Starfleet is a Space Navy (military fleet)

[Mr. Laser Beam]

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.

I agree with all of your post...except that bit.

Yes, I know Pegg has said that, but IMHO I don't really care for it as a theory. And until it works its way into a film (which is unlikely, as Pegg is not writing ST4 and I think that will be the final Kelvinverse film), that's all it is - a theory.

As for this debate: People seem to jump through hoops to believe the two characters who have said the Federation Starfleet isn't military. I wonder how they'd react if another, equally important, character said it WAS. Who'd they believe then?

 

[BillJ]

It really make no sense for the Federation to be sending a armed exploration organization up against opponents with real professional militaries.

This.

 

[The Wormhole]

I wonder how they'd react if another, equally important, character said it WAS. Who'd they believe then?

Kirk Prime more or less has called Starfleet a military, as he describes himself as a soldier, and you don't get much more important in Star Trek than him. Yet it seems to get written off in these discussions for some reason.

 

[Prax]

Plus Q, the omnipotent god-like being.

And the Organians, a race of god-like beings.

 

[GabyBee]

As for this debate: People seem to jump through hoops to believe the two characters who have said the Federation Starfleet isn't military. I wonder how they'd react if another, equally important, character said it WAS. Who'd they believe then?

You're saying that we're jumping through hoops to believe on-screen dialogue, whereas you are jumping through hoops to believe a hypothetical...

 

[The Wormhole]

What if someone pointed to an Andorian and called him a Vulcan? Does that mean we'd have to start calling the obviously an Andorian a Vulcan just because someone on screen said so?

 

[GabyBee]

Why can't we just call Starfleet Starfleet, and stop trying to make it fit into a 21st Century definition in either direction?

 

[Baxten]

Why can't we just call Starfleet Starfleet, and stop trying to make it fit into a 21st Century definition in either direction?

Why can't Starfleet call itself Starfleet instead of explorers? Same logic.

 

[GabyBee]

Dude, do you understand what the word compromise means?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Just thought of something else: In TNG's "The Most Toys," Kivas Fajo calls Data a "military pacifist". Data does not contradict him on either of those points (and Data is the kind of person who would, if needed).

FWIW.

 

[Baxten]

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 MILITARY'S perspective on that question is dramatically different. [. . .] 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."

DS9: "In the Pale Moonlight"

SISKO [OC]: While I was posting the weekly casualty list in the wardroom. Every Friday morning for the past three months, I've posted the official list of Starfleet personnel killed, wounded or missing in the war.
SISKO [OC]: It's become something of a grim ritual around here. Not a week goes by that someone doesn't find the name of a loved one, a friend or an acquaintance on that damned list.
SISKO [OC]: I've grown to hate Fridays.
[. . .]
SISKO [OC]: That was the moment I made the decision. It was like I had stepped through a door and locked it behind me. I was going to bring the Romulans into the war.​

One of the main goals in the Mass Effect series is to find allies or "assets" to bring into the war on the side of the alliance.

Star Trek blew its "gritty mil-scifi" wad on the Siege of AR-558.

You do realize that militaries do not only mean foot soldiers? There are navies too. Try the whole Dominion War.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Why can't we just call Starfleet Starfleet, and stop trying to make it fit into a 21st Century definition in either direction?

Because the ancient Roman army or the 19th century U.S. Cavalry are still militaries even though they look nothing like a 21st century military. Same principle applies to Starfleet. It's the 23rd and 24th century equivalent of a military.

 

[The Wormhole]

Why can't we just call Starfleet Starfleet, and stop trying to make it fit into a 21st Century definition in either direction?

You've failed to address why Starfleet can't be a military. Even if we for a moment entertain the idea that Starfleet is indeed an agency of explorers, how does this make them non-military? No one objects to watching the Stargate franchise and seeing USAF and USMC personnel armed with assault rifles and submachine guns and in the later seasons travelling in starships armed with nukes and railguns calling themselves peaceful explorers. In the old Star Wars Expanded Universe, it was in fact the Imperial military (the villains!) that engaged in space exploration. The classic BSG indicated exploration was the purview of the Colonial Fleet. A whole lot of sci-fi franchises have the military handling exploration, why do Star Trek fans seem to feel Starfleet being explorers makes them non-military?

If Starfleet were truly non-military, they'd probably be something like the space service in Robert J Sawyer's novel Starplex, which as it turns out Sawyer wrote particularly as a reaction against "Star Trek's militaristic definition of exploration" (paraphrased from the novel's foreward).

 

[Nerys Myk]

Why can't we just call Starfleet Starfleet, and stop trying to make it fit into a 21st Century definition in either direction?

Because we live in the 21st Century, the franchise spans the 20th and 21st Centuries and the people who made it are products of the 20th/21st Century. They weren't trying to reinvent the wheel. The franchise is very much grounded in past and modern day perceptions of the military.

 

[Prax]

You do realize that militaries do not only mean foot soldiers? There are navies too. Try the whole Dominion War.

He doesn't. He earlier referred to sailors as "Jarhead." and seems to believe that anyone in any branch OF any branch of the Armed Forces spends their days either acting like Rambo in a conflict zone, or training to act like Rambo somewhere else. Even the U.S. Army, which has the largest ground force of any branch, has an infantry that consists of 15% of the whole Army. And that includes all mechanized infantry, light infantry, etc.

Why can't we just call Starfleet Starfleet, and stop trying to make it fit into a 21st Century definition in either direction?

