Spoilers Why wasn't the Franklin and NX class ship?

[Crazy Eddie]

Well, first of all; it's not a myth. A lot of TV and movie writers get this wrong -- Starfleet is a military, because it's an armed service empowered by the state, it acts in the state's defense when necessary, it has a rank structure and courts-martial, everything that defines a military...

The only thing that defines a "military" is the state it belongs to declaring it to be one. That's it, that's all. The U.S. Coast Guard, for example, is a military organization because the U.S. Government decided it should be. The Australian Coast Guard is not, because they decided it isn't. Likewise the French and Chinese national police forces (and also the Japanese Tokyo MPD at one point) are also branches of the military, because the government said so. U.S. police departments, while alarmingly militaristic, are not.

Starfleet is not a military organization; this is pretty firmly established by now. The only real reason for this is because the Federation DECIDED that it is not a military organization and doesn't give it that legal status. Among other implications is that Starfleet officers are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (or whatever the Federation equivalent) and are therefore subject to local civilian law if they commit crimes outside of Federation territory or on the sovereign territory of a Federation world. For example: Spock wouldn't actually face a court martial for murdering Kirk on Vulcan (the ground is clearly out of Starfleet's jurisdiction), but he probably WOULD have if he'd killed him on the Enterprise. Nor could Starfleet really complain if T'Pau got annoyed and invoked a "Kali Ma!" to rip McCoy's heart out of his chest; Vulcan law doesn't forbid it, and it happened ON VULCAN, so they just gotta deal with it.

Which, now that I think about it, is probably why Starfleet isn't legally considered a military. With all the weird shit that happens to Starfleet officers and ships on a regular basis, their BEING a military would either drag the Federation into a never-ending series of small pointless wars, or would sufficiently undermine the legal definition of a "military" so as to render the concept totally pointless.

Something can be a military without being warlike.

And something can be warlike without being a military. Again, it's the legal definition that matters. While police officers can participate in a war, being fired on BY police officers is not considered an act of war.

That's one of the reasons the coast guards of most countries aren't considered part of the military: because for almost anyone but the United States, opening fire on a ship flying the flag of another country would be considered an act of war (Australia has done this a number of times in dealing with pirates off the Malay Archipelago). The U.S. gets away with it because, fuck you, we're the U.S., we'll nuke your ass for breakfast. For most other countries, this would create a major diplomatic incident that would require a huge amount of apologizing and back room deals and reparations to the families of casualties, etc.

Don't get me wrong, there are lots of space operas depicting military forces that operate this way. Starfleet just isn't one of them; they're WAY too self conscious for that, and so is the Federation.

Look at boats. Look at planes. There are only so many shapes that work, regardless of aesthetics. The physics of propulsion through water or air compel certain shapes to be used. As I said, form follows function.

I think the simplest answer is that Starfleet ships use a different type of warp drive than most other people in the galaxy, which explains the "form" part. From TAS we have the Klingons using an "S2 Graf" system which is equivalent but not exactly the same as Starfleet's system. You could easily make the case that Starfleet uses a type of drive system that is actually very uncommon in the galaxy, superior in some ways and inferior in others, but in any case is optimized for their agenda (e.g. highly efficient long range travel that, while not exactly stealthy, does not overly impact the environment they're researching).

It could also be a matter of materials. There are lots of different ways to generate a given warp field, and probably Starfleet is using resources native to industrialized Federation worlds; this requires the use of, say, verterium cortenide or some other macguffin that tends to produce more radiation or subspace weirdness than whatever it is the Andorians or the Tellarites are using. Klingon ships probably have the same issues (similar materials) but their warp engines work slightly differently and they can get away with a different kind of design aesthetic.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Ive always thought of them as kinda quasi-military

"Paramilitary." That's a thing.

Or is this written off as "the station is a military installation because it was built by the Cardassians, not by the Federation"?

The Bajoran Militia is a military organization, and Deep Space Nine technically belongs to Bajor (and is even governed under Bajoran law, according to Sisko).

Actually, it occurs to me that some of the things they do on Deep Space Nine might actually be illegal under Federation law and they only get away with them because its sanctioned by the Bajoran Militia.

Blaze of Glory, Quark talks refers to the station's personnel as military:

Oh, let me guess, "military personnel" obviously doesn't include Starfleet?

