Starfleet is a Space Navy (military fleet)

[The Old Mixer]

Posting images isn't. Hotlinking is.
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/rules-a-short-guide-to-posting-on-the-bbs.282269/

ETA: Ninja'd down to the word!

 

[GabyBee]

Noted. Posting images from my imgur would be kosher then?

 

[The Old Mixer]

I just use the image button in the message box. Is there another way that I'm supposed to post images?

If it's not hosted on your own space, you can just put the URL to the image in the thread, which should come out as a link rather than image.

 

[GabyBee]

Got it, sorry for the confusion.

 

[Tenacity]

And yet legally it is not and cannot be a military.

On May 31, 2015, Rear Admiral Hiroshi Ito took command of the UN Combined Task Force 151 off the East coast of Africa.

At the change of command ceremony, Rear Admiral Ito said; "Over the past 63 years, the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force has developed into a word class Navy."

On 27 August 2015 command of CTF 151 passed to a different officer.
Rear Admiral Ito said; “It has been an honor and a privilege to Command CTF 151. The navy is not a security luxury, but a key component of national power and a symbol of state sovereignty."

 

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

Problematic: there's no logical reason why something that acts as a military necessarily is one.

It's certainly more logical for something that acts like a military to be a military than the opposite, especially a vast state agency tasked with waging wars and defending said state.

This point was explained in detail earlier in the definition of "paramilitary." ....

I really don't think Starfleet can be compared to some band of guerillas or renegades.

A military isn't defined by what it does, how it acts, how it looks, or even where it operates. A military is defined by one thing and one thing only: the law.

Nope. You can make any legal definitions you want, and it would still not be true if it flied in the face of what's commonly understood. Make a law saying that the Moon is a piece of green cheese wouldn't make it so. Having Japanese law state that its military isn't a military but a Self-Defence Force doesn't make it any less of a military.

 

[Ithekro]

On May 31, 2015, Rear Admiral Hiroshi Ito took command of the UN Combined Task Force 151 off the East coast of Africa.

At the change of command ceremony, Rear Admiral Ito said; "Over the past 63 years, the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force has developed into a word class Navy."

On 27 August 2015 command of CTF 151 passed to a different officer.
Rear Admiral Ito said; “It has been an honor and a privilege to Command CTF 151. The navy is not a security luxury, but a key component of national power and a symbol of state sovereignty."

The law forbids Japanese troops to participate in missions where active conflict is involved. Recently the Abe administration has been attempting to find Constitutional loopholes and/or amend their Constitution in order to allow their Self-Defense Forces to help defend others they are allied with. Not yet allowing them to power project or conduct offensive operations. The US Government seems to be supportive of this move as it would allow them to reduce forces in and around Japan, since they have been there since the 1940s.

 

[suarezguy]

Of course context matters! The context in "Preemptive Strike" is as straight forward as it gets! Picard, the superior officer, has given his subordinate, Ro Laren, a mission and an order. If she chooses to disobey her orders or deliberately blows the mission he threatens her with court-martial. Like in any military past, present or future.

A police who deliberately sabotages an operation or assignment would also get internal discipline though. And what of the other lines in that episode that Starfleet was allowed to and did operate in the Demilitarized Zone?

 

[The Wormhole]

What makes you think the Akira or Sovereign classes are warships?

Behind the scenes sources for the Akira, IIRC the guy who designed it said it's essentially the Starfleet version of the an aircraft carrier. For the Sovereign, I'm going with what the say in the novels, non canon though they may be. It was even a plot point in a recent one. Still, the Akira was only seen in combat situations.

The Defiant and Prometheus were presented as one off prototypes until the Defiant was retconned into a class in the final episodes of DS9 so they could reuse the sets and stock shots.

