While I can see Earth nations assembling a combined military force (similar to a UN force, or a NATO fleet), why would the civil governments have to be dissolved in order to do this?
United Earth
- Thread starter Jax
- Start date
Not dissolved, but answering to a higher level on may things.
The civil governments would have to have given up enough of their sovereignty for the military force and policy making abilities of United Earth to even exist. Therefore it is logical for United Earth to be the World Government, or if you don't care for that term, the Planetary Sovereign State known as United Earth. The other countries retain some of their sovereignty, much like the 50 states of the United State of America still have some sovereignty. But they have the Federal Government above them, and thus the Planetary Government would be above the American's Federal Government by the time of Star Trek: Enterprise.
There is also Troi's line from Star Trek: First Contact to consider, wherein she states that "poverty, disease, [and] war" would be eliminated on Earth within fifty years of Earth-Vulcan contact. It would be difficult to imagine such a thing taking place without some degree of planetary unity and common policy. Additionally, Beverly has a line in TNG "Attached" in which she states that by 2150 the last of Earth's nations joined the "world government". These both point to the notion that United Earth would be the singular government of the planet, rather than a loose coalition of affiliated nations.
I disagree that they "would have to," in order for there to be a effective military alliance to successfully battle the Romulans.
It is pretty much a requirement to have something called "United Earth" that behaves as the entity in Star Trek: Enerprise behaves. Follow this with the Romulan War, and there is no doubt left that Earth would have a single planetary government over the countries that survived the Third World War. Those countries would still have their states, provinces, principalities, cities, counties, parishes, or whatever else they have today. But they would have to be under the United Earth government for anything presented in Star Trek: Enterprise to make sense.
It really depend on what model the world government is. Is it a gathering of sovenrign nation-state equals, or are todays nation-states merely impotent client states?
I admit I favor the idea that the United Earth is more a council of sovereigns than a top down central authority. Reasons would be it's sound (to me) to be a more interesting arrangement, and yes more complicated, which would make for involved stories.
UE could help in the areas of international projects, disputes, resources. Also would co-ordinate inter-planetary and inter-stellar activity, arrange colonies (although nation-states wouldn't be restricted to only going through the UE). It's through the UE that the nations of Earth decide upon and send their spokesman to the Federation council.
i don't think the nation-states would "be under" the UE. None of what we saw in Enterprise requires that the nation-states of Earth to have relinquished their sovereignty, only that "something" called the United Earth be in existence.
If one of the duties delegated to the UE is to interact with off-world civilizations, then what we saw makes sense.
From what I recall from Political Science, that isn't how government, nor politics works.
As with so many things in Star Trek, the notion of a singular planetary government in the form of United Earth is under no obligation to "make sense" when compared to 21st Century politics. Nations from our present are typically spoken of in only the past tense. For example, Data identifies a 52 star U.S. flag as being indicative of that nation's history between 2033 and 2079. The latter date is ominously the same year that Q's so-called court from "Encounter At Farpoint" is set, and the Enterprise crew transported to that scene don't seem to disagree with the historical accuracy of the setting. I don't think it's any accident that 2079 was used in both statements, and may point to the year that the United States of America is dissolved or otherwise ceases to exist as functioning government.
This isn't like the argument about if Starfleet is or is not a military. There aren't, as far as I am aware, any sources that can possibly define United Earth as anything other than Earth's primary government. Only some people's dislike for planetary sovereign states, as is seen in this age of rejection of the United Nations, and the resistance to a world government even being attempted.
Or maybe they just added more states.
(I mean, World War III has been over for 26 years as of 2079...)
In any case, the USA is referred to in the present tense in some episodes of ENT, such as when the Section 31 agent contacts Malcolm and gives a US address where they can meet.
While there are multiple mentions of "United Earth," it's never directly sourced as Earth's primary government.
By canon Geordi LaForge was born in the African Confederation on February 16th, 2335.
If countries are retaining their names mostly out of tradition, and they are nothing more than administrative districts, then where does the African Confederation come from?
In the official (but non-canon) biography of Uhura, she was born in the United States of Africa.
After the creation of the UE, the Royal Navy is still in existence. According to a readout on TNG, Britain had it's own military starships.
After the creation of the UE, the starship VK Velikan (launched in 2160) had a Russia registry. Ships are registered out of their nations.
Why wasn't the Velikan registered out of the UE?
Last edited:
I was born in the Republic of California. What of it?
Until around the 1920s, states had militia. States with coastlines, major lakes, or major rivers had naval militia. Some states operated coastal defense ships with battleship guns on them.
