RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,173
Posts: 5,435,473
Members: 24,945
Currently online: 595
Newest member: Adm Nogura

TrekToday headlines

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

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
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 > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 11 2013, 08:55 PM   #361
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Scotty and his military comment

I thought we were supposed to drop this line of argument in favour of addressing the OP ?
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 09:10 PM   #362
KGator
Lieutenant Commander
 
KGator's Avatar
 
Location: Mentally? . . . that's debatable.
Re: Scotty and his military comment

Ed, I was about to give up on you but you finally made some interesting, cogent points rather than simply rehashing your previous statements.

Basically to highlight your comments.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Exactly: one does not need to be part of the military to still be treated as a combatant.

This is because "armed forces" is not identical to "the military." The military is an armed force, but not all armed forces are part of the military.
You are correct. That's why there are 4 traits used to ascertain whether an organized force is definitely an "armed force" in terms of war conventions. Law enforcement forces can be exempted on a state by state basis (however if they meet the criteria - and they probably meet all but the conduct of war trait so once they start participating in a conflict - they would be classified as military no matter what claim the nation state makes). Some states choose to included them under the umbrella of armed forces and some do not.

However, how in your imagining of Starfleet universe is Starfleet not conducting operations in the conduct of war? If so then by participating in such conduct (even if participating with another "Starfleet Military Force" they would immediately forfeit any perceived non-combatant/law enforcement status and be deemed military.

Police departments that are not military are supposed to be treated as CIVILIANS in combat. The US determined that Iraqi Police were part of Saddam's armed forces and subjected them to the same kind of targetting as their official military. This is the important distinction. When occupying a foreign territory, if these law enforcement do not submit (in other words if they resist) they are no longer afforced the protections of civilian status and may be neutralized to whatever extent necessary.

Not only does Starfleet fail to submit/surrender/avoid contact in combat situations. They often LEAD the fight on behalf of the Federation. A paramilitary force is required to refrain from using their weapons against military forces or they will be considered a military target.

Do you get the gist of this and how important that would be? In an occupation of foreign territory you often want to use existing government institutions to maintain daily life including the law enforcement arms. By law once you destroy a foreign government or occupy territory YOU become responsible for the safety and welfare of their indigent population.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
In practice, "armed forces" and "military" are equivalent only insofar as most countries do not use non-military organizations for combat purposes. Some do, however, and historically this has been a problem for people who wish to avoid possible war crimes by targeting armed organizations that are not actually participating in combat.
Any armed force that resists your military using force can be considered military (it loses its paramilitary/civilian protection) and treated (ie destroyed) as such.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
More likely, it's because Geneva and its conventions evaporated into a nuclear fireball during World War III and the international laws that succeeded it were written after First Contact. As such, they undoubtedly include some influence from the Vulcans, who similarly do not have a distinct military organization and prefer to keep their armed/unarmed/scientific/military assets under the amorphous umbrella of the Vulcan High Command.
Ummmm, we are using current definitions of armed forces and military to which legal agreements and precedents are important. Imaginary, fictional, non-existent entities do not play a part in this discussion. There is no vulcan, there has been no world war 3, there is no middle earth and one ring to control us all. You can't just intersperse your argument with opinions of an imaginary world of the future and use that as a basis of defining terms that human scholars have already defined for us. For all you know the Federation's charter closely mimics the Hague Convention. I mean, have you actually read it? Can you say it doesn't match current laws of armed conflict (rhetorical question, as the Federation is not real - so there is no need to respond to that question).

I understand that the laws of armed conflict, military organization and rules of engagement can be confusing and hard to grasp at times. Hell, the US military has created courses and requires ongoing training to ensure these topics are known to our military leaders.
KGator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 09:34 PM   #363
KGator
Lieutenant Commander
 
KGator's Avatar
 
Location: Mentally? . . . that's debatable.
Re: Scotty and his military comment

Perhaps its a good time for a recap. The question was whether Starfleet is a military. By current convention a military is synonomous with a designation of "armed forces". There is an exemption for law-enforcement who can carry arms, wear uniforms, have a chain of command and yet be considered Paramilitary according to the laws of war (and thus be treated as civilians).

