts certain paramilitary organizations from being designated as being part a state's "armed forces". However there is nothing in the Geneva or Hague conventions that would exempt an organization like Starfleet from being considered an "Armed Force". They meet all the criteria hands down to be labeled an armed force and hence, by definition, military.

But I digress.
KGator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 07:26 PM   #332
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Scotty and his military comment

KGator wrote: View Post
Did you just say that you have met members of the Japanese military and yet they don't exist?
No, I said I met members of the Japanese self defense force and they have said they do not consider themselves to be part of a military organization.

Please read more carefully in the future.

As the board is in English we have been using the English definition of military
Which has multiple implications as to legal status and national authority. A non-military organization that participates in a war REMAINS a non-military organization because "participates in war" is not the working definition of "military." That is, indeed, why we also have the English terms "militant," or "insurgent" or "combatant" or "paramilitary" or "terrorists." State-sponsored terrorists, also, are not considered part of a military force, neither are private military contractors, neither are the state-funded but unofficial militant wings of political parties/movements.

You are, in other words, sticking to a highly simplistic definition and then getting angry that Starfleet doesn't fit that definition.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 07:33 PM   #333
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Scotty and his military comment

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
You are, in other words, sticking to a highly simplistic definition and then getting angry that Starfleet doesn't fit that definition.
But Starfleet does fit that definition from everything we've seen them do on-screen.

Talk about bait-and-switch...

The pitch:

"Join Starfleet to explore the universe!"

The reality:

"We're going to send you to a rock to defend Federation interests. But remember, we are not the military and you aren't a soldier."
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 07:42 PM   #334
KGator
Lieutenant Commander
 
KGator's Avatar
 
Location: Mentally? . . . that's debatable.
Re: Scotty and his military comment

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
KGator wrote: View Post
Did you just say that you have met members of the Japanese military and yet they don't exist?
No, I said I met members of the Japanese self defense force and they have said they do not consider themselves to be part of a military organization.

Please read more carefully in the future.

As the board is in English we have been using the English definition of military
Which has multiple implications as to legal status and national authority. A non-military organization that participates in a war REMAINS a non-military organization because "participates in war" is not the working definition of "military." That is, indeed, why we also have the English terms "militant," or "insurgent" or "combatant" or "paramilitary" or "terrorists." State-sponsored terrorists, also, are not considered part of a military force, neither are private military contractors, neither are the state-funded but unofficial militant wings of political parties/movements.

You are, in other words, sticking to a highly simplistic definition and then getting angry that Starfleet doesn't fit that definition.
Its a very simple definition. If you are part of an armed force you in the military.

Here is how the Hague Treaty would define it.
1) To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (Starfleet - CHECK!)

2) To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance; (Starfleet - CHECK!)

3) To carry arms openly; and (Starfleet - CHECK!)

4) To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (Starfleet - CHECK!)

Result Analysis: Stafleet - Military, Crazy Eddie - denial.
KGator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 07:58 PM   #335
KGator
Lieutenant Commander
 
KGator's Avatar
 
Location: Mentally? . . . that's debatable.
Re: Scotty and his military comment

there are only three categories: military, paramilitary, civilian.

if you bear arms you are military unless you happen to be specifically excluded in one of the laws of armed conflict conventions. Starfleet would not fit in any of those exceptions.
KGator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 07:59 PM   #336
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Scotty and his military comment

This thread has been traveling in circles for quite some time, and has long lost sight of the premise given in the opening post:
Charles Phipps wrote: View Post
This isn't a question of whether you agree whether Starfleet is a military organization or not, this is actually about your reaction to Scotty's surprise and disgust they're going to be involved in a hit.

What did you think about JJ Abrams making sure general audiences knew about this?
If there's anything else which remains to be covered besides repeated rounds of what's essentially
"Starfleet is a military organization."
"No, it isn't!"
"Yes, it is!"
I think it would be good if we got on with that now - directly, succinctly (perusing endless walls o' text is giving me a headache), and without further acrimony or veiled insult.
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 08:04 PM   #337
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Scotty and his military comment

OneBuckFilms wrote: View Post
The Japanese Defense Force is a military organization. Fact.
The Japanese government disagrees.

The Coast Guard is effectively an estention of border patrol and rescue. It is involved only in civilian law enforcement (drugs, etc.), not operations of general armed defense.
The Chinese Coast guard does, and has. Likewise the Japanese Coast Guard recently gathered international headlines by attacking and sinking what turned out to be a North Korean spy vessel in Japanese territorial waters.

I will not comment on Earth Starfleet, as that ground has been covered. It's inclusion is an assertion...
When two different Starfleet officers at two different times comment on being "uncomfortable with military officers on the ship" that tells you all you need to know.

