I agree, particularly as Kirk's words are inconclusionary (Starfleet combines military, scientific, diplomatic and law enforcement functions in one organisation - which indeed is what has aways been shown), whereas Picard and Scotty's dialogue is exclusionary (Starfleet isn't military, but does include combat as one of it's functions? (I suppose that might fit with Pike's "humanitarian and peacekeeping armada" quote, incorrectly attributed to the UFP rather SF tho).
Starfleet is a Space Navy (military fleet)
- Thread starter Baxten
- Start date
- Status
I agree, particularly as Kirk's words are inconclusionary (Starfleet combines military, scientific, diplomatic and law enforcement functions in one organisation - which indeed is what has aways been shown), whereas Picard and Scotty's dialogue is exclusionary (Starfleet isn't military, but does include combat as one of it's functions? (I suppose that might fit with Pike's "humanitarian and peacekeeping armada" quote, incorrectly attributed to the UFP rather SF tho).
Nice idea, though I think Kirk was talking about a combined Army, Navy, Air Force... the line was in response to what branch of the service the Enterprise belonged to.
Only for the Earth-cetric members, I would think. The Federation is more than Earth. Most of the Federation did not have a tragic third world war. (Or, maybe they did).
Careful, this is crossing the post/poster line.
US Army Engineers, one of the largest branches of the Army, use all of these tools. And they spend a lot more time training, doing projects, etc, with these tools, than they do with assault rifles.
Ditto for Air Force Engineers, Navy Engineers, and yep, even the Marine Corps has Engineers.
And that's just vertical Engineers, who build houses in poor US neighborhoods, and schools in third world Latin American countries/provinces.
There's also horizontal Engineers, Surveyors, Quarry Specialists, Geospatial Engineers, and so on.
Scotty knew what General Order 24 was without Kirk explaining it to him. How can you respond correctly to something made up on the spot?
My wife regularly says "services" when referring to someone in the military.
General Order 24: An order to destroy all life on an entire planet. This order has been given by Captain Garth (Antos IV) and Captain Kirk (Eminiar VII). On neither occasion was the order actually fulfilled. (TOS: "Whom Gods Destroy", "A Taste of Armageddon")
From TOS "A Taste of Armageddon"
KIRK: Scotty, General Order Twenty Four. Two hours! In two hours!
ANAN: Enterprise, this is Anan Seven, First Councilman of the High Council of Eminiar.
[Bridge]
ANAN [OC]: We hold your Captain, his party, your Ambassador and his party prisoners.
[Council Room]
ANAN: Unless you immediately start transportation of all personnel aboard your ship to the surface, the hostages will be killed. You have thirty minutes. I mean it, Captain.
KIRK: All that it means is that I won't be around for the destruction. You heard me give General Order Twenty Four. That means in two hours the Enterprise will destroy Eminiar Seven.
ANAN: Planetary defence System, open fire on the Enterprise!
SECURITY [OC]: I'm sorry, Councilman. The target has moved out of range.
And later...
[Bridge]
SCOTT: Open a channel, Lieutenant. This is the commander of the USS Enterprise.
[Council Room]
SCOTT [OC]: All cities and installations on Eminiar Seven have been located, identified, and fed into our fire-control system. In one hour and forty five minutes
[Bridge]
SCOTT: The entire inhabited surface of your planet will be destroyed.
Since we're using quotes…
PICARD: Unfortunately as Starfleet officers, we do not always have the luxury to serve in an ideal environment.
SISKO: I realise that, sir, and I'm investigating the possibility of returning to Earth for civilian service.
Sisko contemplating to resign Starfleet (i.e. the military) and return to civilian life (i.e. non military).
PICARD: Unfortunately as Starfleet officers, we do not always have the luxury to serve in an ideal environment.
SISKO: I realise that, sir, and I'm investigating the possibility of returning to Earth for civilian service.
Sisko contemplating to resign Starfleet (i.e. the military) and return to civilian life (i.e. non military).
THE STAR TREK ENCYCLOPEDIA: A REFERENCE GUIDE
By Michael Okuda, Denise Okuda, Debbie Mirek
This is searchable on Google Books.
No Star Trek reference guide, writers/directors guide or "bible" has ever defined Starfleet as "paramilitary".
