Scotty and his military comment

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Charles Phipps, Jun 24, 2013.

  1. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
    Of course they can. All you'd have to do is order them to.

    The fact that they would not SUCCEED in doing so -- and the fact that you'd have no way of dealing with them if/when they refuse to do so -- is the reason why militaries were created in the first place. If your country is under attack and you order the tax collectors to go out and fight the attackers, they'll simply be slaughtered; they have no guns, no combat training, no tanks, no planes. A military organization is created to serve that societal need, because war is a savage business and is best kept isolated from civilized life.

    If a someone OTHER than the military can serve that need, that society will not have a military. At least insofar as space combat, the Federation appears to be such a society.

    It's similar to the way modern societies created police forces to enforce the laws instead of leaving that in the hands of knights, mercenaries, armed noblemen or specialized local soldiers. It was a role societies no longer needed militaries to fill, so new entities were created to fill them (though not always; Gendarmaries still exist in France).
     
  2. KGator

    KGator Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 28, 2013
    Location:
    Mentally? . . . that's debatable.
    given my enlisted service in the United States Army in both the infantry and air defense branches and my time as a commissioned officer in military intelligence, i do feel that I have workable understanding of what the term invasion means. but thanks for asking. all opinions are welcome.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 9, 2013
  3. OneBuckFilms

    OneBuckFilms Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Erm, I see different lighting and circumstance.

    If Starfleet is not a military organisation, please collectively explain the following anomalies:

    - Starfleet is shown as the primary defensive and offensive combat provider for the Federation (the dominion war, battle of Wolf 359 etc.).
    - Starfleet is shown engaging in both overt and covert operations of a military nature (small team hunting for Metagenic weapons, establishing a Blockade to prevent Romulan engagement in the Klingon Civil War, establishing a fleet at Wolf 359 to intercept the Borg invasion).
    - Starfleet engages in naval anti-piracy operations (stolen vessels are apprehended for instance)
     
  4. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
     
  5. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
    Starfleet was seen doing all of this and more in the 22nd century where it was unquestionably a non-military organization. That they continue to be a non-military organization 200 years later is therefore unsurprising.
     
  6. Hartzilla2007

    Hartzilla2007 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Location:
    Star Trekkin Across the universe.
    Case in point in a deleted scene from Nemesis he said the HMS Beagle was unarmed when Darwin was on it, whereas a history museum I went to had an evolution exhibit which pointed out that before that voyage the ship's captain had to get canons made out of a different material than the ones that came with the ship (he apparently did this out of pocket) so they wouldn't mess with their instruments.
     
  7. KGator

    KGator Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 28, 2013
    Location:
    Mentally? . . . that's debatable.
     
  8. OneBuckFilms

    OneBuckFilms Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    That merely supports the evolution of Starfleet's role from a NASA-like organization to an organisation that in fact operates as a military.

    Pre Federation, Starfleet essentially evolved to serve as Earth's military.

    There is nothing explicit on screen that establishes that Starfleet did not engage in military activities, or function as a military in the 23rd Century.

    In the 22nd Century, military organisations were things like the British navy (which is established to exist), and the MACOs (to provide marine support).

    On the whole, I do not share your clarity on the overall non-military nature of Starfleet, only that it started out with a more NASA-like focus on exploration.

    Again, please explain the anomalies I have pointed out. If Starfleet is not a military, why is it, as a non-military organisation, displaying all of the traits of one by the 23rd Century?

    I see Starfleet as a NASA-meets-the-Navy type organisation.

    Spock has spoken about certain things transcending even "discipline of the service" (TOS: Amok Time).

    Starfleet very much is engaged in activities related to peacekeeping and war.

    It's PRIMARY MISSION is exploration, but it also has a mission for defense.

    That, in and of itself, irrespective of protestations to the contrary, establishes it as a military in form and function.

    Because its focus is not the usual military mission (war), I can see the confusion.

    Starfleet is both NASA and the Navy in role, so serves as both military and exploratory/scientific organisations.

    RE: Scotty's line, he's seeing a purely clandestine military mission that goes against the greater ideals of Starfleet.

    A mission of pure attack, without provocation, being ordered, rather than one aimed at defense or exploration.

    Starfleet may not call itself a Military organisation, but it does, in fact, consistently serve as one, and thus is one.
     
  9. throwback

    throwback Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    I have read of former military personnel joining police forces. I have read of police receiving training from active and inactive military personnel. I have read of police receiving military equipment that has been modified for civilian use. I think the line between the two is becoming blurry.
     
  10. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    Heads I win, tails you lose ?

    The point is that even the person whose arguments you're supposed to be strawmanning is entertaining your suggestion. In that case it isn't a strawman.

    I have made no claim either way about these, so you cannot use that as an argument in this debate.

    Witnesse testimony is actually more reliable than hard evidence to you ?

    Reality trumps opinion.

