Yeah. I'm in the "is a military" camp. I don't think "paramilitary" is the solution that it's proponents think it is.
And the music is so good!
Is Starfleet Military?
- Thread starter Prometheus59650
- Start date
If the US Navy did away with all of its heavily armed and armored destroyers, submarines, and carriers, then replaced them with a bunch of civilian-configured general purpose ships usable for mass transportation, medical relief, or scientific research, then outfitted a few of them with deck guns and a missile launcher or two, just for defensive purposes, and then tried to fight all its wars from then on with those ships... well, that's Starfleet. I'll let you decide if it's a military or not.
Where are you getting your comparison that (for instance) the Enterprise (1701, thank you) was so lightly armed? Or more to the point, was so woefully outmatched by the neighboring militaries? My recollection was that anytime our hero ships were outmatched (other than by force of numbers like in The Enterprise Incident) everyone was surprised. Shocked, even.
Even if TOS was vague about where the weapons were and how many there are the movies and subsequent TV shows are not. Both the TMP and TNG Enterprises are rather bristling with weapons points.
Apparently from nowhere. Starfleet ships' function is defense/offense and are purposely constructed / supplied with the means to wage war on an extended period and have the deliberately installed capacity to destroy planets. There's no re-writing or hand-waving that away. TOS repeatedly had the ship's functions and character dialogue support the fact that Starfleet ships were designed to fight. They were not civilian research ships, nor was Starfleet a body created by / for pacifists.
Last edited:
I'm getting my information from comparing the performance of a Galaxy class (a typical Starfleet ship) against the Jem'Hadar, versus the effectiveness of the Defiant (a purpose-built warship). Despite being many times bigger, the Galaxy class only managed to keep the Jem'Hadar ships at a standstill, while the Defiant shredded one in seconds.
That's because most Starfleet ships were designed for exploration, with weapons as add-ons. Kind of like the armed survey ships I described. The Defiant is more like a Naval destroyer: heavily armored, fast, maneuverable, and bristling with guns, missiles, torpedoes, depth charges, and ECM. It's not much good for surveying, transferring colonists, or dealing with disasters, but it's great at making stuff go boom.
That's because most Starfleet ships were designed for exploration, with weapons as add-ons. Kind of like the armed survey ships I described. The Defiant is more like a Naval destroyer: heavily armored, fast, maneuverable, and bristling with guns, missiles, torpedoes, depth charges, and ECM. It's not much good for surveying, transferring colonists, or dealing with disasters, but it's great at making stuff go boom.
Galaxy class could go toe to toe with a Romulan battlecruiser, and was expected to do so by Picard in "Angel One" as a show of force along the Federation's side of the Neutral Zone.
It was already well established that the Dominion had been infiltrating and identifying Alpha quadrant power weaknesses for some time before the war. The comparison is not accurate. At no time in TNG was a Galaxy class considered lesser, save for when it is outnumbered. If it isn't a combat capable vessel then I sure don't know what is.
It was already well established that the Dominion had been infiltrating and identifying Alpha quadrant power weaknesses for some time before the war. The comparison is not accurate. At no time in TNG was a Galaxy class considered lesser, save for when it is outnumbered. If it isn't a combat capable vessel then I sure don't know what is.
Even the Defiant didn't fare so well against the Jem'Hadar ships in The Search, the first time it went up against them. It was disabled, boarded and the crew captured.
The Galaxy and Constitution / Starship classes were supposed to be well rounded and good at pretty much everything including science and including combat. Yes, the Defiant was built as a strictly combat ship. But Picard thought very highly of the combat capabilities of the "Federation Flagship".
But by that line of reasoning the Romulans and the Klingons (definitely military) should have cut through the Dominion like tissue paper. I never got through all of DS9 but I recall that pretty much all of the Alpha and Beta Quadrant was in the same boat when it came to the Dominion. Generally outclassed.