Actually, no. Message in a Bottle in Voyager's 4th season (which is concurrent with DS9's sixth) showed two Defiant class ships sent to retake the Prometheus. Also, in DS9's sixth season there was the Defiant class Valiant, though that admittedly was an excuse to reuse sets. Memory Alpha also claims there were other Defiants at the end of DS9 season 5 in A Call to Arms. I've never spotted them, though I do remember it being mentioned in the old Star Trek Communicator magazine.

If Starfleet were meant to be a military, why do the writers time and again go out of their way to state that it isn't? [snip] The people behind Star Trek clearly do not want us to consider Starfleet to be a military organization.

Nick Meyer and Harve Bennett definitely thought of Starfleet as a military. Nick Meyer was surprised to hear Roddenberry claim otherwise, and Harve Bennett lost his shit and accused Roddenberry of saying anything to discredit them. In the later shows, Ron Moore claims he sees Starfleet as a military, and has complained that the claims that it isn't military are just examples of Roddenberry's "godhood" being an overbearing presence to the franchise, even years after his death.

But in TOS Starfleet clearly is intended to be a military. Everyone writing the episodes based Starfleet on their own military experiences, James Doohan and DeForrest Kelley definitely drew on their military experiences for their portrayals. There are reports that Roddenberry himself even complained the third season did not accurately reflect military lifestyle. The Starfleet of TOS was clearly military, and if you told anyone in the 60s that it wasn't they'd likely be confused and wonder what you were talking about. Hell, Star Trek is based in part on Forbidden Planet, and that was definitely about a space military exploring the galaxy.

The "Starfleet isn't a military" line has the following origins:
-The military losing popularity in the 1970s due to Vietnam, which likely is why TMP cut back on the military parallels.
-Roddenberry pissed off over losing control of the movies after TMP and wanting to discredit Bennett and Meyer.
-By TNG Roddenberry himself had developed an unexplained hatred of the military, as evidenced by him banning Diane Carey from writing anymore Trek novels after she dedicated one to a friend who had recently been killed in military service. A ban which wasn't lifted until after Roddenberry died.

Simply put, the idea that Starfleet isn't military is revisionism, plain and simple. Unfortunately it has been blown way out of proportion to the point that it has become a holy commandment the franchise is obligated to uphold, despite the fact that the franchise continues to depict Starfleet as military-like anyway.

 

[suarezguy]

But in TOS Starfleet clearly is intended to be a military. Everyone writing the episodes based Starfleet on their own military experiences

Even then, a kind of military that operated pretty differently from contemporary militaries (Roddenberry then thought some of the U.S. military's practices were overly authoritarian and even somewhat primitive without seeming to hating it or the concept in general).

Simply put, the idea that Starfleet isn't military is revisionism, plain and simple.

That it was in the original series but not wasn't in TNG was a change but not a revision of the original, it makes a lot sense of that an organization could change over decades.

Unfortunately it has been blown way out of proportion to the point that it has become a holy commandment the franchise is obligated to uphold, despite the fact that the franchise continues to depict Starfleet as military-like anyway.

I think that that the characters are reluctant fighters and don't generally think of themselves as fighters makes Trek nicely unique from most other Sci Fi and action fiction.

 

[GabyBee]

It isn't a "commandment", it's simply a rule of the universe. Fictional universes have rules. Star Wars has 'The Force', for instance. It pissed off a lot of people when they introduced the concept of 'Midi-chlorians' to the concept of 'The Force', but that doesn't mean that the audience gets to reject their role in that universe's rules.

It's the same with Star Trek. It is a fictional universe, and as such it has certain rules. One of them is that Starfleet isn't the military. Another one I've seen referenced here is that the Federation does not use currency, at least in its internal economics. Neither one of those rules are obligated to make sense to us. They are just rules of the universe.

 

[The Wormhole]

It pissed off a lot of people when they introduced the concept of 'Midi-chlorians' to the concept of 'The Force', but that doesn't mean that the audience gets to reject their role in that universe's rules.