Aside from the fact that Quark is a Ferengi and doesn't know much about Starfleet, he's also talking to Kira, who IS part of Bajor's military, so he's probably mostly referring to the Bajoran Militia.

Exploration was done by the military in the past. No one seemed to have any problem watching Stargate seeing armed US military personnel toting around assault rifles and submachine guns calling themselves peaceful explorers, and that show even had a USAF advisor. So you tell us, why can't the military handle exploration?

No one said they can't. Just that they AREN'T, in Starfleet's case.

Nick Meyer said he always assumed Starfleet was military, even though Paramount insisted it wasn't because Roddenberry said it wasn't. Ron Moore also said he considers Starfleet military, but never elaborated further.

Well, now it's canon in two different universes: it's not.

 

[The Wormhole]

The Bajoran Militia is a military organization, and Deep Space Nine technically belongs to Bajor (and is even governed under Bajoran law, according to Sisko).

It's a Federation outpost with a Federation name, not a Bajoran name. It's commanded by a Starfleet officer, and aside from XO and chief of security, all the important senior posts are staffed by Starfleet officers. And in the case of chief of security, on at least two occasions the Bajoran Militia security chief had to coordinate with a Starfleet security chief. The station houses several Starfleet runabouts and a Starfleet warship as its auxiliary craft, the Bajoran Militia doesn't provide and auxiliary craft for the station to use, which indeed was a factor in getting the Defiant assigned to the station. The fact that it follows Bajoran law is just an extension of being in Bajoran space, as has been established in other shows a Starfleet ship must respect the laws of the planet/space its visiting.

he's also talking to Kira, who IS part of Bajor's military, so he's probably mostly referring to the Bajoran Militia.

Except the conversation is about tensions mounting between the Federation and the Dominion.

Well, now it's canon in two different universes: it's not.

There are just as many, in not more, canonical references stating Starfleet is a military dating back to TOS. Besides, if Starfleet isn't military, how the hell can there be a court-martial for its officers? The term court-martial literally means "military court" after all. I don't even want to figure out how you justify a pacifist exploration agency sending its personnel out on black ops missions like we saw in Chain of Command. Or even better, a pacifist exploration agency having the authority and capability to eradicate all life on an inhabited planet (General Order 24). Though to be honest, even the military shouldn't be able to make that call.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It's a Federation outpost with a Federation name, not a Bajoran name.

QUARK: How could I possibly operate my establishment under Starfleet rules of conduct?
SISKO: This is still a Bajoran station. We're just here to administrate. You run honest games, you won't have any problems from me.

The fact that it follows Bajoran law is just an extension of being in Bajoran space...

And is therefore, technically, a Bajoran installation, subject to Bajoran law and ultimately answerable to the Bajoran government in its conduct. The Starfleet presence is based on an intergovernmental service agreement and not any formal treaty between the Federation and Bajor, thus their being there doesn't have any further legal obligations or hangups that a formal military presence would. And if the Bajoran government asks Starfleet to leave, they simply leave; if they ask them to come back, they simply come back. This, too, gives Starfleet a degree of operational flexibility militaries do not usually have.

Except the conversation is about tensions mounting between the Federation and the Dominion.

And considering DS9 is positioned right at the one and only passage between Dominion space and the rest of the galaxy, what makes you think the Bajorans wouldn't be nervous about that?

For that matter, wouldn't they be more nervous about that than Starfleet would? THEY don't have anywhere else to go if things get ugly; this is their own home turf, and Bajor will be right in the line of fire once the shit goes down.

There are just as many, in not more, canonical references stating Starfleet is a military dating back to TOS

Actually there are zero (0) references to Starfleet being an actual military organization. It is referred to as a "space service" and the nature of its mission is described in various ways, but nothing about its actual legal status vis a vis being a military is stated.

With the more clear and overt references in ENT and STB, though, it's not really up for debate. You can call it a retcon if you want, you can even call it the writers making a big mistake based on misguided anti-military ideology or whatever the fuck you prefer to think, but it is what it is.

 

[The Wormhole]

Actually there are zero (0) references to Starfleet being an actual military organization. It is referred to as a "space service" and the nature of its mission is described in various ways, but nothing about its actual legal status vis a vis being a military is stated.