As I mentioned above, the Federation running into a startlingly superior force was always meant to be a surprise. Going back to the First Federation in The Corbomite Maneuver. But when it came to the locals (Gorn, Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians... Ferengi?) everyone was at something like parity. The Enterprise (whatever letter) was only ever in trouble when she was outnumbered.
Again, if the Enterprise was simply an under-gunned science vessel even a single threat ship from a militarized power would be cause for alarm. And it never was.
Yep. The fight between the Odyssey and the Jem'Hadar was the first major battle against ships that were effectively unknown, but were clearly able to hold their own against the Galaxy class. They even managed to punch through shields while the ship was cycling through different variations, a tactic that had worked to some degree against the Borg. And they didn't hesitate to ram the Odyssey fatally when the Feds were already withdrawing, just to drive the point home. The problem isn't so much the Galaxy lacking enough muscle, it was being outnumbered by a force that was an easy match, if not more openly aggressive.
The Founders did a similar strategy when they led the Romulan/Cardassian fleet into a massacre, once they gained knowledge of the plan. It was intended to be a surgical strike that would have inflicted major damage to the Founders, and had it proceeded on without the infiltration it might have been a major success. But clearly the Dominion was doing their homework before they eventually went to all out war with the other powers.
Whether or not Starfleet is military has exactly bugger all to do with the hardware because weapons and armor aren't what defines a military. Nor does organizational structures, traditions, terminology or uniforms. What it all comes down to purpose and mindset.
The purpose of a military is to project power through violence, nothing more, nothing less, and the military mindset reflects that. Whatever else a military force might do along the way, that's it's whole reason for existing.
That is not what Starfleet is about. Starfleet is about exploration, scientific discovery, and diplomacy. That's it's reason for existing, and the Starfleet mindset has always reflected that. Yes, it can also project power through violence too. It has powerful weapons and has waged several wars, but that is merely a tool at it's disposal, only when it is necessary and all other solutions have failed. The phaser is just a piece of equipment. No more and arguably quite a but less important than the communicator and tricorder. A warparty armed with just bows and stone axes is much more of a military than a bunch of scientists with orbital nukes at their disposal, and the latter description fits Starfleet much better the the former.
And if that's not enough of a convincing argument; just think back to every time they tried to make Starfleet more militaristic and remember just how *wrong* it felt. The MACOs, that god awful lump of ugly from 'Into Darkness' who's name I can't remember and don't care enough to look up. At least on DS9 it feeling *wrong* was the whole point. The war was a perversion, a tragedy, and the likes of Section 31 were the very antithesis of what Starfleet stood for. That very mindset was shown to be repulsive.
The purpose of a military is to project power through violence, nothing more, nothing less, and the military mindset reflects that. Whatever else a military force might do along the way, that's it's whole reason for existing.
That is not what Starfleet is about. Starfleet is about exploration, scientific discovery, and diplomacy. That's it's reason for existing, and the Starfleet mindset has always reflected that. Yes, it can also project power through violence too. It has powerful weapons and has waged several wars, but that is merely a tool at it's disposal, only when it is necessary and all other solutions have failed. The phaser is just a piece of equipment. No more and arguably quite a but less important than the communicator and tricorder. A warparty armed with just bows and stone axes is much more of a military than a bunch of scientists with orbital nukes at their disposal, and the latter description fits Starfleet much better the the former.
And if that's not enough of a convincing argument; just think back to every time they tried to make Starfleet more militaristic and remember just how *wrong* it felt. The MACOs, that god awful lump of ugly from 'Into Darkness' who's name I can't remember and don't care enough to look up. At least on DS9 it feeling *wrong* was the whole point. The war was a perversion, a tragedy, and the likes of Section 31 were the very antithesis of what Starfleet stood for. That very mindset was shown to be repulsive.
Last edited:
Perhaps overly simplistic of me but the dictionary defines "military" as such:
noun
noun: military; plural noun: militaries
Now, do I think Starfleet is militaristic? No, I don't. I think there is a different attitude than is currently present in modern militaries, and I would expect it. But, Starfleet as the military of the Federation? Again, if it isn't why does it behave in these ways? Why not have a dedicated defensive force to protect the Federation and its interests?