However any participation in the conduct of war revokes and claim of being a paramilitary law enforcement organization.

Since Starfleet exactly fits the definition of what an armed force is according to the laws of armed conflict, the only way they could say they were not military is if they claimed they were law enforcement and the Federation did not include them in their "armed forces" (assuming there was another military organization within the Federation).

But since they regularly engage in the conduct of war they would have no standing to make any such claim even if the Federation did try and declare Starfleet as a law enforcement only organization.

Thus Starfleet would unequivocably have to be considered a military organization no matter what other roles they fulfill within the Federation Government.
KGator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 10:58 PM   #364
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
Perhaps its a good time for a recap. The question was whether Starfleet is a military. By current convention a military is synonomous with a designation of "armed forces"...
That's really the problem you're having.

Starfleet fits the criteria of an "armed force" pretty well: it is armed and it responds to its government's direction. But because it was not chartered primarily for the purpose of defense, it would not be classified as a military organization as such.

There is an exemption for law-enforcement who can carry arms, wear uniforms, have a chain of command and yet be considered Paramilitary according to the laws of war (and thus be treated as civilians).
Unless they join the battle, in which case they cease to be civilians and are considered combatants.

However any participation in the conduct of war revokes and claim of being a paramilitary law enforcement organization.
Incorrect: a paramilitary organization is still a paramilitary organization regardless of its (non)combatant status.

The military of a given country can be assumed to be a combatant uniformly in accordance with the declared laws of its host state. Soldiers from a particular military who just happen to show up and participate in that war -- independent of any provable orders from their government -- would be considered combatants in that conflict, even though the rest of their military would not; the lack of commitment from their host government implies these combatants are acting independently and while they are technically part of that nation's military, they are not acting on its behalf.

I mention this because it's a two way street and not as clear cut as you have been implying so far. Furthermore, even under the current paradigm there are certain advantages to leaving your military forces formally undeclared; Rickover pulled this same trick with the NR-1, carefully avoiding the classification of "warship" to circumvent congressional/bureaucratic controls on military hardware. The Federation may similarly seek to avoid scrutiny from its rivals (or alienating potential allies) by leaving it completely ambiguous exactly how and and by whom their defense priorities are carried out. Indeed, under the Geneva Conventions, only those Starfleet units that actually participate in combat would be considered combatants; deep space vessels on the other side of the galaxy, unarmed outposts, exploration probes, telescopes and all kinds of other hardware could still be considered outside the scope of the conflict, and Starfleet would be free to explore beyond the battlefield without accidentally exporting the conflict wherever they happen to be. That would be a dirty little legal trick (and only applicable under CURRENT laws, actually) but for an organization that may have hundreds of starships prowling the limits of explored space, it would be essential to be able to conduct peaceful exploration without threatening the implicit neutrality of anyone who might aid or shelter them.

Since Starfleet exactly fits the definition of what an armed force is according to the laws of armed conflict, the only way they could say they were not military is if they claimed they were law enforcement...
Or a space exploration agency. There's nothing in the definition of "space exploration agency" that precludes it being armed (as the Russian astronauts are, and have always been, even after it was transferred to civilian control).

Thus Starfleet would unequivocably have to be considered a military organization...
Starfleet would be considered an armed force. It would not be a military organization for reasons I have already outlined.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 12 2013, 03:49 AM   #365
Kruezerman
Fleet Captain
 
Kruezerman's Avatar
 
Location: Transexxual...Transylvania
Re: Scotty and his military comment

Hey look, a bunny!