1) Like I mentioned earlier, the fact that Starfleet officers are disciplined in court-martials. The term court-martial literally means military court, so how can a non-military organization have a military court?
2) It is well-known the intent in TOS was that Starfleet was the military. Kirk's backstory in the writer's guide mentions him serving on frigates and destroyers, which are military type craft that don't exist outside of the military.
3) Likewise, this is reflected in the TNG writer's guide which does acknowledge Starfleet of TOS was military and only describes Starfleet of TNG as "less of a military" and the Enterprise D as "less of a battleship."
4) Again, if Starfleet isn't military, why does it have a protocol in place authorizing the annihilation of a populated world?
5) Starfleet has its own penal system, Ro Laren was serving a sentence in a stockade. Again, the definition of stockade is "military prison."
6) Starfleet fights wars, enforces states of emergency on Earth and presumably other Federation worlds and is the only armed force in the entire Federation.
7) There are multiple references in the Homefront/Paradise Lost story to Admiral Leyton putting the Federation under military rule/dictatorship. The only time this term is challenged is by Leyton himself who doesn't view this as a dictatorship. So a non-military organization taking over the government is military rule?
8) Even in the Abramsverse, Starfleet is at first described as a "peacekeeping force." Peacekeeping forces are military.
9) Starfleet officer like Kirk and Nog describe themselves as soldiers.
10) Starfleet handles security at embassies, a task which is typically carried out by a nation's military.
11) As mentioned, Starfleet engages in black ops missions.
12) Starfleet operates its own intelligence division. Today, the only intelligence services which exist independent of the civilian intelligence agencies are the military's intelligence divisions.
13) At least two behind the scenes people say they consider Starfleet military.

I could go on, but the point of the matter is throughout all Star Trek there are exactly four references to Starfleet not being a military, Picard's line in Peak Performance, Archer's in The Expanse, and the references in STID and Beyond. Maybe five if you want include reactions to the Defiant being described as a warship to "I thought the Federation didn't believe in warships." Though that's curiously balanced by a line in Voyager indicating the Intrepid class was also meant to be a warship. So just because there's four direct references in all Star Trek stating Starfleet isn't military this trumps the fact that every other time in the past fifty years Starfleet is depicted as a military anyway?

 

[Tim Walker]

I like the idea of the Franklin as a sort of precursor to the NX ships. Gives the timeline a bit of depth, and shows a sort of transitional ship between the semi-modern Akira-prise and the truly primitive ships.

 

[WebLurker]

1) Like I mentioned earlier, the fact that Starfleet officers are disciplined in court-martials. The term court-martial literally means military court, so how can a non-military organization have a military court?

Change of term over time, or borrowed?

2) It is well-known the intent in TOS was that Starfleet was the military. Kirk's backstory in the writer's guide mentions him serving on frigates and destroyers, which are military type craft that don't exist outside of the military.

Non-canon

3) Likewise, this is reflected in the TNG writer's guide which does acknowledge Starfleet of TOS was military and only describes Starfleet of TNG as "less of a military" and the Enterprise D as "less of a battleship."

Non-canon

4) Again, if Starfleet isn't military, why does it have a protocol in place authorizing the annihilation of a populated world?

Fair point. I'm going to say emergency measure. (Incidentally, a non-canon RPG gave the order a non-military origin. Just fun trivia)

5) Starfleet has its own penal system, Ro Laren was serving a sentence in a stockade. Again, the definition of stockade is "military prison."

Borrowed terminology?

6) Starfleet fights wars, enforces states of emergency on Earth and presumably other Federation worlds and is the only armed force in the entire Federation.

Where's it written that they're the only armed force? Also, as pointed out in an earlier post, they could do all without being a military.

7) There are multiple references in the Homefront/Paradise Lost story to Admiral Leyton putting the Federation under military rule/dictatorship. The only time this term is challenged is by Leyton himself who doesn't view this as a dictatorship. So a non-military organization taking over the government is military rule?

Analogy, or Leyton planning to turn Starfleet into a military? (Haven't seen this show.)

8) Even in the Abramsverse, Starfleet is at first described as a "peacekeeping force." Peacekeeping forces are military.

In actuality, Pike said the Federation was the force in question, so who knows what this was supposed to mean.

9) Starfleet officer like Kirk and Nog describe themselves as soldiers.

Nog served in a war. Kirk also had a background in battles, if I recall correctly. No bearing on Starfleet. They were also describing themselves, not Starfleet.

