When I was learning Kaijukenbo as a kid, that wasn't the first thing we were taught, it was somewhere in the middle at more advanced stages.
Military themes in the Star Trek universe.
- Thread starter TopperHenly
- Start date
Well, in Taekwondo it was lower down, but a proper fist was first, to be fair
But, my instructor was also a US Army reservist and a very practical man.
If navies are considered "military," there is plenty of precedent for less "militaristic" fighting organizations. Navy sailors in the age of sail did not march, they did not stand at attention or in formations. There was no strong barrier between naval sailors and merchant sailors, they went back and forth based on their need for employment. Officers, too, were not considered the same as army officers and were addressed officially as Mr. So-and-so, captain, Royal Navy, rather than Captain So-and-so. Officers were part-timers and in peacetime those who weren't well-off often made a living on commercial voyages.
Here is a quote I have posted before about the British Royal Navy of the 1890s:
I don't think we thought very much about war with a big W. We looked on the Navy more as a World Police Force than as a warlike institution. We considered that our job was to safeguard law and order throughout the world — safeguard civilization, put out fires on shore, and act as guide, philosopher, and friend to merchant ships of all nations.
–Vice Admiral Humphrey Smith, RN, quoted in The Anatomy of British Sea Power by Arthur Marder.
–Vice Admiral Humphrey Smith, RN, quoted in The Anatomy of British Sea Power by Arthur Marder.
Actual navy ships do have shipboard bars and lounges. Aircraft carriers even have movie theatres and bowling alleys. You seem to be falling into the trap of believing the military is a completely spartan and utilitarian environment, though the truth is modern militaries are anything but.
Despite TNG being the poster child for the "not a military" claim, there is absolutely nothing "non-military" about the Enterprise D aside from the fact its captain and crew deny being a military. As already noted, Star Trek takes a simplistic approach to showing the military as stiff, formal and bad tempered refusing basic luxuries while showing the fact that Starfleet is more relaxed, personable, reasonable and willing to do something other than combat as proof it's not a military. But really, if an actual military had access to technology and resources of the 24th century, they might very well make a ship very similar to the Enterprise D. The US military of today spend millions of dollars dedicated purely to the entertainment of its personnel. If they had access to holodecks, you'd damn well better believe bases and ships of today would have them, even if their primary use was to reenact Shakespeare or Sherlock Holmes or if it just became a virtual brothel. Likewise, the idea of bringing families along on ships that were supposed to be on long term assignments isn't so far fetched, there are already plenty of bases that house the families of its personnel.
And the truth is, I suspect even the writers of the modern shows realize all this. Ron Moore has admitted he views Starfleet as a military but adhered to the official party line that it wasn't because that's what he was told from above. The officially licensed novels get away with calling the main characters of the shows propagandists for claiming Starfleet isn't a military. And at the risk of paying a tithe to the coin jar, I find it very telling that there is a TV show on the air now with several writers who are former Trek writers featuring an organization similar to Starfleet in most respects with the only real difference being these characters admit to being a military.
Modern naval vessels are still cramped by most civilian standards, though. In Star Trek you don't see much three-high rack berthing, or two officers sharing a room smaller than the tiniest college dorm. But the point is valid: the better the living conditions, the better for the organization's performance. When the British navy started to work closely with the USN in WW2, RN sailors were amazed by the comparitively "luxurious" conditions even the lowest-ranking US sailors enjoyed, and the higher-ups shocked at what they saw as the indulgences of bunk berthing areas, cafeteria mess halls and air conditioning. But after a few years it had to be admitted that it was simply humane and that the sailors so "indulged" were a healthier and more effective fighting force, and RN warship designers began to incorporate these features across the board.
Last edited:
this is well put. I think the "military" descriptor gets thrown around like a curse, with no real need for it to be so.
We don't see the berthing spaces for crewman basics just out of Starfleet tech school, nor the living conditions for a non-department head ensign. How many people did ensign Ro share quarters with?
The Enterprise D might be big enough to give everyone a suite, but traditions could say otherwise.
Dax said the crew on a 23rd century Starfleet vessel were "packed in," and we saw multi-tiered bunks in TUC.
It's a bit of a sidebar but, as you probably know, including navies under the term "military" is a more modern development of the word. The term originally referred to land-based forces, i.e. armies. Even as late as WWII, the distinction was made between naval and military forces. FDR in his infamy speech spoke of the "severe damage to American naval and military forces" for example. And the joint resolution that formally declared war on Japan authorized the President to:
"employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United states."
after boot camp, Cold War sailors didn't do much marching either.
Yes, as I said, we don't see much of that type of thing.
Yeah, that is an issue I didn't want to sidetrack on, but it's definitely an old distinction and still comes up occasionally. West Point is not the US Army Academy, after all.
Up through the 1920s, the British Royal Navy classified what the USN calls "line officers" as "military officers." I learned only recently that in the Victorian period, when Companion of the Order of the Bath was one of the few decorations given to officers below flag rank, engineer officers (the most likely to be drowned or scalded to death in battle) were given the civilian version because they were not part of the "military" branch of the Royal Navy!