By Michael Okuda, Denise Okuda, Debbie Mirek
Maquis. Paramilitary organization of former Federation citizens formed at the colonies affected by the border changes wrought by the Federation-Cardassian treaty of 2370.
This is searchable on Google Books.
No Star Trek reference guide, writers/directors guide or "bible" has ever defined Starfleet as "paramilitary".
I can't help but wonder if general ignorance regarding the military and Starfleet has led to this belief that Starfleet isn't military being popularized. Let's face it, it isn't just because of five scenes where someone says Starfleet isn't military that this idea is clung to. Star Trek fans are masters of deluding themselves into believing whatever they want, willfully ignoring what was said on screen as they please. I mean hell, this is a fandom that has popularized the term "head canon" so we're obviously not beholden to strict adherence to what is on screen period. The "Gene's Vision" line doesn't hold up to scrutiny, simply because fans, and indeed writers and producers are perfectly willing to discard all of Roddenberry's other sacred cows like no money, no religion, love instructors, and so on. So why is fandom so insistent to cling to this idea that Starfleet isn't a military, when it would be so much easier to just accept that it is?
I suspect that among those who subscribe to the "not a military" belief, they equate military with Spartan environments, personnel standing to attention, saluting, and speaking to each other in clipped and formal tones, marching everywhere they go, and when it comes action, shoot first, ask questions never. And since Starfleet isn't exactly like this, it is therefore not military. But the military today isn't exactly like this. A surprising percentage of naval warships is dedicated to recreational purposes, arguable more so than some Starfleet ships. Saluting and marching is almost strictly reserved to ceremonial purposes, and most militaries actually do prefer to find peaceful solutions, saving combat and the use of force as a last resort.
Likewise, Starfleet has shown a "stereotypical military" manner, officers must always stand at attention when among their superiors, even when off-duty and the superior is visiting them in their quarters. Starfleet certainly doesn't shy away from shooting first. Hell, in some respects Starfleet is actually more strict than modern militaries, in that the loss of a starship means an automatic court-martial for the captain. Today, procedure requires a hearing and board of inquiry first to determine if a court martial is even necessary. And then there's the fact that Starfleet essentially authorizes genocide, with General Order 24. Seriously, in the US military today, it takes a high ranking flag officer with direct authorization from the President to fire one nuke, but in Starfleet a Captain can authorized all life on an inhabited world wiped out without checking with his superiors. Okay, in the 24th century it apparently does require authorization from above, but when Sisko did it to a Maquis colony without authorization, there were no consequences.
So why is it so hard to accept that Starfleet is a military, and why is it so important to deny its military nature just because Picard, Archer, Admiral Forrest, Captain Hernandez and Kelvin Scotty said it isn't military?
I suspect that among those who subscribe to the "not a military" belief, they equate military with Spartan environments, personnel standing to attention, saluting, and speaking to each other in clipped and formal tones, marching everywhere they go, and when it comes action, shoot first, ask questions never. And since Starfleet isn't exactly like this, it is therefore not military. But the military today isn't exactly like this. A surprising percentage of naval warships is dedicated to recreational purposes, arguable more so than some Starfleet ships. Saluting and marching is almost strictly reserved to ceremonial purposes, and most militaries actually do prefer to find peaceful solutions, saving combat and the use of force as a last resort.
Likewise, Starfleet has shown a "stereotypical military" manner, officers must always stand at attention when among their superiors, even when off-duty and the superior is visiting them in their quarters. Starfleet certainly doesn't shy away from shooting first. Hell, in some respects Starfleet is actually more strict than modern militaries, in that the loss of a starship means an automatic court-martial for the captain. Today, procedure requires a hearing and board of inquiry first to determine if a court martial is even necessary. And then there's the fact that Starfleet essentially authorizes genocide, with General Order 24. Seriously, in the US military today, it takes a high ranking flag officer with direct authorization from the President to fire one nuke, but in Starfleet a Captain can authorized all life on an inhabited world wiped out without checking with his superiors. Okay, in the 24th century it apparently does require authorization from above, but when Sisko did it to a Maquis colony without authorization, there were no consequences.
So why is it so hard to accept that Starfleet is a military, and why is it so important to deny its military nature just because Picard, Archer, Admiral Forrest, Captain Hernandez and Kelvin Scotty said it isn't military?