10) Starfleet handles security at embassies, a task which is typically carried out by a nation's military.

Unless the Federation chose to do things differently.

11) As mentioned, Starfleet engages in black ops missions.

Yeah?

12) Starfleet operates its own intelligence division. Today, the only intelligence services which exist independent of the civilian intelligence agencies are the military's intelligence divisions.

Today, but would it still work the same way tomorrow?

13) At least two behind the scenes people say they consider Starfleet military.

Non-canon.

I could go on, but the point of the matter is throughout all Star Trek there are exactly four references to Starfleet not being a military, Picard's line in Peak Performance, Archer's in The Expanse, and the references in STID and Beyond. Maybe five if you want include reactions to the Defiant being described as a warship to "I thought the Federation didn't believe in warships."

That's still four more times that any exact statement that Starfleet is a military (and some of those instances leave zero wiggle room).

Though that's curiously balanced by a line in Voyager indicating the Intrepid class was also meant to be a warship.

Voyager wasn't a warship and never described as such (except in "Living Witness," which was garbled historical accounts).

So just because there's four direct references in all Star Trek stating Starfleet isn't military this trumps the fact that every other time in the past fifty years Starfleet is depicted as a military anyway?

Since a lot of the examples make assumptions that Starfleet couldn't have borrowed terminology (like they did the rank system), ignores Starfleet's roots in ENT, I'm going to say yes.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

1) Like I mentioned earlier, the fact that Starfleet officers are disciplined in court-martials. The term court-martial literally means military court, so how can a non-military organization have a military court?

Same way that civilians can be tried in a military tribunal despite not actually being part of any recognized military in any recognized state. The legal argument can be summed up thusly:

Because I fucking said so!

2) It is well-known the intent in TOS was that Starfleet was the military...

... and then it wasn't.

So now it isn't. Things change. Maybe you'll get lucky and they'll change back some day.

Even in the Abramsverse, Starfleet is at first described as a "peacekeeping force." Peacekeeping forces are military.

In the U.N., yes. The Federation is not the U.N..

Also Starfleet is the reboot films Starfleet is TWICE described as a non-military organization, once by implication in STID and the second, blatantly and unequivocally, in STB. So why Starfleet's combat role is well documented and well understood over the years, its LEGAL status has now been determined unambiguously.

Starfleet officer like Kirk and Nog describe themselves as soldiers.

So do cops and gangbangers. But legally, they're not.

At least two behind the scenes people say they consider Starfleet military.

Then they should have written it into canon if they felt that strongly about it. But they didn't, so that's where we are.

So just because there's four direct references in all Star Trek stating Starfleet isn't military this trumps the fact that every other time in the past fifty years Starfleet is depicted as a military anyway?

Yes, it does. Because "military" is a legal definition with a very specific set of implications. Starfleet's combat role, armaments, rank structure and even self-references are basically irrelevant. Under most nation's laws defining Starfleet as a "military" in peacetime would mean two things:
1) Starfleet officers are lawful combatants and therefore afforded to prisoner-of-war status when captured by belligerent forces.
2) That Starfleet officers whose job description does not include a combat role -- e.g. scientists, researchers, botanists, etc -- and excluding only doctors and nurses are still considered combatants; their presence on another nation's (planet's?) sovereign territory can be considered a belligerent act and they can be lawfully attacked, captured or killed.

The above would necessarily contradict Starfleet's first contact and observation missions, which are usually done without the local population knowing about it; were a Starfleet a military, their incursion on Malcor, for example, would technically be considered an act of war; if, on the other hand, they are considered to be engaged in espionage (since they are out of uniform and acting covertly) then Starfleet would be legally obliged to accept ANY legal judgement against officers captured in the act and are basically at the mercy of the governments that capture them.

Neither of those things happen in Star Trek. In or out of uniform their incursions -- wanted or otherwise -- are considered to be both legal and innocent, and even out-of-uniform officers are either returned safely or recovered covertly. Or, in Kirk's case, recovered destructively in an action that pretty much unravels the entire society that captured them in the first place. All of which begs the question of whether or not the Federation would LEGALLY SANCTION an act that is by its very definition illegal and belligerent. The simple answer is that they get around this fact by "nerfing" Stafleet's legal status and keeping it as a paramilitary organization. This way, when a crewman on a first contact team slips on a banana peel and gets accused of spying, Starfleet can truthfully claim that he is NOT a spy, that Starfleet is NOT invading their planet, that he is TECHNICALLY a civilian scientist, that the weapons he's carrying are purely for his own self defense, that "We are deeply and truly sorry and we meant no offense and could you please extradite him back to us and we will make sure this will never happen again. Live long and prosper!"

