^ Political agenda? YOU should talk... 
Starfleet is a Space Navy (military fleet)
- Thread starter Baxten
- Start date
- Status
The Federation is a powerful friend to have, especially for worlds that are looking forward to not being annexed by the Klingons.
Yes they are:
TROI: Well, Starfleet ships didn't have counsellors in those days, but the Chef on the first Enterprise came pretty close. I read almost everybody confided in him.
She doesn't say "Earth Starfleet ships" here. She's directly implying that the organization that Archer worked for is the same one that they CURRENTLY work for, prior to being transferred to Federal administration. It's the same organization.
Actually, STB pretty much confirms this. USS Franklin uses alot of the same technology same shuttlecraft and VERY similar uniforms as Earth Starfleet. So Starfleet wasn't disbanded or replaced, just transferred management to new authority. It is, in other words, the same organization.
Not that this ever should have been in doubt, but it's a hair that (some) fans like to split just because they hate Enterprise so much. Considering you made me quote TATV for this one, I can't really blame them...
What are you talking about? People have been joking about her changing MLK stories for years.
This whole thread is a ridiculous shit show as far as I'm concerned, but there's no political agenda in that post.
Maybe take a break. Go outside in the fresh air.
I'm just itching for a reason to put this thread out of its misery. Don't give me an excuse.
Incorrect. That's not how things like this work. Not only does it not make any logical or practical sense for the Earth Starfleet to be the same as the Federation Starfleet - legally speaking, it also can't be the case. The former serves only United Earth, the latter serves the entire Federation. They literally cannot be the same. Only the name is similar.
Hate? Are you kidding? ENT was my favorite out of all Trek series.
If there's any hate operating in this thread, it's not hatred of ENT (or any other Trek series), it's hatred of the military itself. The only people who don't think the Federation Starfleet is military, are the ones who don't want it to be.
And you might want to be extra careful in that regard...because in this day and age, you really don't want to be seen as being anti-military.
Last edited:
Yeah. Enterprise is my second or third favorite series, depending on the day of the week. It is nonsensical for people to be injecting "hate" into these discussions.
The Soviet Union didn't call its police force a police. They called it the militia. Didn't change the fact that it was still very much a police force. It wasn't until just a few years ago that present-day Russia renamed it police again.
So not calling Starfleet a military is the same kind of Orwellian newspeak. It's shouldn't fool anyone, and rest assured it never fooled the Klingons or the Romulans.
So not calling Starfleet a military is the same kind of Orwellian newspeak. It's shouldn't fool anyone, and rest assured it never fooled the Klingons or the Romulans.
Not if I beat you to it!
Actually, I've said repeatedly that military depictions in science fiction are par for the course throughout the genre. Most other depictions do a good job of portraying this, and what they show is an organization DRAMATICALLY different from Starfleet in many crucial ways. At the risk of repeating myself, my two favorites are the Systems Alliance Navy and the UNSC, both of which, IMO, show a vision of what Starfleet COULD have looked like if the writers had been serious about portraying a military organization taking up the mantle of space explorers.
But they didn't do that. They went the other way. I recognize this and I accept it, even though it makes Star Trek unique within its genre and (in some ways) a little far fetched.
On the other hand, you are revealing yourself to be arguing from an ideological position, not a factual one. In essence, by making that accusation you are basically admitting that you DO want Starfleet to be a military, which is why you chose to disagree with the statements by Starfleet officers that it isn't. Because if it isn't, then the Federation is a state that doesn't believe "the military" can be the good guys, and they deliberately shun the term, the practice and even the CONCEPT of militarism. And shunning militarism is a terrible thing, yes?
Why? Are the military fanboys gonna come and kick down my fucking door and make me swear to support the troops at gunpoint? Look at me over here shaking in my little flipflops!
^ It's those "military fanboys" who gave you the right to stand there and spout off. So a little bit of appreciation is in order. Or perhaps you'd care to contemplate just where you'd be right now without the military to fight on behalf of you and the country where you live?
The Federation Starfleet can be a military without being militaristic.
The Federation Starfleet can be a military without being militaristic.
Last edited:
^ But once in a blue moon an Admiral Marcus turns up....
You are arguing against the vast majority of actions taken (as shown in the various series) by Starfleet, in order to buy into the "we aren't the military" line.
