Why is there resistance to the idea of Starfleet being military?

[The Wormhole]

Their prime role as explorers and diplomats certainly supersedes their military power. They bend over backwards to avoid violent conflict. That doesn't mean they won't use force, but they (in particular Picard) do everything possible before resorting to violence.

Thing is, today's militaries tend to leave use of force as a last resort, not everything is a guns blazing, shoot first and ask questions never response. Even so, there are also times when Starfleet has responded in that manner. And I guarantee, if there was anything on Earth to explore today it would be handled by the military. Hell, quite a bit of authority figures at NASA are military officers. Chris Hadfield is arguably one of the most famous modern-day astronauts and he was an active-duty serving military officer when he was in command of the ISS.

There is literally no difference between Starfleet and militaries of today other than the environment they work in. And the fact that its officers deny they are a military for some reason.

 

[at Quark's]

By the 24th century, perhaps there is a different meaning to the word "military" or Starfleet's definition does not reflect what is a military in 24th century terms. It could be as simple as the late 20th and early 21st century idealist idea of the military is now the actual definition of the word and thus "Starfleet is not a military" is correct.

Depending on how I interpret this, I may either disagree or actually agree with it.

In my opinion, whether they would call it a military or not is simply not that relevant. As far as I know, we are using early 21st century parlance on this board-- no need to conflate it with a hypothetical 24th century variant we wouldn't know well enough anyway.

For all we know, one of the essential requirements of being called military within the Federation (or Alpha Quadrant powers) in that time period is that all their members are skilled to a certain degree in French knitting and ice hockey (of course I'm being ridiculous on purpose here) -- does that imply that we would have to judge them on those criteria to decide whether we would call them a 'military organisation' or not?

Of course not. We would use our own definitions for that.

And, perhaps, admit that Starfleet might be an organisation that has no adequate analogue today, so that it might not fit entirely within one of our 'boxes'.

 

[STR]

There is literally no difference between Starfleet and militaries of today other than the environment they work in. And the fact that its officers deny they are a military for some reason.

The denial of militancy itself is part of their soft power projection. They say they aren't military, and if that's what a first contact civilization wants to believe, they can do so. However, a more cynical race would see the weapon of mass destruction orbiting overhead, filled with armed, uniformed servicemen and would immediately grasp the inherent threat without anyone needing the label it.

It's branding, that's all.

 

[The Old Mixer]

It's branding, that's all.

That's what I say!

 

[Ithekro]

The denial of militancy itself is part of their soft power projection. They say they aren't military, and if that's what a first contact civilization wants to believe, they can do so. However, a more cynical race would see the weapon of mass destruction orbiting overhead, filled with armed, uniformed servicemen and would immediately grasp the inherent threat without anyone needing the label it.

It's branding, that's all.

The thing is they say it to others in Starfleet or Federation. Likely to remind them that Starfleet isn't a shoot fire and forget the questions organization. It comes up when the idea of wargames are brought up for example. The counter argument was something along the lines of "just in case" and "we will need to be prepared for when the Borg come" since they can't reason with the Borg and their defenses become useless rather quickly as of "Q Who". There are likely other instances, but that is the one I remember.

 

[Mudd]

Because the people who made the show say that it isn't.

I swear to God, you cast an actor to play Kirk whose eyes aren't the same color as Shatner's and fans lose their shit because it contradicts something they call "canon" - but you take things said on the shows seriously and people want to dismiss them because they don't like them.

 

[Tenacity]

It comes up when the idea of wargames are brought up for example.

While Picard initially rejected the need for the war game, it was Picard's superiors in Starfleet that came up with the games and ordered Picard to undertake the exercise.

Picard might resist the idea that Starfleet is a military, but apparently his position isn't ubiquitous within Starfleet.

and people want to dismiss them because they don't like them.

No, because there is abundant evidence that Picard's statement isn't factual.

 

[Mudd]

None of it is factual. It's a skiffy story.

 

[Ithekro]

It might be good to have a reference to all the times Starfleet was specified as not being a military.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

It might be good to have a reference to all the times Starfleet was specified as not being a military.