The other side of the coin is that current understandings of the definitions of "armed forces" and "military" are based primarily on European military customs and practices of the last 300 years, the most important tradition of which is the Law of Distinction. That is, one intentionally draws a clear distinction between civilians and combatants and that it is unlawful (or at least heavily frowned upon) to do harm to the former. Klingons, on the other hand, make no such distinction; EVERY Klingon is a combatant and EVERY Klingon is a warrior, so they doubtless judge pretty much everyone else by the same standards. 22nd Century Vulcan had a similar lack of distinction, apparently on the assumption that violence is sometimes logical, therefore EVERY Vulcan is capable of violence when the situation calls for it; again, no distinction, and no need for distinction. This is likely to be true for the Andorians as well, who are described and depicted as being a "warrior race" multiple times, possibly even for the Tellarites, who are assholes. Which means that three of the four founding members of the Federation do not traditionally distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. The Vulcans probably think humans are illogical for doing so, the Andorians think it's because they're a bunch of pussies, and the Tellarites think it's because their mothers are hamsters and their fathers smelt of elderberries. Amusingly, the United Nations (and probably the Geneva Conventions) were abolished by 2079, so even HUMANS no longer have a need to maintain the Law of Distinction.

So they clarify for those weird and primitive civilizations that think that sort of thing is terribly important (people like, say, the Cardassians and Malcorians or various alien-of-the-week races who assume everyone who blunders into their territory is after their lucky charms) "We are NOT a military organization. We're just researchers and explorers. You can relax now. If you DON'T want to relax, we can totally help you with that (sets phasers on stun)."

If you really want to know why Gene Rodenberry decided that Starfleet wasn't a military after all, you should probably read Ian M. Banks "Culture" novels. They're pretty much Gene's inspiration for his new interpretation of the Federation; their version of the military is called the "Contact Department" and their job description is literally "Do things to aliens." 90% of the stuff Contact does are good things. Then somebody like the Idirans start conquering their neighbors and the Culture declares war LITERALLY by ordering contact to "Do (lots of bad) things to aliens." At a high enough level of sophistication, war is just a complex engineering task in which you induce all of your enemy's weapons to blow themselves up; that seems to be the Federation's ideal, so failing to define Starfleet as a "military" fits their self image nicely.

 

[The Wormhole]

Where's it written that they're the only armed force? Also, as pointed out in an earlier post, they could do all without being a military.

In fifty years of seeing the Federation in various states, including fighting a war, any other armed forces have never been seen or even mentioned. The closest are the MACOs which Beyond tells us were disbanded after the Federation was formed.

Voyager wasn't a warship and never described as such (except in "Living Witness," which was garbled historical accounts).

From The Thaw:

PARIS: This ship was built for combat performance, Harry, not musical performance. Nobody figured we'd be taking any long trips.

Same way that civilians can be tried in a military tribunal despite not actually being part of any recognized military in any recognized state.

That doesn't make sense as an argument. A military tribunal is by definition handled by the military. Starfleet court-martials are still handled by Starfleet. You have failed to address how a non-military organization can operate a "military court."

Yes, it does. Because "military" is a legal definition with a very specific set of implications. Starfleet's combat role, armaments, rank structure and even self-references are basically irrelevant. Under most nation's laws defining Starfleet as a "military" in peacetime would mean two things:
1) Starfleet officers are lawful combatants and therefore afforded to prisoner-of-war status when captured by belligerent forces.
2) That Starfleet officers whose job description does not include a combat role -- e.g. scientists, researchers, botanists, etc -- and excluding only doctors and nurses are still considered combatants; their presence on another nation's (planet's?) sovereign territory can be considered a belligerent act and they can be lawfully attacked, captured or killed.