    In other words your use of pictures as evidence was a red herring. I was wondering that the pictures were supposed to show, but it sure seems like the answer to that question is "nothing".

    You don't know that. All you have is another statement by Picard that might or might not be all-inclusive.

    That's one of the weakest arguments you've made yet. So if you say "do you deny that the Earth revolves around the sun ?" it may mean that I don't believe that it does ?

    Ah... no. Having civilians fighting alongside trained military personel would just get more people killed on your side.
     
  11. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
    I agree. That doesn't mean they don't still DO it out of sheer desperation.

    More to the point: if it WASN'T lunacy -- if the police departments of particular country possessed weapons technology powerful enough to neutralize any offensive system possessed by anyone else's military at the touch of a button -- then the police ALONE would be more than sufficient for national defense. A separate entity specializing in defense would be totally unnecessary.

    Clearly I AM, and my expectations are that said lethality is likely to increase precipitously as technology grows, and would only accelerate in a future dominated by the kinds of enemies the Federation faces. OTOH, Starfleet clearly lacks this level of lethality or clarity of purpose: Starfleet is a civilized bunch, and war is an uncivilized business.

    My conclusion, therefore, is that prevailing technological and political conditions have made fighting IN SPACE to be a relatively pushbutton affair that requires more science and engineering knowhow than actual combat prowess (hence Riker and Picard's attitudes in "Peak Performance" and, for that matter, the incredibly bizarre setup of the war game itself). The situation is obviously quite different on the ground, but as far as SPACE is concerned, Starfleet fits that role effectively enough that the Federation has not (yet) seen the need to create a branch of the military to operate in space.

    I'm sure the Palestinians and the Syrian rebels will be delighted to hear that they their amateur volunteers have no need to participate in their respective wars.:vulcan:
     
  12. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
    To WHAT? The organization did the same things in its NASA-like role that it did 200 years later. If their ROLE never actually changed, what does that tell you about their status?

    Right. They did the same thing in the 22nd century, even though they were clearly not a military at the time.

    It ALWAYS had a NASA-like focus on exploration. And it was ALWAYS expected to defend itself and Earth's interests against alien aggression when necessary. NX-01's very first mission turned out to be a combat mission against a violent and aggressive terrorist organization; their second mission was an attempt to make first contact that turned into a fight with pirates.

    And yet, even as late as Season 3, we are hearing clear and unambiguous terms that Starfleet officers are not part of the military. If after the battles with Duras, the Xindi Crisis, the fights with the Suliban and the Tholians and god knows who else Starfleet does not consider itself a military organization, it's probably because their charter is flexible enough to include this mission role without defining Starfleet as a military.

    MANY non-military organizations display those traits, all for different reasons. You'd really have to ask Starfleet for their specific history, but I'd suspect it has something to do with their not wanting to revert back into shit like this.
     
  13. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
    Security camera shows a person pull something out of his pocket and a cop shoots him in the leg.

    The victim says the object was a cell phone.
    A witness says the object was a cell phone.
    The cop says the object turned out to be a cell phone.
    YOU freeze-frame the camera footage and say "It looks like a gun to me."

    Who am I supposed to believe?

    it shows that in many military and civilian combat units LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME and may in fact be the same PEOPLE under different circumstances.

    The difference isn't their equipment or their role. The difference is their PURPOSE. Starfleet's purpose is peaceful exploration and scientific research; Alt-Starfleet's purpose in Yesterday's Enterprise is to defeat the enemy (namely, the Klingons). The shift in mission changes a lot more than the "mood lighting" (lol) on the bridge. It changes the ship's operating procedures, its mission roles, most aspects of its design and resource allocation, personnel priorities, etc. IOW the differences between Yesterday's Enterprise Alt Starfleet and Regular starfleet is that one is a military organization and the other is not; it is, to be sure, very similar to the difference between a squad of harbor police, and a squad of marines.

    Usually, yes. That's one of the reasons why resistance movements tend to be so costly in the long run.
     
  14. The Mighty Monkey of Mim

    The Mighty Monkey of Mim Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2001
    Legally, it is not. Look it up.

    Why do I get the feeling you didn't even read my last post? Anyway, you could not be more wrong. It doesn't matter how many people think it's going to happen. It only matters whether it is going to happen. That you seem to overlook completely that Cartwright and Chang are in league with each other and are both trying to provoke continued hostilities with their dishonest arguments is almost beside the point. The same straw man was raised twice and you fell for it both times! Don't feel bad though, that's why people use them in the first place: because they can be effective in swaying people even though they are fallacious! (By the way, the very notion that "everyone" thought Starfleet was going to be put in mothballs is a straw man in itself.)

    I'm finding this discussion less fun and less productive by the page, so I think I will just bow out of it, at least for the moment. If I have contributed to driving it further off topic, I apologize to the OP.
     