It's human nature to seek to define and categorize people, places, things, and even time periods. We like to categorize history into nice neat "eras" with labels. Now this may cause a tendency for the average Joe to make simplistic generalizations, but the goal is to help us understand.... things.

This has been a long thread, and many comparisons have been made to a 21st century military, but many comparisons are being drawn equally from the big historical picture, like the basic historical nature of a Navy, or the "age of exploration" from the 16th-20th century, and still going on today. I've seen Captain Cook mentioned numerous times on here, from page 1 onward. I myself just mentioned the fictional "Captain Jack Aubrey."

And you yourself admitted that during the Klingon War in Yesterday's Enterprise, Starfleet was a military. This wasn't a "Mirror Universe" or the "Terran Empire." This was the same prime universe Starfleet during a large scale war. The difference between a "ship of war" and a "ship of peace" is simply whether an official State of War has been declared. Starfleet's priority would be to win the war or at least retain its freedom and sovereignty.

If we go with the latter 20th/21st century definition of a Navy being part of the military, then we can't say that a Starfleet is only a Navy during Wartime. It's only that priorities change during wartime.

 

[Baxten]

All right. I think this thread has run its course. Some of the staff have been itching for an excuse to lock it. Well, here it is: lock it.

People have said their piece. There are already posts saying that they didn't make it past many pages because of how large the discussion has gotten. And I wanted to make a new thread on a different topic without taking up the front page with two active threads.

Besides, if Star Trek Discovery brings up the topic again, it'll give it more rest for the time being.

See you in other threads, everyone.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

And you yourself admitted that during the Klingon War in Yesterday's Enterprise, Starfleet was a military. This wasn't a "Mirror Universe" or the "Terran Empire." This was the same prime universe Starfleet during a large scale war. The difference between a "ship of war" and a "ship of peace" is simply whether an official State of War has been declared. Starfleet's priority would be to win the war or at least retain its freedom and sovereignty.

That's not entirely true:

(This is Ship of Peace, regardless of legalities. The Oberth & Sydney-classes and Raven-type are also likely this.)

(This is Ship of War, regardless of legalities.)

If we go with the latter 20th/21st century definition of a Navy being part of the military, then we can't say that a Starfleet is only a Navy during Wartime. It's only that priorities change during wartime.

Priorities can change for a variety of political and exigent circumstances. Starfleet's general philosophy might be best summed up by a quote from the warrior pacifist Mr Miyagi: "Do not (start) fight, but if must fight... win.").

Exhibit A:

(A Ship of Peace by Preference, and War by Necessity. And highly capable at both).

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Then we're back to the previous question, if Starfleet isn't the military, who is?

And we're back to the previous answer: the Federation AS A WHOLE doesn't have one. Individual planets maintain their own militaries and are largely responsible for their own defense.

The Federation has cultures on all sides who do in fact have militaries

And so you answer your own question.

It really make no sense for the Federation to be sending a armed exploration organization up against opponents with real professional militaries.

Sure it does. Superior technology seems to be a greater advantage than superior professionalism, and by the 24th century the concept pf "professional military" appears to be vastly overrated. Starfleet is able to beat its enemies with technology and cleverness nine times out of ten, even against opponents with vastly superior military capabilities.

And this before we get into the fact -- as I have mentioned a thousand times now -- that the majority of the threats facing the Federation either don't maintain a professional military or don't pose a threat that calls for a military solution. Starfleet's role would actually be very small if their military mission was their primary function, as the military threats to Stafleet are vastly outnumbered -- and outclassed by several orders of magnitude -- by things that pretty much curb-stomp any of their regional rivals.

 

[The Old Mixer]

All right. I think this thread has run its course. Some of the staff have been itching for an excuse to lock it. Well, here it is: lock it.

People have said their piece. There are already posts saying that they didn't make it past many pages because of how large the discussion has gotten. And I wanted to make a new thread on a different topic without taking up the front page with two active threads.

We have a request from the OP. And at over 700 posts, as much has been said as can be said about this topic...and among those who've been actively participating in the thread, clearly nobody's changing anybody's mind on the issue.

I'm willing to fulfill the request, but will wait to see if @1001001 concurs.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

What if someone pointed to an Andorian and called him a Vulcan? Does that mean we'd have to start calling the obviously an Andorian a Vulcan just because someone on screen said so?

You mean like that time Spock (metaphorically) pointed at an Andorian and called him an Orion?

Let me be the one to point out: my FAILURE to insist, against all evidence, that the infiltrator from "Babel" really WAS an Andorian has nothing to do with me not wanting him to be an Andorian, or my inherent bias against Andorian militarism, or my desire to see Andorians as something other than the warlike race their ambassador (and ENT) show them to be. While I fully recognize that "sabotage the cordian peace process in order to start a war" is totally something an Andorian would probably do, the imposter in "Babel" was NOT an Andorian.

I believe the dialog unless I have a really really compelling reason not to. "I want to see more shows about the military in space" isn't that compelling of a reason for me.

For Wormhole: No, there is no reason the imposter couldn't have been an Andorian. But he wasn't, because Spock said he wasn't.

For Beam: Yes, the fact that Andorians are known to be warlike and historically have had political machinations on Coridan WOULD be consistent with the infiltrator being an Andorian. But he is NOT an Andorian, so that's a moot point.

For Baxten: No, the Andorians are not an analogy for Space Nato, Space Magna Carta, or the Space German Empire, so seeing him as an Orion does not contradict the point of the show.

The desire to glorify the Andorians is not going to turn the infiltrator into one, anymore than the desire to glorify the military is going to turn Starfleet into one.