Starfleet is looser in some ways to the RL militaries though as well. Apparently you can protest your superiors actions without getting a boot in the face, Eddington had endure the joys of counseling and psych evaluation rather than military jail, apparently a Fed penal colony even for traitors is paradise, and officers are given a lot of leeway and its a more "gentle" atmosphere then RL militaries
It isn't hard to accept, it is just that these five people, who should be intimately knowledgeable about what Starfleet is and is not, tell the audience that Starfleet is not a military, and we are expected to believe them. So our beliefs are not valid in the equation when we are told point blank that Starfleet is not a military by multiple people in Starfleet. That is why it is difficult. Not because of our ability to accept that Starfleet should be considered a military (in fact we tend to play the old FASA roleplaying game and its Combat Simulator table top game....so we run it like they are a military all the time), just that we are presented with the show telling us that Starfleet is not a military as a concrete fact. So regardless of what we may think or believe, that is the fact we are meant to accept, like it or not.
THE STAR TREK ENCYCLOPEDIA: A REFERENCE GUIDE
By Michael Okuda, Denise Okuda, Debbie Mirek
Maquis. Paramilitary organization of former Federation citizens formed at the colonies affected by the border changes wrought by the Federation-Cardassian treaty of 2370.
This is searchable on Google Books.
No Star Trek reference guide, writers/directors guide or "bible" has ever defined Starfleet as "paramilitary".
There is also none that define Starfleet as a military and explicitly some that define Starfleet as not a military.
Your interpretation of Kirk's words, not so much.
"Combined service" isn't a euphemism for "military' either, especially considering Kirk is answering the question "Did the Navy...?"
Highly relevant in the context of this thread: No, "the navy" did not. Starfleet was put together from a merger of the Earth Starfleet exploration program and MACO. The fusion did not transmute Starfleet into a military organization (as per Scotty and Picard) but it did greatly enhance its tactical capabilities (as per Kirk and Garth).
Sure, but even "United Earth Space Probe Agency" doesn't sound like a military organization at all. It's more likely Kirk is implying that ELEMENTS of all military services are being drawn upon to lend their expertise to Starfleet, not unlike NASA or NOAA.
And yet the Army Corps of Engineers is a specialized service WITHIN a military organization.
Starfleet, on the other hand, is an outfit that maintains combat specialists within an exploratory organization.
Equivalence: the U.S. Army is not an engineering team, even though it includes engineering teams among its ranks and can perform engineering tasks.
Starfleet is not a military organization, even though it includes combat specialists and can perform military tasks.
To expand on the earlier analogy: adding a screwdriver to the handle of a hammer doesn't make it less of a hammer.
Adding a hammer head to a multitool doesn't turn the multitool into a hammer.
The function of a thing can be described by what it is most specifically optimized for. If you really wanted them to, you could use the military to grow crops, run schools, drive public buses, enforce the law or do your taxes every year. They'd probably do a damn good job of it too. But none of those things are the PURPOSE of the military, they're just things the military could do if you really needed them to. Exploration, likewise, is one of those things the military can do, but the purpose of the military is to defend the State against its enemies.
Starfleet's purpose is exploration, and their defensive capabilities are primarily for SELF defense. The efficacy of those defensive capabilities means they can also intervene to help deal with an alien threat that exceeds the ability of conventional military defenses to cope with. This makes them very useful to the Federation's security, but it doesn't make them the military.
In fact, I would say that whatever it is that V'ger neutralized when the Creator didn't answer him in time is probably the closest thing the Federation has to "the military." The Mars Defense Perimeter that the Borg neatly swept aside in "Best of Both Worlds" would also qualify.
No, it was the direct quotes by Scott, Picard, Jonathan Archer, Admiral Gardner and Erica Hernandez, as well as the stated intention by Gene Rodenberry, that lead to this belief being popularized. But even without those very CLEAR lines of dialog, there's inescapable fact that Starfleet doesn't ACT like any recognizable military organization. They don't salute their superiors, they don't rigidly enforce the chain of command, they are notoriously lax in both discipline and battlefield readiness, and they eschew any of the traditional martial philosophy one expects from people who are -- and know themselves to be -- professional soldiers.