  15. OneBuckFilms

    OneBuckFilms Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    NASA is not involved with military operations (such as peacekeeping missions into warzones, or defending against invaders).

    Clearly, Starfleet DOES do these things.

    So with all of the things I mentioned, name one, just ONE organization that routinely does ALL of them, that is NOT military.

    Second challenge: If Starfleet isn't a form of military organization, please define for me the actual 23rd/24th century military organization.

    Who, if not Starfleet, is responsible for defense of the Federation as a whole?

    Who, since Starfleet is not the primary military force, provides peacekeeping missions for member worlds?

    Please, enlighten me.

    Actually, SHOW me. DEMONSTRATE and PROVE that Starfleet does not provide military functions as a matter of fact.
     
  16. OneBuckFilms

    OneBuckFilms Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Also, for bonus points, why does David Marcus complain that "scientists have always been pawns to the military", if there is no military to which he perceives himself a proverbial pawn?
     
  17. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    This is a complete misintepretation of my point and you know it. You constructed this example specifically to make my argument look weak, although that wasn't it at all. In short, you have just demolished a strawman. Congratulations.

    That's ridiculous, because NO ONE KNOWS what's going to happen. By your logic, everything anybody ever says about the future is a strawman.

    Look, this isn't a strawman at all. Spock says one thing, the woman asks a question. Whether she's wrong, or more to the point the answer to her question is "no", doesn't matter. A strawman isn't that. But even if a strawman could be of that form, both the CNC, and Cartwright, and Chang, all seem to thing that it's a very real possibility, so it's not like she made a stupid version of anyone's argument, is it ?
     
  18. KGator

    KGator Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 28, 2013
    Location:
    Mentally? . . . that's debatable.
    You are actually incorrect. This may be YOUR interpretation of their constitution but if you delve a little deeper you will learn the truth isn't so black and white. The Japanese (the authority that actually matters here) have concluded that they have the legal authority to create and maintain a restricted size military force for the purpose of self-defense. Not only has the United States concurred with this assessment but we also helped organize, train and equip these self defense forces.

    And you don't have to take my word for it but I have actually met members of the Japanese Military. I watched them train their Patriot Missile Battalions in New Mexico. Now while Crazy Eddie might contend that I was mistaken and this was simply a local Japanese police force augmenting their ability to intercept and apprehend feeing criminals at low to medium altitudes . . . I think the truth is actually much simpler.

    The bottom line is that, your legal opinion notwithstanding, a Japanese military is not as illegal as you think.
     
  19. KGator

    KGator Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 28, 2013
    Location:
    Mentally? . . . that's debatable.
    If your police department was tasked with national defense they would, by definition, be a military. This is why we have clearly established why Starfleet is a military - they provide national defense (or the interstellar equivalent of it).

    So you believe the American military is comprised of a bunch of warmongering, violent, sociopathic killers and thus your fictional Starfleet would NEVER stoop to the level to resemble such a bunch of bloodthirsty savages? That's "far too uncivilized . . . and could you pass the grey poupon?"

    I'm not sure if you have been keeping up with modern robotic advancements, air combat and military drones but warfare on earth is ALREADY becoming kind of a push button affair. Yet whoever pushes those buttons will be a member of the military rather than the janitor on duty or the nearest secretary. For the Federation, Starfleet (the military) pushes those buttons. Whoever pushes those buttons is the military. If you have seen evidence that someone jumps in front of Worf to fire phasers or that Picard receives all his instructions to open fire from a separate military officer on board . . . please share that with the rest of us.

    :rofl:

    Clearly you are not able to recognize the distinction between a "Civil War" and a war between opposing powers. In a civil war the existing government is either threatened with losing complete or partial control of the state. The factions involved are internal in nature. Its one thing for Syrian civilians to take up arms against their OWN military (or portions of the military fighting against other elements of the same military establishment) as opposed to actively taking up arms and engaging in combat to repel an incursion of the Israeli Army. Historically the Palestinians have had very little success in direct confrontation with Israeli forces and thus prefer to utilize more terrorist and guerilla tactics. It almost seems as if you draw your military analagies back to the revolutionary war where local militias were simply comprised of local citizens who brought their guns with them to battle.

    But this is interesting. So earlier when I was using an example of the LAPD trying to defend against an invasion of the city you naturally inferred that they were being attacked by San Diego. :guffaw:

    My bad, I should have clarified that for you. I was discussing warfare between two distinct and opposing military forces rather than civil disobedience or an escalated version of clan or gang warfare within the same state.
     
  20. KGator

    KGator Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 28, 2013
    Location:
    Mentally? . . . that's debatable.
    What you continuously choose to ignore or refuse to comprehend is that no matter what other missions starfleet undertakes, if they actively engage in warfare and matters of national defense on behalf of the Federation they UNQUESTIONABLY are military.

    Your refusal to accept the current definition of the word "military" doesn't make your position any more tenable.
     

Share This Page