Until around the 1920s, states had militia. States with coastlines, major lakes, or major rivers had naval militia. Some states operated coastal defense ships with battleship guns on them.
Last edited:
Were you born in the United States of California?
Did these "coastal ships" go on diplomatic missions, long range exploration, or engage in colonization across great distances?
Or did they stay around the "coast."
Perhaps you don't understand that in sci fi the United earth trope is pretty much universal and a fairly sensible trope at that. You need planetary unification and yes the relinquishing of sovereignty to ensure your species can compete and cooperate at the interstellar level.
Don't the vast majority of Earths in that trope have Earths whose central government is usually a tyranny?
Babylon Five had "Earthgov," which had psi-corp to spy on the populace, and ultimately had to be forcably overthrown by the good guys in the military.
The value of multiple Earth nation-states is if one goes bad the others can work to bring it back in line, if the one world governemnt goes bad the Human species is screwed.
I'm saying that in space opera the assumption is that if your world or species is a member of the interstellar or galactic community or whatever you've put ancient national and tribal differences behind you.
Furthermore it would be incredibly complex and pointlessly so that say if every species in a Star Wars or Star Trek style space opera had a hundred nations or tribes there own colonies and alliances and so on. I mean unless you wanted to write thousand page novels with large appendix sections.
It's far more sensible that any reasonably advanced species for the setting-equal or a little above or below that of the protagonists is a united culture.
Heck Picard talks about that in the episode Kesprytt. With the world with two species or whatever-the assumption is that you don't join the federation until your planet is united.
Furthermore it would be incredibly complex and pointlessly so that say if every species in a Star Wars or Star Trek style space opera had a hundred nations or tribes there own colonies and alliances and so on. I mean unless you wanted to write thousand page novels with large appendix sections.
It's far more sensible that any reasonably advanced species for the setting-equal or a little above or below that of the protagonists is a united culture.
Heck Picard talks about that in the episode Kesprytt. With the world with two species or whatever-the assumption is that you don't join the federation until your planet is united.
No.
Not at all. There are always options - and not all of them involve violence.
Of course, some times it is indeed necessary. You mentioned Earthgov from B5? As we saw, President Clark's regime was overthrown, a newer and more democratic leadership emerged, and Earthgov survived. Humanity survived. In no way was the human species "screwed", not even as a result of Clark's actions.
Last edited:
The Republic of California, a minor country for maybe a month before it was absorbed into the United States of America in 1846. The state flag still proclaims it to be the California Republic.
State militia ships tended not to go out very far due to them being "coastal" which sometime meant "poor seakeeping". However ships from these militia have gone out in times of war and assisted the United States Navy. For example, two cruisers of the New York Militia fought at the Battle of Santiago de Cuba in 1898. The New York Naval Militia was active all the way up to the Korean War.
State militia ships tended not to go out very far due to them being "coastal" which sometime meant "poor seakeeping". However ships from these militia have gone out in times of war and assisted the United States Navy. For example, two cruisers of the New York Militia fought at the Battle of Santiago de Cuba in 1898. The New York Naval Militia was active all the way up to the Korean War.
It would certainly seem natural for any "post-nation" citizen to refer to his or her place of birth or residence by the very last national name thereof. It would be more trouble than worth to invent all-new names for regions at the timepoint their political relevance disappears, unless there were pressing reasons to do so (Germans today might not wish to be identified as living in the DDR, for example, with or without the redundant definer "former" attached).
So for people living on former US turf, the USA might still be the name of the place. But state identity might be stronger, and so Riker is from Alaska, not from the USA (or, Alaska might not even have been part of the USA any longer at the time nations were dissolved). LaForge would happen to come from a place that at the time of loss of political relevance had carried the name African Confederacy, but perhaps he'd personally prefer to be identified as a native of Somalia? The issue simply never arises, unlike with Riker.
Apart from that, no ex-nation in Trek actually does anything except serve as a place of residence.
Timo Saloniemi
So for people living on former US turf, the USA might still be the name of the place. But state identity might be stronger, and so Riker is from Alaska, not from the USA (or, Alaska might not even have been part of the USA any longer at the time nations were dissolved). LaForge would happen to come from a place that at the time of loss of political relevance had carried the name African Confederacy, but perhaps he'd personally prefer to be identified as a native of Somalia? The issue simply never arises, unlike with Riker.
Apart from that, no ex-nation in Trek actually does anything except serve as a place of residence.
Timo Saloniemi
Similar threads