Star Trek doesn't exist in a vacuum. Many of its viewers are veterans themselves, and even the ones that aren't are bombarded by images of ACTUAL military organizations throughout the genre of science fiction. Starfleet isn't even TRYING to present itself as a military organization, which was actually one of the interesting things about the introduction of MACO during Enterprise: those guys WERE the military, and they knew it, and more importantly, Starfleet knew it.
Just point out to me any modern naval force that would allow any of the following actions:
1) A senior officer reports for duty every day for four and a half years without every putting on a uniform
2) Officers in the same chain of command openly fraternizing and/or marrying each other
3) Resign from the service with only a verbal notification, and be reinstated just the same, no questions asked
4) Steal a shuttlecraft -- or even an entire starship -- with the intention of going AWOL without being executed for it
5) Shoot your superior officer just because he's annoying (also without being executed for it)
6) Refer to a superior officer -- particularly your commanding officer -- by first name while on duty in full view of junior officers and/or cadets
7) Get publicly shitfaced while on active duty
8) Leave your post in the middle of a crisis to rescue your son/daughter/girlfriend/mother from some random problem
9) Leave your post without authorization to murder a politician from an allied country
10) Threaten to kill your superior officer just because he calls you a coward (and then have him come and apologize for it later!)
There's "military discipline." There's "military discipline is definitely lax in this unit." And then there's fucking Starfleet.
Enforced sporadically at best... apparently you only have to stand at attention when your superior is pissed.
Seriously? They almost NEVER do. In fact, that's one of the things that's always kind of bugged me about their lack of combat readiness: it takes them ENTIRELY too long to dial up anything like an adequate response and half the time it's something like "Target their weapons array only" or "Fire a warning shot, just enough to get their attention." (Seriously, Janeway? These guys are ALREADY SHOOTING AT YOU, how much more attention do you need?)
That wasn't the case in the 1960s. Interestingly, it (literally) isn't the case for the Colonial Fleet in BSG either, since Bill Adama has the authority to unilaterally authorize the release of nuclear weapons.
It IS still the case for the Russian Navy, though. (incase you were wondering).
Actually that question is kind of backwards. Why is it so important to see Starfleet as a military organization and why is it so hard to accept that Picard, Archer, Forest, Hernandez and Kelvin Scotty said it isn't? Starfleet NOT being a military doesn't contradict any of its known properties.
Is Starfleet a military organisation? Formally, that it's secondary function. in terms of realpolitik, yes, it is a necessary military organisation.
Starfleet is the Federations spearhead. The Federation is devoted to peace, cooperation and learning and Starfleet in its turn reflects that ethos as its identity.
The realpolitik is that, yes, it is a defence force necessary for the Federations survival. Without it, they'd get picked apart by various militaristic rivals if Starfleet wasn't present.
Starfleet is the Federations spearhead. The Federation is devoted to peace, cooperation and learning and Starfleet in its turn reflects that ethos as its identity.
The realpolitik is that, yes, it is a defence force necessary for the Federations survival. Without it, they'd get picked apart by various militaristic rivals if Starfleet wasn't present.
Are you reading responses? You just affirmed all of the misconceptions mentioned by Wormhole. These quotes say nothing to the mass of quotes posted here that say otherwise, or other definitive evidence.
All of these occurrences you mention, even with some of your hyperbole, could just as easily happen on a TV show about the modern day military.
1) What are you referencing?
2) Fraternization is common occurrence in all branches of the military. How it's handled depends on the unit's commanding officer. It's at his or her discretion. Again, what are you referencing?
3) Resigning. What are you referencing? Starfleet documentation is entirely electronic. If Sisko or Worf or whoever resigned, there would be documentation. In TOS, you would have to sign actual documents.
4)If an officer stole a vehicle...you think he would be executed?! Huh?!
5) What are you referencing. If this happened in RL, there would be an investigation. Only if the servicemember was found guilty of premeditated, first degree murder would an execution be possible, but prison would be 99.9% likely. Starfleet has the power of execution also.
6) Officers referring to each other by first name is quite common, especially in the Navy. It's less common for enlisted, but if they are friends, yes, it happens.
7) This happens regularly in militaries. The punishment might be nothing, it might be a reprimand, or it might be "corrective PT" if your superior wants to make u suffer.
what are you referencing?
8)This could happen in any TV show or movie about our contemporary military
9)huh?
