Why is there resistance to the idea of Starfleet being military?

Naval officers don't consider themselves to be diplomats and explorers either. On the other hand, there are lots of gun-toting civilians in various parts of the world who consider themselves to be soldiers.

Starfleet "ground troops" if you could even call them that have NONE of those things. They have the same training, equipment, skill set and unit structure as the rest of the fleet. It's not even certain that they're any different from the regular Starfleet crews that otherwise deliver them to the field; for all we know, the troops at AR558 were a geologic survey team until they got stranded on that rock.

 

I guarantee many do. And since we're talking historically, certainly many were.

Kirk engaged in a great deal of diplomacy. Was he a diplomat?

 

I guarantee you they don't. Not in the strictest sense and not usually by analogy either. Many would (and do) tell you all about the proud naval traditions of exploration and mapping and about their participation in space exploration; the recruitment officers would probably go on and on about the oceanographic survey ships and their support of scientific research.

You will, however, NEVER hear a naval officer say "The United States Navy is not a military organization, its purpose is exploration."

 

Again, historically no Naval officer would say "The United States/Royal Navy is a Military organization"

You don't think there are naive idealists like Picard in real life too?

 

Diplomacy is a large part of Naval captain or admiral's responsibility. It doesn't make them a diplomat by trade, just like Picard, Archer, or Kirk. Sometimes they bring Ambassadors along, sometimes they retire and become ambassadors. One of the Navy's largest responsibility is diffusing international situations. They act as a deterrent, just like our famous spacemen captains.

Kirk "I'm a soldier, not a diplomat" Actually Kirk, you're neither and both.

Worf "Its Naval tradition!" (referring to room assignments for visiting Admirals and captains for Bajor's Admittance to the Federation.)

Jake "But they're Starfleet! They go through thousands of hours in combat simulations"

They are what they are. Humanity's 24th century galactic fleet. We as audience members use our terminology and its current or historical meaning to define what we see on screen.

 

Or in Sisko case, poisoning a planet from orbit.

Scientific, no.

Sound military reasons, or political ones, yes.

 

You can't be serious...

Only to the extent that international politics are a factor in his operations. But naval captains have little or no authority to actually negotiate legal agreements or treaties with foreign governments and therefore have no real diplomatic power as such.

Sure, but they also have their OWN terminology that they hold to, and that includes the point blank statement "Starfleet is not a military organization." We have terminology that describes that situation as well.

There was no MILITARY reason to threaten Eminar VII with destruction (Of the many, MANY times Kirk and his landing party were captured or held hostage, Order 24 was never discussed as an option).

The scientific reason is a psychological one: the Eminians are devoted to their sham war because they fear the long-term consequences of a REAL war. If those consequences are unavoidable, they will accept any alternative that lets them off the hook.

Seems like Earth kind of IS the D.C. of the Federation, so that would make sense.

As for TFF, I just assume they needed a starship to make the trip (which Earth defense forces don't have), but they didn't want to send a particularly valuable one on such a worthless assignment. In almost NO context does it make sense for the Enterprise to be the one to get that mission; in an organization the size of Starfleet, it's hard to sell the idea that a ship with most of its crew on leave and half its primary systems barely functioning is really the best ship for that job.

 

Not at all. Violence and conflict are very costly, and the government is going to frown on unnecessary expenditures of ammunition and weapons hardware, therefore encouraging the military to seek non-violent solutions where possible.

 

That's creepily plausible, actually.

 

Absolutely not.

The government is going to encourage the military to stay the hell out of any problem they haven't specifically been ordered to solve or doesn't affect them directly.

You think the USS Gerald Ford is going to pause its sea patrol to help mediate a land dispute in Samoa? Or do you think the Captian is going to write a report back home and let the State Department figure out how to handle it later, realizing as he does that trying to solve diplomatic problems isn't actually his job?

Because the job of the Captain of an aircraft carrier isn't to wander around the globe doing good deeds like a glorified samurai vagabond. The mission of an aircraft carrier is to protect the homeland and its interests from its enemies. This is the statutory and traditional role of a professional military.

Starfleet in TNG+ is not, strictly speaking, a professional military. They're professional explorers with an important defensive role.

 

Just like the job of the Captain of a Starfleet starship then! Because we never have seen them wandering aimlessly around the universe looking for good deeds to do "like a glorified samurai vagabond". Every time the starship and its crew have a specific mission to complete.

 

Except in
"The Outrageous Okona"
"Unnatural Selection"
"Pen Pals"
"Transfigurations"
"The Final Mission"
"Galaxy's Child"
"The Cost of Living"

Just off the top of my head.
Starfleet officers have wide latitude in how to deal with problems they encounter, without having to call their superiors for permission. It's also likely that Starfleet's status allows them to act on their own initiative without their intervention being interpreted as a military intervention by the Federation or an attack on anyone else's sovereignty.

 

"The Outrageous Okona": The Enterprise is on a mission in the Omega Sagitta system.

"Unnatural Selection": The Enterprise is bound for Star Station India to rendezvous with a Starfleet Medical courier.

"Pen Pals": The Enterprise is studying a series of planetary breakups in the Selcundi Drema sector.

"Transfigurations": The Enterprise is charting an unexplored star system in the Zeta Gelis Cluster.

"Final Mission": Picard is to arbitrate a mining dispute on Pentarus V.

"Galaxy's Child": The Enterprise is scheduled to transport a shipment of scientific equipment to a Federation outpost in the Guernica system.

"The Cost of Living": The Enterprise destroys an asteroid in danger of colliding with Tessen III.

Like I said, every time we see the Enterprise it has a mission. We never have seen them "wandering aimlessly around the universe looking for good deeds to do like a glorified samurai vagabond".

 

And is NOT on a mission to investigate the source of a potentially deadly pathogen. They do this on their own.

