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

[Crazy Eddie]

That description sounds like the Trek franchise is splitting hairs.

I get the feeling that many want to believe that the Federation (and especially humanity) has evolved beyond the need for a traditional military force that they are willing to believe that Starfleet is not military.

That's the basic premise of Star Trek, yes (at least as far as the spinoff series). Whether this is a realistic idea or not is a question of some debate, but it IS the idea behind Starfleet's non-military status.

No, you used the Iraqi police inside their own country as an example of police fighting foreign wars, your example makes no sense.

The Iraqi police were not in a foreign country.

So what? It's a non-military organization, carrying military-style weapons, that participates in a military conflict. WHERE that conflict takes place makes very little difference.

No-one, including me, is arguing that Starfleet isn't a scientific research and diplomatic organisation, however in order to credibly and legally fill all those roles, Starfleet must not be a civilian agency (and indeed it has been made clear that it is not) so the question becomes is it military (combat-centric) or security/law enforcement (used for other than armed combat).

It's neither of those things. It is a scientific exploration and diplomatic organization with an additional military and law enforcement role.

Army Corps of Engineers are primarily engineers, but I doubt anyone would consider them anything other than soldiers in the general sense).

Starfleet security officers are primarily soldiers, but I doubt anyone would consider them anything other than explorers in the general sense.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I believe that was only the Enterprise D, and possibly the few other Galaxy class ships. Even idealistic Picard thinks it's an awful idea. And indeed, it was quickly abandoned. Voyager had no families but was also built for going into deep space for long periods. The Enterprise from the TNG movies also abandoned the idea of families threat, as did every other new starship seen on screen(Like the Promethius)

Prometheus is a terrible example since that ship was a prototype and hadn't even been tested yet (in addition to also being a terrible idea for a starship, but I digress).

A better example would be USS Saratoga, of which Commander Sisko says as his ship burns down around him "Let's get the civilians to the escape pods, Lieutenant." Saratoga is hardly a new or experimental ship, so the presence of families -- e.g. Jake and Jennifer -- on board the ship cannot be explained away that way. What's more, Sisko's conversations with Jennifer imply that this isn't really that unusual even BEFORE the Galaxy Class; he tells Jennifer "Not everyone wants to raise a family aboard a starship." This is apparently pretty common practice by the late 24th century.

 

[Prax]

Then that's some kind if oversight by the writers, but if we retcon this to all fit together, then we could say that the Galaxy class introduced the idea of families on board, then some other, older starships were modified to accommodate families, or perhaps Sisko's ship had some civilians on board for some particular reason at that moment. Military or not, taking civilians, including children into battle with the Borg is terrible plotting. I'm sure I can think of something better, and more realistic or compelling.

And nonetheless, the practice fell out of favor as quickly as it started. Oh, and thanks for the Sisko quote where he distinguishes "civilians!" I'll throw it in my bandoli...err..umm..file it away for later.

Also, if you're going to respond to the examples in a post which you think are not very strong, it would be more forthright of you to also address the main examples which are strong.

 

[GabyBee]

And nonetheless, the practice fell out of favor as quickly as it started.

Did it?

I recall several instances during Deep Space Nine's portrayal of the Dominion War in which Starfleet vessels would stop at a starbase to offload the families on board before proceeding into a situation that would likely lead to hostile action. If anything that indicates that the practice of having families on board was both formalized by the 2370s, and based on experience during the 2360s, official policy had been implemented regarding safeguarding the families and other non-Starfleet personnel aboard Starfleet vessels prior to engaging in hostile actions.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Then that's some kind if oversight by the writers, but if we retcon this to all fit together...

There's no reason for a retcon. Starfleet is not a military organization, it's a scientific and diplomatic organization that also fulfills military and law enforcement rolls. This alone is hardly incompatible with the inclusion of civilians and/or children on active starships. The practice was likely suspended in later years due to the extraordinary nature of the Dominion Threat, but also would have been reinstated in peacetime after the war's end.

Military or not, taking civilians, including children into battle with the Borg is terrible plotting. I'm sure I can think of something better, and more realistic or compelling.