10)Could you imagine a character other than Worf saying this to Picard? Could you? These are high drama Hollywood circumstances and have nothing to do with the topic or arguments.
Here's one that hasn't been mentioned:
Why can't Starfleet enter the Demilitarized Zone? What's up with that?
And here's some that have:
Why does Starfleet have its very own separate, military legal code, and the power to enforce it?
How can a non military entity govern itself with military law?
Since you feel it acceptable to use extraordinary sci-fi/drama happenstance in this argument, Let's put forth this comparison:
Starfleet gets in multitudes more live engagements with hostile counterparts than ANY modern day Navy could hope for. Or rather, not hope for, as A live engagement with another nations military is something that should NEVER happen. It could have serious consequences.
Can, and HAVE. Most such shows usually get canceled (or at least viciously mocked) because nobody believes a military organization would let that kind of shit slide.
Troi
FIFY
It is not, however, VERBAL. You can't just take off your badge and tell your CO "I quit!" and walk off the ship an hour later (or in Scotty's case, half an hour later). You SURE AS HELL can't verbally tell your C.O. "I unquit!" and have him give you your old job back just for the hell of it.
I mean, obviously you can in Starfleet. Try that bullshit in the U.S. Navy and you'll be swabbing the decks with your eyelashes for a year.
James T. Kirk stole a fucking STARSHIP, violated a direct order from a flag officer, and sabotaged the engines of ANOTHER starship in the process. He's lucky they didn't prosecute him for PIRACY! And yet with all that he did in that entire incident, he comes back to Earth and is facing judgement from a CIVILIAN official for, "Nine violations of Starfleet regulations." And they DISMISS the charges, just because Kirk's so awesome. Noticeably, the exact same thing happens in TUC, when Starfleet decides to let the Enterprise crew completely off the hook for violating their orders, violating Klingon space, violating the neutral zone, showing up at Khitomer even after being specifically ordered not to, AND for an armed incursion at a diplomatic function in order to arrest several superior officers, all of that on the testimony of a single witness.
There's a REASON military organizations do not take that kind of nonsense lightly. They let Kirk off the hook, then the entire concept of "military discipline" becomes more of a "suggestion" than an expectation.
Which kind of explains this conversation a hundred years later:
REMMICK: Very original, Captain. But how did that child acquire access to a shuttlecraft?
RIKER: Kurland is a highly qualified Enterprise Academy candidate, fully trained in many areas including shuttles.
REMMICK: And did this full training include discipline?
PICARD: Mister Remmick, young men sometimes make rash choices. Which is why Mister Kurland will receive a strong refresher specifically in discipline
RIKER: Kurland is a highly qualified Enterprise Academy candidate, fully trained in many areas including shuttles.
REMMICK: And did this full training include discipline?
PICARD: Mister Remmick, young men sometimes make rash choices. Which is why Mister Kurland will receive a strong refresher specifically in discipline
Really??? A "strong refresher in discipline?"
You have any idea what would happen if an ROTC candidate stole a helicopter with the intention of running away to a foreign country? I'll give you a hint: it probably wouldn't be a "strong refresher in discipline."
It happened to Worf.
And there wasn't.
Between officers of the same or similar rank. I challenge you to show me an example of an O3 or an O4 who could get away with referring to an Admiral by first name on the bridge of his own flagship.
... where it is considered to be a major problem.
Not so much in Starfleet, where it's just really really funny.
... usually followed by a long speech by the C.O. about needing to stay focussed on the mission, ones responsibility to your fellow soldiers, and the need not to put your personal matters before duty. OR, if it's a really well-written show, with the C.O. actually helping with the rescue and then reprimanding his subordinate after the fact for letting the situation get that far out of control.
Worf AND Riker both leaving the bridge to save Alexander from a burning aquarium? My suspension of disbelief may have military discipline, but that storyline does not.
Duras.
Jesus Christ, he wasn't DEMOTED for that shit. Picard basically told him "The Klingons aren't pressing charges, so you're off the hook... but I really really mad at you." WHAT?!?!
I can, in fact, imagine ANY warrior-race guy saying this to Picard and getting away with it. i can imagine Shran saying it. I can imagine Tomalok or Admiral Jarok saying it. I can even imagine Urdnox Wrex sying it... but then, Urdnot Wrex aint military, and there's a 33% chance of Commander Shepard actually blowing his head off in response.