MACO are clearly another military organisation, one that seems analogous to the SEALS. But their focus is narrow, not more general defense.
Their focus on NX-01 is narrow. We have no idea what they do as part of their normal duties. They could be part of Earth's principle land army, or they could be a bunch of mercenaries hired to do Starfleet's dirty work.

The only thing we know for sure about them, however, is that Starfleet officers refer to them as "the military."

The Andorial Royal Guard is not under command of the Federation, but are a sovereign military power of a member planet.
And therefore serves the Federation just like Starfleet does.

The Federation Naval Patrol seems to be limited in scope, and I'm not sure I've ever seen them called upon by the Federation to defent against say, the Borg.
"Limited scope" would probably include every significant body of water on every Federation world in the galaxy. They would at minimum be equivalent to every Coast Guard organization on the planet Earth combined, multiplied across over a hundred Earthlike worlds. "Limited scope" indeed.

As to threats: if a Borg ship crashed in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, you can be reasonably sure the Naval Patrol would be the first to respond.

Asertion with no impirical supporting evidence.
Impirical evidence:
"Starfleet is not a military organization, its purpose is exploration."
- Jean Luc Picard.

The whole point of this debate is whether or not we should BELIEVE Picard (or Scotty, for that matter). But don't try to claim "there is no evidence," because there is.

Then what is your cirteria? Define a military organisation. What traits/activities must an organisation have to be considered military in your eyes?
Three traits:
1) It is both an armed and uniformed organization
2) It is established by the the laws of the state
3) Its statutory/founding mission is to successfully perpetrate wars and defend against foreign aggression.

Starfleet has two out of the three traits: it is armed and uniformed and is established by Federation law. Its mission statement, however, is the exploration of space and scientific research, and its other responsibilities vis a vis military action, police action, security or disaster relief may not actually be part of Starfleet's charter (if, for example, the Federation has laws that require ANY competent organization to commit resources to deal with any type of emergency they are capable of resolving, up to and including interstellar war).

Starfleet is therefore at best paramilitary. Other types of combat organizations also fail two out of the three tests would be similarly classified as either paramilitary, militant, combatant or just plain armed.

To my eyes, "unquestionably" is becoming a questionable proposition, considering that is can only really be applied to the 22nd Century with any credibility.
True as that is, it's only a question in later centuries for those who think that the Captain and First Officer of the USS Enterprise are a couple of hippies and don't know what the hell they're talking about (and would prefer to believe David Marcus, who IS kind of a hippie and clearly doesn't know what he's talking about).
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!

Last edited by Crazy Eddie; July 9 2013 at 09:37 PM.
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 08:12 PM   #338
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Scotty and his military comment

I just think Picard and Scott have idealized visions of what they think Starfleet should be. Jim Kirk obviously doesn't.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 08:12 PM   #339
KGator
Lieutenant Commander
 
KGator's Avatar
 
Location: Mentally? . . . that's debatable.
Re: Scotty and his military comment

ed, you can't make up your own definition of a military that conflicts with the Geneva and hague conventions and expect it to hold up. there's nothing in the accepted legal definition of armed force that include founding mission. I gave you the criteria in a previous post. why am I not surprised you ignored it?
KGator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 08:53 PM   #340
Use of Time
Commodore
 
Use of Time's Avatar
 
Location: Va. Beach, VA
Re: Scotty and his military comment

I can see how we could tap dance around whether or not Starfleet is a military or not through TOS and TNG but I would have thought that the last few seasons of DS9 would have put that discussion to bed. That wasn't some border skirmish between a Coast Guard cutter and some South American drug runner and the comparison of Starfleet to NOAA is laughable. NOAA isn't conducting multi fleet invasion operations like Starfleet did when they finally got to Cardassia or reclaimed DS9.
__________________
Searching for something, a million miles and a ways to go.
Use of Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 09:20 PM   #341
OneBuckFilms
Fleet Captain
 
OneBuckFilms's Avatar
 
Re: Scotty and his military comment

Lets look at these:

1) It is both an armed and uniformed organization
- This is the case.

2) It is established by the the laws of the state
- The Starfleet Charter is definately there, and it is certainly established and maintained by the laws of the state (in this case, the Federation)

3) Its statutory/founding mission is to successfully perpetrate wars and defend against foreign aggression.
- It is implicit, but the fact that it routinely engages in military activities, and certainly in DS9 is the primary defensive organisation in the event of war, that this is part of it's mission from a statutory basis.

Certainly, no other organisation is given the primary responsibilities in item 3. Therefore, your interpretation of this last point, the one you imply Starfleet does not meet, is in error by your definition.