Both of which have happened in Star Trek on several occasions. In fact, during the Dominion War any Dominion POWs captured held by the Federation were held by Starfleet. This is even confirmed in Rocks and Shoals:

KEEVAN: That's a communications system. It needs repair, but I'm willing to bet that you've brought one of those famed Starfleet engineers who can turn rocks into replicators. He should have a lot more success at repairing it than a Jem'Hadar suffering from withdrawal. Once you've take care of the Jem'Hadar, I'll give you the comm. system and surrender to you as a prisoner of war.
BASHIR: And you spend the war resting comfortably as a Starfleet POW while your men lie rotting on this planet.

So Starfleet is not military, yet POWs are their responsibility?

The above would necessarily contradict Starfleet's first contact and observation missions, which are usually done without the local population knowing about it; were a Starfleet a military, their incursion on Malcor, for example, would technically be considered an act of war;

Several in Malcor's government did consider it an act of war. It was only because the chancellor was in a cooperative mood that things worked out alright for Riker and the Enterprise.

 

[WebLurker]

In fifty years of seeing the Federation in various states, including fighting a war, any other armed forces have never been seen or even mentioned. The closest are the MACOs which Beyond tells us were disbanded after the Federation was formed.

The same scene were its pointed out that Starfleet is not a military? On top of that, so what if Earth chose to disband its own military? That doesn't prove that Starfleet is one.

From The Thaw:
"PARIS: This ship was built for combat performance, Harry, not musical performance. Nobody figured we'd be taking any long trips."

Okay, forgot about that one. However: A.) Paris is making a joke and B.) Even if Starfleet designed Voyager for combat situations, that doesn't mean that Starfleet is a military. We've seen in quite a few episodes that Starfleet ships need to be able to defend themselves on the frontier.

That doesn't make sense as an argument. A military tribunal is by definition handled by the military. Starfleet court-martials are still handled by Starfleet. You have failed to address how a non-military organization can operate a "military court."

But is a Starfleet court-martial the same as a modern-day military court-martial? Just because they have the same name doesn't mean that they're the same thing.

Both of which have happened in Star Trek on several occasions. In fact, during the Dominion War any Dominion POWs captured held by the Federation were held by Starfleet. This is even confirmed in Rocks and Shoals:

So Starfleet is not military, yet POWs are their responsibility?

If the Federation authorized them to do that, I could see it happening.

Several in Malcor's government did consider it an act of war. It was only because the chancellor was in a cooperative mood that things worked out alright for Riker and the Enterprise.

Just because a country considers something an act of war doesn't automatically mean it is one (not to mention that it would've happened regardless of whether Starfleet is a military or not). Besides, the Federation would presumably not create an act of war on purpose as part of a peaceful first contact scenario, so I think the episode makes more sense with a non-military Starfleet.

 

[The Wormhole]

But is a Starfleet court-martial the same as a modern-day military court-martial? Just because they have the same name doesn't mean that they're the same thing.

Actually, yes, Starfleet court-martials are virtually identical to modern day ones. Hell, in DS9 they even included ringing a bell.

 

[WebLurker]

Actually, yes, Starfleet court-martials are virtually identical to modern day ones. Hell, in DS9 they even included ringing a bell.

And that proves its the same thing, and not a different thing they borrowed?

 

[Timo]

I'm not sure why the "big problem" here is supposed to be such a big problem. We know Starfleet isn't "The Military", because they themselves say so, quite vehemently at that. We also know Starfleet is no different from today's military organizations in any significant respect, because we can observe it in action. And we further know that "The Military" is some other organization that exists in parallel, at least in the mid-22nd century.

So where's the contradiction? Starfleet has chosen to call itself something and not something else, possibly because the more natural name was already taken. They have the right to do so, and should be lauded for dodging a terminology conflict. Starfleet doesn't pretend they aren't soldiers, it just insists they aren't "The Military" and indeed finds such an association insulting. Things like being soldiers, waging wars and killing enemies are freely admitted to. Having weapons and warships is also something the Starfleet never denies, even if some ignorant aliens get a bit confused there.

We don't know what "The Military" has, but we can surmise it has all the same things in abundance. Or then it has something else, or used to have. Either way, its lingering memory is what Starfleet wants every good solider to disassociate himself with. Just assume that "The Military" is futurespeak for Wehrmacht, an as such apt and descriptive name that no longer can be used to describe what it was supposed to describe.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Lakenheath 72]

This is a work of fiction written by people in the last and present centuries, right?