Thank God. Neither do the Air Force folks, from what I've seen.
I think some people are labouring under a false perception. A military isn't just about a bunch of people with matching outfits organised into a hierarchy; that's just the trappings. A military is a bunch of people who's purpose is to kill other people. That's the beginning, middle and end of it.
For Starfleet, violence is the absolute LAST recourse and is an implicit failure of their stated purpose, and even then to be used only in defence, never attack. For a military, both attack and defence are readily embraced as a means to an end; said end typically being neutralising an enemy.
None of this should be considered a slut against the military or any who serve, just stating the reality of it's for.
Again, I grew up on an army camp, I went to school with squaddie kids and officer's kids alike, bought sweets at the Naafi on the way home, I know the difference between the sound of fireworks and sustained small arms fire, what it feels like to be a few miles from a sustained artillery bombardment, and to have my house regularly buzzed by chinooks and apaches. I've been on camp, worked alongside WO2s, SSgts, Corporals, Captains and Majors as a civvie, and I was taught first aid by a commando field medic. I have respect for the forces, but also harbour no illusions or romantic notions about that world. They're in the business of death and they'll be the first to say so themselves.
For Starfleet, violence is the absolute LAST recourse and is an implicit failure of their stated purpose, and even then to be used only in defence, never attack. For a military, both attack and defence are readily embraced as a means to an end; said end typically being neutralising an enemy.
None of this should be considered a slut against the military or any who serve, just stating the reality of it's for.
Again, I grew up on an army camp, I went to school with squaddie kids and officer's kids alike, bought sweets at the Naafi on the way home, I know the difference between the sound of fireworks and sustained small arms fire, what it feels like to be a few miles from a sustained artillery bombardment, and to have my house regularly buzzed by chinooks and apaches. I've been on camp, worked alongside WO2s, SSgts, Corporals, Captains and Majors as a civvie, and I was taught first aid by a commando field medic. I have respect for the forces, but also harbour no illusions or romantic notions about that world. They're in the business of death and they'll be the first to say so themselves.
Assuming that Ro isn't considered a "department head" (and her listing in "crew manifest" promoted by a "list of the ship's senior officers" in Conundrum suggests she might be); then Lower Decks (TNG) suggests that she would be sharing with one other ensign (based on Lavelle and Taurik sharing, and potentially Ogawa and Sito)
This is why I think the larger Super Spacious StarShip designs of TNG era and up is very beneficial to the psyche and morale of your crew along with basic functionality like easy traversal of your own vessel.
This is a current day USN Nuclear Attack Sub and look at how cramped everything is.
It's about as bad as modern day Airline Economy seats.
But the Galaxy Class can honestly use more staff.
That's WAY too few Crew members for a vessel of that size IMO.
For most modern militaries, violence should be the LAST solution to any major issues.
If you have to go to war, than both Attack & Defense should be of equal options/merit once you're in 'War Mode'.
But until you're "At War", peace should be the primary goal & Self Defense & Survival should be the norm.
Attack shouldn't be the first choice in peace time for conflict resolution.
Warfighting is killing, true enough, and Starfleet is the Federation's warfighting arm. Even in peacetime and amidst their other duties, they practice and train to kill.
The Phaser Range definitely gets used
Incorrect. If violence, or the implicit threat of violence isn't required then you do not get the military involved.
Even so, "should" is the operative phrase in that statement. In reality you can set your watch by the time it takes between the military being deployed and the first person getting killed.
A misleading statement because the Federation doesn't *have* a "warfighting arm". It explicitly doesn't even "believe" in warships. Generally speaking the Federation
Put it this way: a military is a hammer. It exists to do one thing and one thing only: it hits nails. It's very good at it too. Hitting nails is what a hammer does best...and after a while most everything can be characterised as a nail so long as you hit it with a hammer.
Starfleet is an entire tool box; it does whatever the situation calls for. Yes, there's a hammer in there too for hitting nails, but that's not it's sole or even primary purpose. It's there to be the glue that keeps the Federation together through engendering and facilitating cooperation of all kinds. It does not conquer, occupy, invade, annex, assault or enforce the peace.
Starfleet is not a military force, or a police force, or any kind of force at all. It's a Starfleet.
I concur, that requires the person weilding and controlling the military to have some perspective and not abuse that power.
In StarFleet's case, it's a hybridized organization, so they should have restraint on using violence as a last possible solution. But if they are at War for whatever reason. Then you shift into full on Military Mode.
I concur, that's not StarFleet's modus operandi.
I'd argue it's a type of force, a Star Force if you will, one that has giant fleets of StarShips at it's disposal with numerous officers to execute orders passed down the chain of command.
Last edited:
It's not misleading. The Federation has engaged in wars, and Starfleet was the entity that fought them.
Insisting that the Starfleet vessels who fight these wars are not warships just seems like a word game.
Then its leaders should not be issuing orders for subordinates to follow without question.
Exactly so. There is a military aspect, for good, bad, and everything in between.
Indeed, yes. It seems this is an exercise in pedantry, of trying to parse words in such a way that Starfleet is not a military, them fighting wars on behalf of the Federation.
Similar threads
- Locked
