Which I why I think it's important to distinguish between the historical definition of a military (basically just armies, and probably air forces), the modern definition (any uniformed force that legally fights in war), and the likely in-universe definitions (which aren't specifically developed, but seem more in line with the former than the latter).
If you define a military as an organisation whose prime purpose is warfare or "defense" (warfare), then no, it is not.
If you define a military as an organisation that has a structure with strict ranks and protocol about how the ranks interact with each other, then yes, it is. (but so are many other things we don't currently call militaries)
It even fulfils diplomatic missions, which is not normally within the purview of military organisations.
Doesn't behave like the Navy I served in. Secondary peacetime activities notwithstanding, the focus and training of that Navy was to fight a war, whether that be a current one or the next one. That was its primary over-riding focus.
Starfleet doesn't focus on war-fighting. It focuses on exploration and discovery and only assumes its role as the Federation's armed forces in an emergent manner, as a situation arises. That is enough for me to consider that it is different.
hä? we used the word militär (german for military (nown) as an adjective it is militärisch) a lot ... and besides having some coast we are usually considered a country that fights it's wars on land"Military" as a noun is pretty recent, around the WW2 period, and by then, in the mass-conscription era, was widely applied to naval forces. As an adjective, it was historically applied to land forces primarily, but was also used for navies in specific contexts. It was a distinction left over from the days when the line between the merchant and naval services was blurred, when navies were quickly dismantled after a war and naval officers were all effectively "reserves;" most had to find another job if there wasn't a war on. But both the British and US navies used the term "military" for themselves, internally, in some contexts in the 1800s, often in reference to officers. As opposed to enlisted men, who were considered basically interchangeable with merchant seamen until the late 1800s.
I'd define it as a permanently established organization that employs fighting force on behalf of a state or government. Which Starfleet clearly is.
It was once fairly common. Commodore Perry's "opening" of Japan is a pretty well-known event in US history. You can read details of many such missions in Diplomatic Negotiations of American Naval Officers 1778-1783, Charles O. Paulin, 1912. From the preface:
The diplomatic negotiations of American naval officers fall within the period 1778-1883 and relate to several countries, the most important of which are France, Denmark, the Barbary Powers, Turkey, China, Japan, Korea, Hawaii and Samoa.
Sure. A snapshot view of any force at different historical points can reveal massive differences in organization and tasking, depending on national priorities and the international situation. The duties and deployment of the British Royal Navy from, say, 1860 to 1905 would be very comparable to what we've seen of Starfleet.
The actual mission assignments which are shown, BTW, are often fairly routine Federation business, despite all the talk of exploration.
hä? we used the word militär (german for military (nown) as an adjective it is militärisch) a lot ... and besides having some coast we are usually considered a country that fights it's wars on land
got a source that says used at least since 1757 - would you call the united states a 'more recent county'?As an adjective it's very old in English: "military force," "military discipline," "military officer," "military science," "military academy" and so on. "The military" or "a military" on its own is more recent.
got a source that says used at least since 1757 - would you call the united states a 'more recent county'?
https://www.etymonline.com/word/militaryWhat's the reference?
gotz a source for yours?They don't provide a citation, but I'm happy to amend my statement to "commonly used as a noun."
gotz a source for yours?
Yes and no. The USCG is kind of an odd entity, partly from being the oldest extant armed force in the US, and also from being a conglomerate of a lot of components, i.e. the Revenue Cutter Service, the LifeBoat Service, and whatever the Light house keeping service was called I am too whatever to look it up.Not quite.
The Coast Guard is not in any way, shape or form a civilian organization (the only civilian uniformed services are the NOAA, the PHSCC and maybe if you squint the Civil Air Patrol, due to being unarmed and are not typically covered under the UCMJ at service level), it has dual authority under Titles 10 & 14 as a military forces, and under other provisions of Titles 14 and 19 as a law enforcement agency.
They are also assigned various non-military/non-law-enforcement duties such as environmental protections, marine safety, aids to navigation and search-and-rescue, but these do not require a legal mandate.
So, Starfleet? Or this thread in a nutshell?So they are military, and law enforcement and also at the same time not always.
So they are military, and law enforcement and also at the same time not always.
I'm here to discuss money in the UFP...Not me.
I’m here for Power and Glory!
True. Though to be honest, I haven't the faintest notion why an interstellar federal republic has its own navy instead of leaving each member world to run their own surface-based navy.
And yet, I have never read of any navy where the purpose of the fleet is X first, war-fighting second.Sure. A snapshot view of any force at different historical points can reveal massive differences in organization and tasking, depending on national priorities and the international situation.
That's an interesting part of Britannia history, isn't it? An extremely long period where Britain was not at war with any European power, and the Royal Navy is used mostly for intimidation and the occasional shore bombardment. The ideas of the "two-power policy"* and the policy that "the British Army was merely a projectile to be fired by the British Navy"** still express the martial nature of the service though.The duties and deployment of the British Royal Navy from, say, 1860 to 1905 would be very comparable to what we've seen of Starfleet.
You do know that those search parameters include adjective uses, right? Like "a military man"Hundreds, knock yourself out:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/gra...tart=1700&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3
No? According to Disco, they have their own military academy, which Prime Georgiou is a graduate of.
So an obscure prop..........gotchaIt's not visible or mentioned on screen, it's just a prop you can only read by looking at a BTS picture.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Laikan_Military_Academy
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKq6ZXfVoAEgJTP?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
It's also Andorian, which we know are a very martial people.
Memory-Alpha says it trains people for service in the Andorian military but also offers courses to Starfleet Officers. But that seems like speculation, I don't see anything on the dipolma that says that, unless it's part of the unreadable text.
It does say it's part of the Department of Foreign Studies, which seems to imply it isn't a Starfleet institution. but who knows. It's just a prop.
I'm here to discuss money in the UFP...
Because in the Trek future Earth leases the planet to the UFP
Indeed, I think it's only something like 20% of TNG episodes are actually about exploration. I don't know the figure for TOS offhand, though I think it's comparable.The actual mission assignments which are shown, BTW, are often fairly routine Federation business, despite all the talk of exploration.
They did a lot of health checks and ferrying.Indeed, I think it's only something like 20% of TNG episodes are actually about exploration. I don't know the figure for TOS offhand, though I think it's comparable.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.