Exactly! It all boils down to this:
Is Starfleet a futuristic military? Absolutely!
Is Starfleet militaristic? Certainly not!
People who think otherwise most likely confuse the two concepts.
Starfleet is a Space Navy (military fleet)
- Thread starter Baxten
- Start date
- Status
Exactly! It all boils down to this:
Is Starfleet a futuristic military? Absolutely!
Is Starfleet militaristic? Certainly not!
People who think otherwise most likely confuse the two concepts.
Which is one of the reasons it's my favorite DS9 episode (or at least in the top five) because it takes a serious, sobering look at the issue. DS9 as a whole was better at this than any other Trek series before or since, although that is a pretty low bar to set...
It does not, however, look at the issue from the point of view of a SOLDIER. Ben Sisko is basically acting as a politician in this episode, with Garek as an intelligence operative; it is, in other words, political drama, not military, in nature. The same exact thing happens in "Inter Arma" where Bashir lets himself get maneuvered into assassinating a politician's head of state to install a Federation-friendly regime. The question of "What is the price of victory?" is again a political one in this episode.
The MILITARY'S perspective on that question is dramatically different. It's the question George Gay had to deal with when he looked down and saw a mushroom cloud rising over Hiroshima; it's the question Jake Grafton had to ask himself after one of those "suspected truck parks" turned out to be a refugee convoy. It's the question Jaavik asked Commander Shepard POINT BLANK in Mass Effect 3: "You believe you can win this war with your honor intact? Stand amongst the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if honor matters. Their silence is your answer."
Star Trek blew its "gritty mil-scifi" wad on the Siege of AR-558 and fell drastically short of the mark; I give them props for at least TRYING it, but watching Star Trek trying to do "Guadalcanal in Space!" is like watching Sesame Street doing a show about substance abuse: It's cute and all, but hard to take seriously.
... And then conveniently swaps the poisoned planets with the Cardassians, a solution he presents in a single line of dialog and never once examines the broader implications of that move (and isn't even reprimanded for it that we know of). That's kind of a good example of what I'm talking about: "Was what we did really worth the price of victory over the Maquis? Is crushing their little terrorist revolt justifiable in the grand scheme of things?" Or even the simpler question "Was it right of us to let all those civilians fall to our deaths to keep Eddington from escaping?" is directly circumvented: the writers take the easy way out.
I'm probably just biased (and a little warped). I'm one of those guys who felt the "Terra Nova" mission in Mass Effect was one of my favorite scenarios and having to choose between "Get the terrorist!" and "Save the hostages" is something that still gives me pause. Star Trek never deals with those issues seriously, because military morality just isn't part of the show's subject matter. I think there are lots of reasons for that, and I'm fast loosing interest in repeating them.
Last edited:
A "non-militaristic military" is a contradiction in terms; it's like a "non-metallic metal" or "non-sexual porn." Militaries are SUPPOSED to be militaristic; that's implied in the definition. The problem with militarism is when SOCIETIES become militaristic to an extent that it refuses to check the natural militarism of its armed forces.
Besides which, I think you have it exactly backwards: Stafleet is militaristic, though far less so than an actual military would be. It is, to be sure, a militaristic exploration fleet.
Star Trek is a show about space exploration and science fiction adventure, therefore its protagonists are explorers and adventurers. Unlike many other staples in science fiction, it is NOT about the military's role in either of those tasks, and thus its protagonists lack any consistent military character.
In-universe, Starfleet is specifically said to be a non-military organization, so with all of its characteristics and actions that makes it paramilitary at best. From an overall production standpoint, neither the writers nor the directors have made any serious attempt to depict them as having a military character since at least the 2nd season of TOS, although TUC and TWOK came very very close (which is part of the reason my headcanon still separates TOS from TNG because I have a hard time believing they're the same universe).
If you NEED your protagonists to be the Space Navy, there's lots of material for you. Four seasons of Battlestar Galactica, 6 seasons of SW: Clone Wars. The Wing Commander series, the Halo Verse, the The Honor Harrington Novels and all their immitators; hell James Doohan wrote one of his own that was actually pretty decent. You can watch four hundred seasons of Stargate and its spinoffs, or go play the Infinite Warfare campaign for a space force that is LITERALLY the U.S. Navy in space.
Just be aware that there ARE depictions of space combat forces that are explicitly non-military in nature. Starfleet happens to be one of them; "Contact" and "Special Circumstances" from the Culture novels are another excellent example. The best example of all, ironically, is the Borg: they pose the greatest military threat the Federation has ever seen and have effectively conquered thousands of worlds, but if you asked the Borg if their assimilation cubes are part of the "Borg military" they would probably answer "MILITARIES ARE IRRELEVANT!"
In-universe, Starfleet is specifically said to be a non-military organization, so with all of its characteristics and actions that makes it paramilitary at best. From an overall production standpoint, neither the writers nor the directors have made any serious attempt to depict them as having a military character since at least the 2nd season of TOS, although TUC and TWOK came very very close (which is part of the reason my headcanon still separates TOS from TNG because I have a hard time believing they're the same universe).