....▓▓▓▓
..▓▓......▓
..▓▓......▓▓..................▓▓▓▓
..▓▓......▓▓..............▓▓......▓▓▓▓
..▓▓....▓▓..............▓......▓▓......▓▓
....▓▓....▓............▓....▓▓....▓▓▓....▓▓
......▓▓....▓........▓....▓▓..........▓▓....▓
........▓▓..▓▓....▓▓..▓▓................▓▓
........▓▓......▓▓....▓▓
.......▓......................▓
.....▓.........................▓
....▓......^..........^......▓
....▓............❤............▓
....▓..........................▓
......▓..........ٮ..........▓
..........▓▓..........▓▓
__________________
Here's proof that I can write something without using the word f**k.
Kruezerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 12 2013, 04:08 AM   #366
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Scotty and his military comment



Bunnies have always been pawns of the military!
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 12 2013, 05:32 AM   #367
OneBuckFilms
Fleet Captain
 
OneBuckFilms's Avatar
 
Re: Scotty and his military comment

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
OneBuckFilms wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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?"
So if Defense is always one of Starfleet's roles, it is a military organisation.
No, it's an exploration fleet with a defense role. As it was in the 22nd century and has been ever since.

It would be a military if defense was its primary role.
It is a military organization because it is a key role.

It is ALSO a space exploration and scientific organization, and a humanitarian organization.

So why does the primary role of exploration preclude it ALSO being military?
OneBuckFilms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 12 2013, 05:33 AM   #368
OneBuckFilms
Fleet Captain
 
OneBuckFilms's Avatar
 
Re: Scotty and his military comment

This is getting repetitive and boring, and we are now arguing about semantics in the face of common sense.

Have fun in the sandbox, guys.
OneBuckFilms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 12 2013, 10:22 AM   #369
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Scotty and his military comment

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Bunnies have always been pawns of the military!
I cannot and will not subscribe to your interpretation of this event.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 12 2013, 08:32 PM   #370
KGator
Lieutenant Commander
 
KGator's Avatar
 
Location: Mentally? . . . that's debatable.
Re: Scotty and his military comment

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
I mention this because it's a two way street and not as clear cut as you have been implying so far.
Actually it is. Starfleet has uniforms, weapons, a chain and command and conducts war. It meets all of the criteria defining a military organization.

Your focus on "charter" is irrelevant and superfluous. A military can be a state military, private military or revolutionary (stateless) military. This assumption you keep championing for your basic premise is false. Any organization can become a military by meeting the above criteria. The Secret Service was never chartered as a protection service (it was limited to financial crimes) but you can't say they aren't such an organization now. And if they ever start participating in combat operations they will then be defined as a military. An organization's origins is only important to you, it is not a defining trait by any standard convention.

Last edited by KGator; July 12 2013 at 09:54 PM.
KGator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 12:31 AM   #371
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Scotty and his military comment

I'll just point out that Starfleet does build ships for fighting, even in the 24th century...

1. Galaxy-class (stardrive section with "battle" bridge)
2. Defiant-class (developed to fight the Borg)
3. Prometheus-class (multi-vector assault mode)
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 19 2013, 02:38 PM   #372
Darkwing
Commodore
 
Location: This dry land thing is too wierd!
Re: Scotty and his military comment

The whole scene was forced and made little sense. Original Kirk would have looked at the "classified" guy and said "He has need to know. I have need to know." Of course, that would either mean forcing the revelation of the absolute stupidity of the new torpedoes early, or Kirk going to Marcus and getting a blistering rebuke, then coming down on Scotty in the out of character heavy-handed fashion we saw. As for the actual comment referred to here, it was offensive. When Picard said it, it was stupid. When Scotty said it, it was gratuitous, and in both cases, it's patently untrue, and reflective of an unrealistic, idiotic world-view that holds the military in contempt with no understanding of what they really do. The scene was obviously a setup to the big reveal, and to get Scotty off the ship.
Just one more hole in the nu universe. Neither movie has made any sense. They do marvelous characterization and dialogue, then throw in nonsense, and string together a few plot points poorly, yet so many people are willing to accept it uncritically.
__________________
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 July 19 2013, 03:37 PM   #373
The Black Stig
Rear Admiral
 
The Black Stig's Avatar
 
Location: Dunsfold Aerodrome, Surrey
Re: Scotty and his military comment

Darkwing wrote: View Post
The whole scene was forced and made little sense. Original Kirk would have looked at the "classified" guy and said "He has need to know.
'Original' Kirk was older, wiser and far more level-headed. This Kirk lost his surrogate father and was letting his emotions do the thinking.