This can just as easily be turned around into:
The only people who think the Federation Starfleet is a military, are the ones who want it to be.
I couldn't care less if Starfleet left the fighting and the defense of Federation borders to the Dixon Hill society. I do not need it to be military but since it acts like one, I will accept its actions over whatever denial is going on in their fictional heads.
This is what it comes down to, at least for me. Actions speak louder than words.
I'm OK with that.
I would be perfectly fine with a "Star Trek" that defined Starfleet as an exploration/science service. Where the ships were armed for self-defense and the show centered around exploration/science.
But that hasn't been what we've been given up to this point. We've been given a few characters who give lip service to the idea that Starfleet isn't the military, then they rush off for court-martials and fighting wars on the Federation's behalf.
The military aspect became center stage for the various shows.
Last edited:
No, it's ACTUAL VETERANS that gave me the right to sit here and spout off. And even then, not by participating in the actual military (which many of them, including my grandparents and four great uncles, DID), but by going out and deliberately getting their asses kicked by the Alabama State Police, the Ku Klux Klan and the Georgia National Guard. I've come to recognize that 90% of the people waving the flag and demanding unconditional worship of all things military haven't been any closer to a real battlefield than Call of Duty Multiplayer. The few that HAVE are fiercely loyal to their fellow soldiers and their own unit and NOT, as it were, to the concept of the military itself, which is exactly what you'd expect, and exactly as it should be.
I, on the other hand, am unimpressed with the mythological status of the U.S. military as the "defenders of freedom" since I am 1) a direct descendant of people who LOST their freedom to that very same military and 2) a descendant of other people who had to WIN their freedom without any help from that same military. The soldiers who fought, bled and in many cases died for MY freedom didn't do it on the battlefield and weren't in uniform when they did it. They were able to do what they did BECAUSE of their military training, their understanding of discipline, the need for loyalty and cohesion and clarity of purpose.
It sure is. Just not for "the military" or its fanboys. Appreciation is reserved for SOLDIERS, with the understanding that putting on the uniform does not make you a hero and taking it off does not end your service to your country.
I'd be exactly where I am right now. It just wouldn't be the same country. Whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing is for speculative historians and/or science fiction writers to examine in detail.
I DO know that I wouldn't have the right to vote or own property right now if a certain number of former and active soldiers hadn't gone out of their way to be a pain in the ass to the government they used to fight for. And I know that fighting for your country and being a soldier are not always or even usually the same thing.
But they're not. Because they SAY they're not. They say -- and believe, and are known to be -- explorers with a secondary (if that) military mission. This means they are perpetually unprepared for full scale war and instead try to science/negotiate/bullshit their way out of all their conflicts. That is not a depiction of a military organization.
Military science fiction deliberately delves into the nature -- and more importantly, the MORALITY -- of war and the mission of the military in relation to the state. This is why writers will invariably include some sort of conflict with an anti-military character in the same context and explore those issues in depth. It is also why we see certain tropes over and over again:
"How far are we willing to go to defeat the enemy? Is victory worth the price of our honor?"
"Is loyalty to our fellow soldiers more important than loyalty to our commander?" (seriously, EVERY military science fiction story has at least one "fragging" episode)
Or the always popular "Should we abandon this bullshit mission that is clearly impossible and serves no real purpose, or do we do our duty and march to our deaths like good little soldiers?" (this is sometimes combined with a "fragging" episode, which is VERY satisfying to watch)
Star Trek skirts every one of these issues; they either take a simplistic technobabble escape hatch, or veer away from the issue entirely and have everything work out perfectly as if by magic. This is mainly because Trek writers weren't really interested in dealing with the morality/ethics of military life and, in any case, weren't interested in depicting those concepts seriously. But that's all background culture for the writing of the show...
The fact is, Starfleet is not a military organization. We know this because they SAY they're not, and because their primary mission is exploration. This makes Star Trek a show about space exploration and science fiction adventure, and NOT, like other staples of the genre, about the military's role in either. Trying to make Star Trek about something it's not just makes it seem very very silly, and since there are MANY respectable depictions of military organizations in space exploration, there is no real reason to try to shoehorn Starfleet into a role for which it is not at all suited.
Isn't that exactly what "In the Pale Moonlight" is?
Sisko also poisons the biosphere of a world to defeat the Maquis (Michael Eddington in particular), in "For the Uniform".
- Status