If you NEED your protagonists to be the Space Navy, there's lots of material for you. Four seasons of Battlestar Galactica, 6 seasons of SW: Clone Wars. The Wing Commander series, the Halo Verse, the The Honor Harrington Novels and all their immitators; hell James Doohan wrote one of his own that was actually pretty decent. You can watch four hundred seasons of Stargate and its spinoffs, or go play the Infinite Warfare campaign for a space force that is LITERALLY the U.S. Navy in space.
Just be aware that there ARE depictions of space combat forces that are explicitly non-military in nature. Starfleet happens to be one of them; "Contact" and "Special Circumstances" from the Culture novels are another excellent example. The best example of all, ironically, is the Borg: they pose the greatest military threat the Federation has ever seen and have effectively conquered thousands of worlds, but if you asked the Borg if their assimilation cubes are part of the "Borg military" they would probably answer "MILITARIES ARE IRRELEVANT!"
1) It's never been made clear Starfleet is a successor of NASA.
2) But even if we entertain the idea that it is, several NASA astronauts are active duty military officers, and even some NASA directors as well.
3) The space agencies of other Federation worlds we know of that contributed to the formation of the Federation Starfleet are the Vulcan High Command and the Andorian Imperial Guard, both of which were confirmed militaries.
I feel the defining of terms too narrow to be adequate. So, my own observations of Starfleet remain-it explores when it needs to and it is a military when it needs to.
The rest is minutia, left to the writers and their own point of view.
The rest is minutia, left to the writers and their own point of view.
If our miserable thread is brought to an end, will TREKBBS revert to a peacetime posture?
Then again, in the Borg collective, civilians are also irrelevant.
I think the point is that not everything in the 24th Century fits into a 21st Century definition. Starfleet meets SOME qualifications to be categorized as a "military", and it meets SOME qualifications to be categorized as a "non-military". So really what we need is a new term for what Starfleet is. And until that new term is coined, I think it's better just to call Starfleet Starfleet, and not try to make it fit solely into either definition.
Pen Pals showed that Starfleet officers have a wide variety of opinions as to what the prime directive really means, strange if it actually were "the guiding principal."
And it is fairly common to simply set the PD to the side.
No, the exploration component is only a side job, it's not shown to be job one.
Security are red shirts, as are the heavily armed starship's engineers.
Disband in a alternate universe, the MACO's status in the prime universe is unclear.
Disbanded, absorbed into Starfleet security, or remain a separate distinctive organization.
Fine, Colonel West was mirror of Colonel North.
Colonel North is a Marine.
Therefor, Colonel West is a Marine.
Starfleet is damned militaristic when it needs to be.
Then we're back to the previous question, if Starfleet isn't the military, who is?
The Federation has cultures on all sides who do in fact have militaries, the Federation fight seemingly never ending series of wars, and they engage in occasional saber rattling too.
So you can't say that the Federation has no use for a professional war fighting service.
If not Starfleet, then who?
It really make no sense for the Federation to be sending a armed exploration organization up against opponents with real professional militaries.
Simon Pegg, who you have quoted, says that the Abrams universe doesn't just stretch in time forward from the time of the Narada appeared, but also stretches backward into the past as well.
The Abrams universe isn't a branch of the prime, it's a entire separate universe.
http://trekcore.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/NX-SHIPS.jpg
And as long as we're going to be pedantic here...
Whom*
And as long as we're going to be pedantic here...
Whom*
Last edited by a moderator:
Were you intending to use we in the Royal sense?
Has anyone seen the movie Master & Commander starring Russell Crowd? It's a great movie based on (I'm told) an even greater book series. Following the adventures of Captain Jack Aubrey on the H.M.S Surprise in 1805. His mission is to capture a French warship. We see him and his crew:
-Patrol
-Explore
-plot course adjustments
-solve engineering crises
-conduct scientific research on strange lands
-engage in skirmishes
-engage in battles
-debate philosophy
-play the violin for recreation
Other notables
-There's a mysterious warship hunting them that keeps appearing astern
-Through innovative wit and engineering prowess, they evade this predator
-later on, through clever guile, they turn the tables on their foes and achieve victory
-There's also a Marine detachment on board, and some officers feel resentment by the presence of these "military men"
-There's a Jonas
-There are Midshipmen(cadets) on board studying to one day become officers.
I highly recommend!
-Patrol
-Explore
-plot course adjustments
-solve engineering crises
-conduct scientific research on strange lands
-engage in skirmishes
-engage in battles
-debate philosophy
-play the violin for recreation
Other notables
-There's a mysterious warship hunting them that keeps appearing astern
-Through innovative wit and engineering prowess, they evade this predator
-later on, through clever guile, they turn the tables on their foes and achieve victory
-There's also a Marine detachment on board, and some officers feel resentment by the presence of these "military men"
-There's a Jonas
-There are Midshipmen(cadets) on board studying to one day become officers.
I highly recommend!
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.
You can easily flip that around, the only Ines who think Starfleet is military are those who want it to be.
And the last bit sounds... unpleasant.
I really don't see what Starfleet does that would be considered "non-military" as everything we see it do are things that the military has done. The only iffy thing is having families on ships in the 24th century, and even that's not completely preposterous given there are military bases today which do include civilian housing for the families of personnel. If you want to go outside to other sci-fi franchises, the Alliance in Firefly is as militaristic as they come, yet it is implied their naval ships have families, or at least children, given a reference to there being a nursery on board one.
But bottom line, there is nothing about Starfleet that is non-military at all.
Last edited:
- Status