But that's kin of besides the point: can you imagine Klaus Wennemann saying that to Jürgen Prochnow? (I mean, WITHOUT getting immediately shot in the face?) Can you imagine Denzel Washington saying that to Gene Hackman on the Alabama?
Star Trek just isn't that kind of drama. That is to say, it is not a MILITARY drama, not even stereotypically so.
They can.
DUKAT: Are you telling me that one of the most heavily armed warships in this quadrant is now in the hands of Maquis terrorists? Do you have any idea what kind of response this will provoke from the Central Command?
SISKO: They'll probably want to send ships into the Demilitarised zone to conduct a search. We understand that. But any entry into the zone must be a joint operation between Cardassia and the Federation.
DUKAT: The Central Command will not be interested in any joint operation, Commander. They won't believe your story about transporter duplicates and security failures. They will assume that Starfleet wanted the Maquis to have the Defiant, and they will respond accordingly.
ODO: And what does that mean, exactly?
DUKAT: It means they will seize this opportunity to finally eliminate the Maquis. They'll send a fleet into that zone.
SISKO: Starfleet will cooperate in a search for the Defiant, but they will not allow the Central Command to use this as an excuse for a full-scale invasion.
DUKAT: Of course not. So you will send your own fleet into the zone to protect Federation colonies. But at some point the two fleets will meet, tensions will rise, nerves will fray, and someone will make the tiniest mistake.
SISKO: And we'll have a war on our hands.
SISKO: They'll probably want to send ships into the Demilitarised zone to conduct a search. We understand that. But any entry into the zone must be a joint operation between Cardassia and the Federation.
DUKAT: The Central Command will not be interested in any joint operation, Commander. They won't believe your story about transporter duplicates and security failures. They will assume that Starfleet wanted the Maquis to have the Defiant, and they will respond accordingly.
ODO: And what does that mean, exactly?
DUKAT: It means they will seize this opportunity to finally eliminate the Maquis. They'll send a fleet into that zone.
SISKO: Starfleet will cooperate in a search for the Defiant, but they will not allow the Central Command to use this as an excuse for a full-scale invasion.
DUKAT: Of course not. So you will send your own fleet into the zone to protect Federation colonies. But at some point the two fleets will meet, tensions will rise, nerves will fray, and someone will make the tiniest mistake.
SISKO: And we'll have a war on our hands.
So "What's up with that" is that the DMZ is a zone the Cardassians have promised not to place any of their forces in or near, in exchange for Starfleet not doing the same. Which is the WHOLE REASON the Maquis were pissed off about this treaty:
HUDSON: There is no risk, Ben. None. I have been dealing with the Cardassians most of my professional life, and believe me, they are very pleased with what they got from the treaty. They are not about to risk all they've gained by sending forces into the Zone. They're much too slick for that. If I were you, I'd be very concerned with security along the Bajoran border.
Basically: Starfleet told them "keep your military out of the DMZ and we'll let you keep those colonies" and the Cardassians responded with "Yes, of course! We'll gladly keep our military out of those colonies! Can't say we can keep our weapons out of there, though... second amendment and all that."It's actually kind of interesting: from what we've seen, the Federation Government empowers Starfleet to operate as its legal representative in both a diplomatic AND criminal justice capacity. This is why Kirk, of all people, is empowered to pass judgement on Khan and deliver a legally binding sentence, and can open and close proceedings on the prosecution of Harry Mudd. Jean Luc Picard actually has the power to negotiate treaties with people -- as we see him doing in "Encounter at Farpoint" and can represent the Federation in diplomatic first contact situations to the point that his recommendations carry a huge amount of weight.
And this circles back to Kirk's trial in TVH: why is the PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERATION reading Kirk's charges before the entire council? Primarily it's because of the seriousness of the charges, but mostly it's because Starfleet REPRESENTS the Council in a very real sense, and therefore answers directly to it.
So in answer to your question:
By being the legal representative of the legislature that controls it and equivalent, in a way, to an entire branch of the Federation government. Or at least, empowered to act like one.
And it yet those engagements DON'T have serious consequences in Star Trek...
You never wondered why that was?
- Status