That was supposed to be the whole point of saucer separation, but budget limitations (somehow) kept them from using it very often, and by the time BOBW came out they had forgotten that the saucer sep was meant to keep the civilians safe.

For starters, then, the Galaxy class should just make use of that feature way more often than we've seen them do it.

Also, if you're going to respond to the examples in a post which you think are not very strong, it would be more forthright of you to also address the main examples which are strong.

None of your examples are particularly strong, and I generally ignore arguments that are deeply irrational or fallacious in some way (e.g. "argument from absence" fallacy, which your examples mostly are). I single out prometheus because it is the most fallacious of all: whether it is standard practice to include families or not, Prometheus is the one ship in the entire fleet that DEFINITELY wouldn't have families on board.

 

[Tenacity]

So what?

It was your nonsensical concept.

 

[The Wormhole]

And that is the problem with having families on a starship: putting innocent lives in danger. Is this the behavior of a military minded organization?

The Alliance in Firefly is as militant as they come, and they keep families on their warships.

I believe that was only the Enterprise D, and possibly the few other Galaxy class ships.

And the Saratoga.

I recall several instances during Deep Space Nine's portrayal of the Dominion War in which Starfleet vessels would stop at a starbase to offload the families on board before proceeding into a situation that would likely lead to hostile action.

That never happened. In the episode The Jem'Hadar, the Odyssey leaves its non-essential personnel behind at the station before heading into the Gamma Quadrant. In Homefront there are references to families still living on starships, but both these are well before the war. Nowhere in the Dominion War do we have any evidence of families being on starships.

 

[Prax]

There's no reason for a retcon

Retcon, yes. Making it fit, yes. Why? Because families aboard starships was established as a novelty on the Galaxy class. I gave two very good ways to explain this. A)They retrofitted older ships to have this capacity after the Galaxy, or B)There were other reasons that Sisko's family and other civilians on board. Or maybe C)They were beginning to equip older ships to have this capacity and the Galaxy class was the first to be built with this function in mind. Or maybe a combination of all three

Starfleet is not a military organization, it's a scientific and diplomatic organization that also fulfills military and law enforcement rolls.

You keep repeating this slogan. However in this case it is not what we're talking about. So I'm not sure what you are getting at.

That was supposed to be the whole point of saucer separation, but budget limitations (somehow) kept them from using it very often, and by the time BOBW came out they had forgotten that the saucer sep was meant to keep the civilians safe.

Clearly I was talking about Sisko's ship going into battle...against an unstoppable foe whilst children are aboard. Does Sisko's ship have a saucer separation?

None of your examples are particularly strong, and I generally ignore arguments that are deeply irrational or fallacious in some way (e.g. "argument from absence" fallacy, which your examples mostly are). I single out prometheus because it is the most fallacious of all: whether it is standard practice to include families or not, Prometheus is the one ship in the entire fleet that DEFINITELY wouldn't have families on board.

Yeah, you ignored my two key examples. The most important being the Enterprise E, which is the direct successor to the Galaxy class. So you chose to argue against the Prometheus, the one I had in parentheses as an added bonus. And I chose to advise you on ways to argue in a more forthright manner.

Irrational Fallacy my foot. Don't try to hide underhanded tactics with name calling. The fact is that the E discontinued having families aboard. And Voyager did too. Both are new ships that are presented in their respective shows/movies as the new generation ships of space exploration.

Did it?

I recall several instances during Deep Space Nine's portrayal of the Dominion War in which Starfleet vessels would stop at a starbase to offload the families on board before proceeding into a situation that would likely lead to hostile action. If anything that indicates that the practice of having families on board was both formalized by the 2370s, and based on experience during the 2360s, official policy had been implemented regarding safeguarding the families and other non-Starfleet personnel aboard Starfleet vessels prior to engaging in hostile actions.

I don't recall ever seeing this happen. Do you have a reference? If Starships were all carrying civilians and having to drop them off whenever approaching danger, they'd never get anything done. On the other hand, it's just not responsible taking so many children to their death.