The reason I am asking is that I am reading posts where it is suggested the people of this fiction are using different meanings than us because they are living in a fictional future. This is wrong-headed on so many levels. The most important of which is that the characters are expressing the views of writers who are contemporaneous with us, and the meanings of their words are our meanings.

 

[Timo]

But that's already untrue as regards TOS - times have moved on, and the language of those people is confusing to us (what is a "probe" - a mission into the unknown or a robotic explorer performing the mission?).

Nor do the characters really express views that would be contemporaneous with us - they are expressing futuristic views (death is no longer to be feared, the military is to be despised by the soldiers).

Also, the characters take great care to use words that are unreal. They transport around, in stark contrast with the proper usage of that verb today. That's an integral part of the charm.

I don't see any merit to sticking to current or already outdated Webster's definitions of words in a show that is writing its own vocabulary for expressing its novel ideas. It does that to a small degree amidst more humdrum use of language, sure - but the part of the material that is so hopelessly outdated and contradicted that even the writers themselves would be ashamed of interpreting it in the originally intended manner is a good match to that degree.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That doesn't make sense as an argument. A military tribunal is by definition handled by the military.

Well no, it's a tribunal of military personnel. That it sometimes includes civilians for whatever reason is something a number of governments have drawn flack for over the years, but only because of the aforementioned "law of distinction"

You have failed to address how a non-military organization can operate a "military court."

I did address it. The Federation government DECIDES it can. Simple as that.

So Starfleet is not military, yet POWs are their responsibility?

Yes. Under current law, being a paramilitary force makes then lawful combatants, which puts them in the same category as regular military.

Under Federation law, the difference between military and civilian is not strictly enforced (since most aliens they encounter do not always or even usually follow the law of distinction).

Several in Malcor's government did consider it an act of war.

Just like they erroneously assumed Starfleet's intentions to be both hostile and aggressive. They were as wrong about the nature of those actions as they were about the organization that performed them.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

Timo,
People in the 1960s knew what was meant by probes. There were space probes exploring the Moon and the other planets.

The characters are expressing views of our time. These are the aspirations of the writers. And, one of your examples, of soldiers despising the military has been expressed in the past. I know of one soldier who despised the military for its role in the Indian Wars. He was an enlisted soldier in Custer's 7th cavalry.

The charm of unreal words lose their value when it become technobabble. When it becomes technobabble, it becomes magic. One of the pluses of the last film is that the use of technical words was sensical and logical.

I have thought about and written several responses to your last paragraph. In the end, I decided to let it go.

 

[Tim Walker]

the Tellarites think it's because their mothers are hamsters and their fathers smelt of elderberries.

.

As the French said of the English.

 

[The Wormhole]

Yes. Under current law, being a paramilitary force makes then lawful combatants, which puts them in the same category as regular military.

So now Starfleet is in the same category as the military despite not being the military? Sweet shit, it's so much easier to just say Starfleet is a military and the four people who have said otherwise are wrong.

 

[Timo]

Timo, People in the 1960s knew what was meant by probes. There were space probes exploring the Moon and the other planets.

You missed the point - in TOS (say, "Tomorrow is Yesterday"), "probe" clearly refers to a sortie into the unknown, and not to the device conducting the sortie. That is a turn of terminology lost on today's audiences. We have to cope with that, just as we have to cope with other silly 1960s concepts such as "plates" and "labs" being involved in medical or astronomical imaging. The words are there, the things they describe thankfully are not. Just as with The Military, for the most part.

The characters are expressing views of our time. These are the aspirations of the writers.

The writers write science fiction. Their views are all about the future. And the more shock value there, the better. If Trek were about today in space, it wouldn't bear watching (a lot of TOS was that, but not all of it).

Who are you to deny a writer the aspiration to write about something not found in Webster's?

And, one of your examples, of soldiers despising the military has been expressed in the past.

But you said you don't deal in the past? What's contemporary about your ancient example? If the Indian Wars count, then it directly follows that the Military literally means the Army and excludes the Navy, dispelling our current woes.

The charm of unreal words lose their value when it become technobabble. When it becomes technobabble, it becomes magic. One of the pluses of the last film is that the use of technical words was sensical and logical.

(Except that nothing about the Franklin made any sense. Not when they were using unreal worlds such as transporter and phase cannon, not when they were speaking about power conduits or thrusters.)

I have thought about and written several responses to your last paragraph. In the end, I decided to let it go.

Thank you.

Timo Saloniemi