Off the top of my head:

TNG: Peak Performance
Star Trek Into Darkness: By Scotty before he quits.
Star Trek Beyond: Scotty again, talking about Edison.

 

[Tenacity]

TNG: Peak Performance
Star Trek Into Darkness: By Scotty before he quits.
Star Trek Beyond: Scotty again, talking about Edison.

Two of those examples come from a alternate universe.

 

[Lance]

As I said in the other thread, the problem is that Roddenberry used 'military' as a buzzword to describe the tone of the Star Trek movies and to help define, by contrast, what he hoped TNG would be. But by any reasonable measure, a lot of the things that the fandom describes in these terms, parrot-fashion, are misnomers. A service that combines scientific research and exploration with the occasional need to protect the sovereignty of its nation/paymasters are roles that militaries have fulfiled throughout all human history. The Roddenberry-ian definition of military as being basically a belt-buckle-and-bootstrap fighting force is an over-simplification. One of the most important people aboard an 18th century naval vessel was the botanist, the mission wasn't all battles on the high seas. By any real-life definition of what a military is, Starfleet clearly is one.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

From a strict in-universe view, somehow I always picture 23rd century Klingons and 24th century Romulans and Cardassians laughing their a….s off when they hear that Starfleet isn't military.

Kirk and Picard may say it and even mean it but everyone else might not see it the same way.

 

[Paradise City]

From a strict in-universe view, somehow I always picture 23rd century Klingons and 24th century Romulans and Cardassians laughing their a….s off when they hear that Starfleet isn't military.

Kirk and Picard may say it and even mean it but everyone else might not see it the same way.

That's it exactly, yes. The Federation identifies Starfleet as a peace & exploration outfit but in reality it's a de facto military/border patrol force given that the Federation appears to encompass alot of space which needs to be guarded.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Two of those examples come from a alternate universe.

And even then, it's just two people. Hardly representative of society at large.

 

[J.T.B.]

Because the people who made the show say that it isn't.

But it was half-assed. They made episodes that said that, and they made episodes that contradicted it. If the people who made the show had fully committed to that idea we wouldn't have seen Starfleet practicing to fight wars, nearly fighting wars and actually fighting wars. Not to mention all these threads over the years.

One of the most important people aboard an 18th century naval vessel was the botanist, the mission wasn't all battles on the high seas.

May I ask what that refers to? Except for a naval vessel sent on a scientific mission with civilian researchers aboard, "natural philosophers" played no part in an 18th century navy.

 

[Tenacity]

If the people who made the show had fully committed to that idea we wouldn't have seen Starfleet practicing to fight wars, nearly fighting wars and actually fighting wars

A few references to the Federation's "actual" military, either right from the start in TOS, or early in TNG, would have served the "Starfleet isn't a military" concept nicely.

Starfleet could still have carried some weapons, and a lot of the situations where the Enterprise used weapons would have still made sense (but not all).

The Dominion War could have been somewhat the same, except the Defiant wouldn't have been leading large formations of Federation warships into battle, and Sisko wouldn't have been in a leadership position.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

One of the most important people aboard an 18th century naval vessel was the botanist, the mission wasn't all battles on the high seas.

May I ask what that refers to? Except for a naval vessel sent on a scientific mission with civilian researchers aboard, "natural philosophers" played no part in an 18th century navy.

The movie Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World probably. And even in that, the botanist was actually the ship's surgeon!

The Federation identifies Starfleet as a peace & exploration outfit but in reality it's a de facto military/border patrol force given that the Federation appears to encompass alot of space which needs to be guarded.

Exactly so. Starfleet behaves more like (and reminds me more of) the US Coast Guard than the US Navy. So the question is: is the Coast Guard military? The answer is of course, yes. The USCG is a multi-mission maritime uniformed service and also a branch of the United States Armed Forces. It's missions are wide and range from search and rescue and environmental protection to law enforcement and coastal defense.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Two of those examples come from a alternate universe.

Well it was off the top of my head.

There are 721 episodes and 13 movies to sift through.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Sisko wouldn't have been in a leadership position.

That is an illogical statement in and of itself.