Actually, since Disney bought the franchise, midichlorians have largely been ignored in favor of making the Force more mystical. Even in The Clone Wars, which Lucas was still supervising, an effort was made to return the Force to being mystical, with midichlorians only getting a brief throwaway reference in the finale, and even that tried to make them mystical as opposed to scientific.

Another one I've seen referenced here is that the Federation does not use currency, at least in its internal economics.

If that's the case, then what the hell was Dr. Crusher talking about in Farpoint when she said "charge it to my account"? As it is, the no money rule has pissed off a lot more writers than the military thing. Another example of Roddenberry casting a shadow over the franchise even in death.

 

[GabyBee]

She was interacting with a non-Federation individual. As I stated, it is a rule that the Federation does not use currency in its internal economics.

And I really don't think Simon Pegg is all that pissed off about Starfleet not being a military. Otherwise he wouldn't have written it into his film.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

It is a fictional universe, and as such it has certain rules.

Rules which can be changed at the whim of whichever writer has created whatever you're reading or watching.

Yes, we're all aware that Picard and nuScotty have said that Starfleet isn't military. But some future writer could come along and write a scene where somebody says it is. Same goes for the money issue - for all the times where we've been told the Federation doesn't use money, other writers can write something where it DOES. And nobody could do anything about it.

You mentioned Simon Pegg, for example. He is not writing ST4. So whoever IS writing it, could say something that completely contradicts what Pegg has already said. And (assuming there are ever any more Kelvinverse films) somebody ELSE could come along and contradict that, as well. That's just the way this works.

 

[The Wormhole]

And I really don't think Simon Pegg is all that pissed off about Starfleet not being a military. Otherwise he wouldn't have written it into his film.

I was referring to the writers during the Berman era.

 

[GabyBee]

Yes, some writer could decide to change the money issue, or the military issue. But until they do, both of those rules stand.

 

[Ithekro]

However the writers kept both of those concepts after his death...in some cases, long after his death. Therefore it remained part of Star Trek even decades after the man died.


As for Star Wars, the take on Midichlorians was science-like but didn't remove the mystical nature of the Force. A lot of people that hated on the idea thought it was either too science or forcibly made the Jedi special. Both of those things were not new, just specified as a thing. However those that were hating on it did not take what was said about them into account, only the thing itself. Qui-Gon says that without the Midichlorians they would have no knowledge of the Force and that it speaks through them. Also that midichlorians are in ALL living things. The high count for Skywalker was to show him to be special as well as something unusual. However people took this the wrong way. The Force is not the Midichlorians, it just uses them to communicate with people. Also as seen up to Rogue One, people that are not supposedly Force Sensitive can use the Force, but it takes a great amount of training, faith, and acceptance of the concept of the Force.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Yes, some writer could decide to change the money issue, or the military issue. But until they do, both of those rules stand.

But since it's so easy for these "rules" to be contradicted...they're not really rules, are they? That word implies a line that can't be crossed, a law that must be obeyed without question. Neither of those things apply here.

 

[Ithekro]

That Starfleet is not the military and that the Federation does not use currency internally are two uniquely Star Trek things now.

 

[GabyBee]

But since it's so easy for these "rules" to be contradicted...they're not really rules, are they? That word implies a line that can't be crossed, a law that must be obeyed without question. Neither of those things apply here.

Yes, they do. Roddenberry made it very clear that in the Star Trek universe Starfleet was not the military, and that the Federation did not use currency in its internal economics.

Canon is what makes Star Trek, Star Trek. If you start ignoring wholesale instances of canon simply on a whim because it doesn't fit a pre-conceived conclusion, then you may as well just call it Generic Sci-Fi Universe #314. Two of the central things that make Star Trek Star Trek are that Starfleet is not the military, and that money does not exist within the Federation's internal economics.

That Starfleet is not the military and that the Federation does not use currency internally are two uniquely Star Trek things now.

Indeed.