That certainly does not mean it is starfleet's primary mission, but it is certainly part of it's mission profile. Otherwise, Starfleet would not be caled upon for such military activities, and Section 31 would not be part of Starfleet's charter upon founding.

Whether by founding or evolution, it does, on its face, meet all 3 items.
OneBuckFilms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 09:41 PM   #342
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Scotty and his military comment

BillJ wrote: View Post
I just think Picard and Scott have idealized visions of what they think Starfleet should be. Jim Kirk obviously doesn't.
I can only say that it makes a lot more sense for someone to have a militaristic interpretation of an idealistic exploration fleet than it is to have an idealized interpretation of a military.

It would not, for example, be all that odd for a bunch of ATF commandos to refer to themselves and to each other as soldiers and discuss their mission in military terms. It would be QUITE unusual for a bunch of Marines to have discussions about how peaceful their mission is and how much respect they have for all intelligent life everywhere.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 10:03 PM   #343
OneBuckFilms
Fleet Captain
 
OneBuckFilms's Avatar
 
Re: Scotty and his military comment

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
I just think Picard and Scott have idealized visions of what they think Starfleet should be. Jim Kirk obviously doesn't.
I can only say that it makes a lot more sense for someone to have a militaristic interpretation of an idealistic exploration fleet than it is to have an idealized interpretation of a military.

It would not, for example, be all that odd for a bunch of ATF commandos to refer to themselves and to each other as soldiers and discuss their mission in military terms. It would be QUITE unusual for a bunch of Marines to have discussions about how peaceful their mission is and how much respect they have for all intelligent life everywhere.
Actually, being the Military for the Federation, as I've always stated in this thread, is BOTH.

It is, as Kirk might put it, "a combined service".

We don't have a full list of directives, or a full Charter document, to say whether it was founded with the role of defense, but it has certainly evolved to take that role.

Having that role, sanctioned by it's controlling Government (Eath government founded it, but by the 23rd Century, the Federation controls it), as evidenced by it being consistently called into that role, in and of itself, makes it the military branch of the Federation.

It is also, at it's founding core, and for a vast percentage of it's mission profile, an exploratory, diplomatic and scientifc organisation.

It is literally the peaceful, scientific organisation you imply it to be, as well as the military organisation you believe it isn't.
OneBuckFilms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 10:43 PM   #344
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Scotty and his military comment

OneBuckFilms wrote: View Post
3) Its statutory/founding mission is to successfully perpetrate wars and defend against foreign aggression.
- It is implicit, but the fact that it routinely engages in military activities, and certainly in DS9 is the primary defensive organisation in the event of war, that this is part of it's mission from a statutory basis.
That's not implicit at all. Again, Earth Starfleet was seen conducting these same types of missions despite the fact that they were CLEARLY chartered as a non-military exploratory force. The simple reason they were sent on this mission is because they possessed Earth's only warp-five capable starship.

The only reason statutory mission statement matters is because it is otherwise illegal to dispatch non-military organizations on military missions. Civilians who do this are considered either terrorists or spies, UNLESS they are part of their nation's uniformed service. Federation law does not appear to preserve normal conventions on lawful vs. unlawful combatants, apparently because some of its founding members (the Vulcans in particular) consider the distinction to be illogical.

Certainly, no other organisation is given the primary responsibilities in item 3.
This, again, is the assumption that the Federation even HAS a military. They very well may not; it would just be another in a list of things they inexplicably do not have (the others being money, poverty, corruption, and journalists).

That certainly does not mean it is starfleet's primary mission...
If it isn't their primary mission, they are not a military.

Otherwise, Starfleet would not be caled upon for such military activities, and Section 31 would not be part of Starfleet's charter upon founding.
Strictly speaking, Section 31 was part of the old Starfleet charter in the 22nd century. We don't actually know what the new charter says, but we do know that the old Starfleet from which the modern Section 31 draws its name was not a military organization.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 10:49 PM   #345
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Scotty and his military comment

OneBuckFilms wrote: View Post
We don't have a full list of directives, or a full Charter document, to say whether it was founded with the role of defense, but it has certainly evolved to take that role.
It hasn't EVOLVED at all. That was always one of Starfleet's roles. You're simply experiencing massive cognitive dissonance over the fact that non-military organizations can be asked to fill that roll if they are properly equipped; the only thing that stops them at present is 21st century legal conventions that have only been around for the past hundred years and even then are not universally followed.

It's like saying that "the organization that enforces speed limits" is by definition "traffic cops." If in a fictional state this role is being filled by armed mercenaries who turn in speeders for a handsome bounty, there's little call for the question "Then where are the traffic cops?"
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie 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 08:49 AM.

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