Picard says that there are 6 galaxy class ships. We see the Yamato, who's captain takes into the Neutral Zone of all places on an archeological obsession. Ship blows up...all families die. Then there's the Oddysey in DS9. The Captain is going to take it into the wormhole after the Jem Hadar just destroyed a bunch of colonies and warned Starfleet not to enter. Dax even asks him if he would like to evacuate all the civilians off his ship. He arrogantly brushes the comment aside. He goes in as a show of force AND to try to negotiate with them. Now I agree this is necessary after a bunch of Bajorans and Federation colonists were slaughtered. They can't just ignore it; but he could have evacuated the civilians like Jadzia suggested. Result: Ship blows up...all families die.

So they're sort of giving us a progression. Voyager is introduced the following season: A new, smarter, faster starship, smaller than the Enterprise, and no civilians. Then a year later we get the new Enterprise: A successor to the Galaxy class- no families anymore.

As far as I recall, we don't ever see families on board starships again.

 

[The Wormhole]

As far as I recall, we don't ever see families on board starships again.

See? No. Although in Homefront, which is set a year after Voyager's launch and the very same year the Enterprise E is launched, families living on starships is mentioned in the present tense, implying it's still a thing in 2372 anyway.

 

[GabyBee]

Then there's the Oddysey in DS9. The Captain is going to take it into the wormhole after the Jem Hadar just destroyed a bunch of colonies and warned Starfleet not to enter. Dax even asks him if he would like to evacuate all the civilians off his ship. He arrogantly brushes the comment aside. He goes in as a show of force AND to try to negotiate with them. Now I agree this is necessary after a bunch of Bajorans and Federation colonists were slaughtered. They can't just ignore it; but he could have evacuated the civilians like Jadzia suggested. Result: Ship blows up...all families die.

Actually...

The attack ship collided with the Odyssey's secondary hull and the ship exploded seconds later with all hands lost. Fortunately, most non-essential crewmembers and all civilians had been offloaded at DS9 prior to departure, saving hundreds of lives. (DS9: "The Jem'Hadar")

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/USS_Odyssey

 

[Ithekro]

Was it even made clear if the Enterprise-E has families or not on it. I don't think it came up in the three films it was in at all.

 

[GabyBee]

Was it even made clear if the Enterprise-E has families or not on it. I don't think it came up in the three films it was in at all.

They did make clear that Starfleet had no problem with husband and wife living and working together on the same ship. So there were "families" in that regard.

 

[Captain Triggered]

is enterprise D the only ship shown to have children? and is there any historical precedent for a military or exploration expedition bringing family?

 

[The Wormhole]

is enterprise D the only ship shown to have children?

There were children on the Saratoga, and although not seen it was mentioned there were children on the Yamato.

I was always under the impression families on a starship were rare. Picard complaining about being assigned command of a ship with children aboard implies to me this isn't the norm across the fleet.

 

[Captain Triggered]

There were children on the Saratoga, and although not seen it was mentioned there were children on the Yamato.

i believe you but what quote confirms the saratoga? not the biggest fan of the voyage home

 

[The Wormhole]

i believe you but what quote confirms the saratoga? not the biggest fan of the voyage home

Saratoga is also the name of Sisko's ship in Emissary. He had his wife and Jake with him, and when the ship was evacuated, we see several other civilians and children in the corridors and escape pods.

 

[Captain Triggered]

Saratoga is also the name of Sisko's ship in Emissary. He had his wife and Jake with him, and when the ship was evacuated, we see several other civilians and children in the corridors and escape pods.

forgot about that. that's right.

 

[Nyotarules]

There were children on the Saratoga, and although not seen it was mentioned there were children on the Yamato.

I was always under the impression families on a starship were rare. Picard complaining about being assigned command of a ship with children aboard implies to me this isn't the norm across the fleet.

Maybe it was a new policy that he did not agree with

 

[Ithekro]

Picard was just uncomfortable around children in general. His pervious command being the old and underpowered USS Stargazer.

 

[psCargile]

Battle cruisers or cruise ships? Battle cruise ships? Exploratory battle cruise passenger liners?

This is where Star Trek Idealism confuses reality.