Of course, that would either mean forcing the revelation of the absolute stupidity of the new torpedoes early, or Kirk going to Marcus and getting a blistering rebuke, then coming down on Scotty in the out of character heavy-handed fashion we saw. As for the actual comment referred to here, it was offensive. When Picard said it, it was stupid. When Scotty said it, it was gratuitous, and in both cases, it's patently untrue, and reflective of an unrealistic, idiotic world-view that holds the military in contempt with no understanding of what they really do. The scene was obviously a setup to the big reveal, and to get Scotty off the ship.
"These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise. Her mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no one has gone before."

Sounds to me like the primary mission of the Enterprise and by extension, Starfleet, is one of galactic exploration. Scotty's complaint, and it was a proper one, was that the Enterprise was being dispatched on a covert mission of aggression.

Just one more hole in the nu universe. Neither movie has made any sense. They do marvelous characterization and dialogue, then throw in nonsense, and string together a few plot points poorly, yet so many people are willing to accept it uncritically.
Sure, that's why this forum is filled with nothing but love and flowers. This film had its plot problems, but they were far less severe than many of the Trek features that came before it.
__________________
Some say that he haunts the halls of the Top Gear production office and that, if you listen closely, you can hear his wails around Gambon.

All we know is that he's not The Stig, he's The Stig's drowned predecessor.
The Black Stig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 19 2013, 03:59 PM   #374
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Scotty and his military comment

The Stig wrote: View Post
"These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise. Her mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no one has gone before."

Sounds to me like the primary mission of the Enterprise and by extension, Starfleet, is one of galactic exploration. Scotty's complaint, and it was a proper one, was that the Enterprise was being dispatched on a covert mission of aggression.
Isn't that quite a leap though? Because they send one ship on a mission of exploration, it is the primary mission of the whole organization?

We honestly don't know what the mission of those other Constitution-class vessels were. Plus, how many of those missions of the Enterprise were pure exploration with no other concerns? We see them go on offensive missions, defensive missions, missions of pure espionage, missions of support for Earth/Federation colonies, diplomatic courier and emergency courier.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 20 2013, 06:41 AM   #375
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
The Stig wrote: View Post
"These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise. Her mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no one has gone before."

Sounds to me like the primary mission of the Enterprise and by extension, Starfleet, is one of galactic exploration. Scotty's complaint, and it was a proper one, was that the Enterprise was being dispatched on a covert mission of aggression.
Isn't that quite a leap though? Because they send one ship on a mission of exploration, it is the primary mission of the whole organization?

We honestly don't know what the mission of those other Constitution-class vessels were. Plus, how many of those missions of the Enterprise were pure exploration with no other concerns? We see them go on offensive missions, defensive missions, missions of pure espionage, missions of support for Earth/Federation colonies, diplomatic courier and emergency courier.
And yet, about the only thing that has ever been consistent in every Star Trek series is that every starship, no matter what its current assignment, will default to exploration as soon as all their government-mandated chores are done. Probably the most blatant example of this is in "Caretaker", where Janeway quotes a broad "directive" to "seek out new worlds and explore space," this despite the fact that they originally got into this predicament in the first place during a convoluted counter-terrorism assignment.

Basically, exploration is their DEFAULT assignment. Combat, patrol and police missions are relegated to a strictly "as needed" basis.
__________________
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 02:06 PM.

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