And is NOT on a mission to stop an inhabited planet from breaking up.

And is not on a mission and has no orders to take in political refugees from neighboring systems.

... because the miners asked him to and he agreed to help out. We have no idea what their mission was before that, but even the negotiation wasn't important enough that the Enterprise couldn't get diverted to Gamelon IV to help with that garbage scow.

And NOT to study cosmozoan life forms in deep space.

Which ALSO is not actually part of their mission.

On the other hand, the USS Gerald Ford, on patrol in the South Pacific, isn't going to stop and negotiate a land dispute between two powerful families in American Samoa just because the Captain feels like it. It's not going to take a detour into the antarctic to try to mediate a truce between the Sea Shepards and the Japanese Whaling Fleet. It's not going to sail to the Horn of Africa to try and talk sense into a bunch of Somali pirates (e.g. "Vengeance Factor") on their own initiative.

 

The USS Gerald Ford will stop to render assistance to those in distress at sea even i it wasn't it's primary mission, just like the USS Enterprise has. The USS Gerald Ford will offer aid in a case of a humanitarian crisis even those weren't its captain's orders when they left port, just like the USS Enterprise has. It won't do it in a time of war just like the USS Enterprise won't.

And the leeway that the captain has and you're describing fits exactly the military navies of the 18th and 19th centuries and which Star Trek draws heavily upon. It may not fit your definition of the 21st century military but a) we're not discussing 21st century military but 23rd/24th century military and b) it's still military.

Just like we have never seen the Enterprise wandering aimlessly around the universe looking for good deeds to do like a glorified samurai vagabond.

Probably because that never happened! What "exploration mission were conducted by knights" on shining armor and "on horseback"??? Name a few out of the "many"!

 

Yes, however...

Not without orders from the Pacific Fleet, no. As a military vessel, its movements must be coordinated with the overall defensive strategy of the entire armed forces in mind, and the captain of a carrier battlegroup is in no position to make those kinds of decisions. Even the rendering of situational aid to vessels in distress cannot be interpreted as a legitimate reason to pull the ship and/or the entire group out of position.

So if a tsunami hits American Samoa a hundred thousand people are suddenly without power, the Captain radios the Pentagon and asks for instructions. They might tell him "Render any aid you can and more help is on the way" or they might tell him to stand by and monitor the situation as best they can. Or they might tell him "Get the hell out of there!" because they know something he doesn't. About the only thing that WON'T happen is the Captain deciding entirely on his own to commit his entire battlegroup to humanitarian relief just because he can.

You mean like the Enterprise DID in "Insurrection?"

Or, for that matter, like the Enterprise-D did in throughout Seasons 1 and 2 when the border wars with the Cardassians were still very much in progress? Let that sink in for a minute: how much of a "military organization" could they really be if half the fleet is off fighting a war and the OTHER half of the fleet barely mentions it at all? The Federation was still in conflict with the Cardassians at the moment Will Riker said the words "Combat... is a minor province in the makeup of a starship commander."

And it doesn't fit their definition of a 24th century military. That's been stated canonically and isn't up for debate. The only thing left to debate is "Why?"

If you think their definition is wrong and Starfleet officers are just a bunch of liars, then we have even less reason to believe them when they say "I'm a soldier" or "I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer!" You either try to make sense of what they say, or you just make shit up to fit your personal preferences.

Vasco de Gama and Pedro Cabral, just off the top of my head. One or both of them were what Q was trying to imitate in "Encounter at Farpoint" when he appeared in plate armor with a fuzzy hat, and is essentially what he was trying to accuse Picard of being the descendant of.

Before them, the various Crusader expeditions into the middle east were essentially military expeditions with knights as their principal soldiers and explorers aiding the discovery of new routes and new resources during their travels. But if you look back to before the "Age of Discovery" from around the 15th century onwards, you'll find that most of the European exploration of the world was NOT actually conducted by the military, but by Franciscan and Dominican missionaries in concert with merchants and traders.

So we can add that to the list: Picard is not a military commander, he's not a knight, he's not a merchant, and despite his bald head and high-minded morality, he's definitely not a monk. And all in all, historical comparisons to the organizations that IN THE PAST once filled Starfleet's roles are irrelevant: Starfleet is none of those things, Starfleet is Starfleet.

 

YES... Period.

Just like Starfleet Captains have been shown to do repeatedly.

Insurrection, as in an uprising against a military authority or government, a rebellion or mutiny!

But it perfectly fits their definition of a 23rd century military. That's been stated canonically and isn't up for debate.

Actually, this is what we are debating: "Why is there resistance to the idea of Starfleet being military?" Because we already know that it is but some have trouble accepting it.

Vasco da Gama, 1st Count of Vidigueira, Admiral of the Seas of Arabia, Persia, India and All Orients, was a Portuguese explorer....

Pedro Álvares Cabral was a Portuguese nobleman, military commander, navigator and explorer....

Both were military commanders and explorers just like Kirk then. None was a medieval knight on horseback. Both used ships by the way and didn't reach the Indies or the Americas...

...as you initially claimed.

 

I was discussing whether, among soldiers, they tend to favor (their nation) using force instead of negotiating rather than using force only as a last resort (in general or compared to civilians).

Well some who have opposed the idea have pointed out that it is because characters in Starfleet have said it's not and/or otherwise acted as if it isn't. It's certainly odd and unusual to think of where officers in a real military would claim that their organization isn't a military and/or that they aren't soldiers.
There are the real-world examples of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces and UN Peacekeepers; if those are militaries, fitting some and directly violating other of the traditional attributes of a military, they are at least very unusual militaries and many feel they aren't militaries.

Also, to reiterate, if combat is the primary purpose of Starfleet why isn't Security the main route to command?