As uncomfortable as it is, we are not left with many solutions to this question, beyond the fact that the Federation is defended by it's chief exploratory agency. It would be very simple if the Federation had a military and they were referenced for completing armed conflicts. Take all of the mystery away.
Instead, we are left with a very contradictory presentation at times.
noun
noun: military; plural noun: militaries
- the armed forces of a country.
Now, do I think Starfleet is militaristic? No, I don't. I think there is a different attitude than is currently present in modern militaries, and I would expect it. But, Starfleet as the military of the Federation? Again, if it isn't why does it behave in these ways? Why not have a dedicated defensive force to protect the Federation and its interests?
As uncomfortable as it is, we are not left with many solutions to this question, beyond the fact that the Federation is defended by it's chief exploratory agency. It would be very simple if the Federation had a military and they were referenced for completing armed conflicts. Take all of the mystery away.
Instead, we are left with a very contradictory presentation at times.
No, it didn't. But even with its flaws that still needed to be worked out, it tore one of the Jem'Hadar ships to pieces with one phaser barrage. And later in the show, when O'Brien had had some time to tinker with it, and the ablative armor had been added, it chewed through them two or three at a time.
For the resources required to build one Galaxy Class, the Federation could build ten Defiant's, maybe more. Or, a Galaxy class sized dreadnought with enough pulse phasers and quantum torpedoes and other nasty things to obliterate an armada of Jem'Hadar. And IMO, a truly military organization would have.
Because the Galaxy class was a versatile exploration ship. Its weapons were formidable, largely because it was so huge and its tech so advanced. But it was still more cruise ship than battlecruiser.
Which is why there have been so many discussions on this topic.
To which there will be no satisfactory answer. Were's the good luck gif?
Starfleet being the closest thing the Federation has to a military doesn't in and of itself make it a military.
Like I said, it's all about purpose and mindset. Militaries are for killing things. Everything else they do is secondary.
Starfleet is for science, peace, diplomacy, and exploration. It's defensive and security roles comes AFTER all of that, not before. A quinary function at best.
^ Yet, the on-screen evidence from TOS says the opposite about Starfleet.
By the nature of governments expand territory (no matter what their political noise suggests), a military approach is the first consideration, as no one is going to send the equivalent of the Peace Corps to a new land / world / galaxy without the full capacity to wage war if engaged by some hostile group / army / world. It would be suicidal & grossly irresponsible to send people who are not purposely trained by the military into that kind of danger.
By the nature of governments expand territory (no matter what their political noise suggests), a military approach is the first consideration, as no one is going to send the equivalent of the Peace Corps to a new land / world / galaxy without the full capacity to wage war if engaged by some hostile group / army / world. It would be suicidal & grossly irresponsible to send people who are not purposely trained by the military into that kind of danger.
TOS was written before UFP and SF were well defined by Rodenberry.
As such, we shouldn't take what was said in TOS too literally... some words and phrases could have been used by Kirk and others to give a paraphrasing of what they do... mainly because the real life Humans would be able to 'relate' to these concepts better.
I'm still of the opinon that SF is NOT a military organisation. It is in fact (as Picard described it) a defensive and exploratory arm of the Federation.
UFP and SF do in fact start with diplomacy when encountering alien species, and they go so far to abide by their customs, and if the species in question wishes to be left alone, SF leaves them alone.
While the Federation expands, its not done through violence or force... its achieved with diplomacy, and wishes of alien species are usually respected (and SF even upholds the Prime Directive - aka, non-interference in internal political matters of a society - what military organisation does that?).
War was always a last resort for UFP and SF, and they virtually never started it... (it was other species that did that).
The only exception to this would be DS9 when Sisko mined the entrance to the wormhole... aka, he started that war out of necessity because he knew that they would otherwise lose if the Dominion was allowed to keep bringing ships, troops, and supplies from the GQ.
Aside from that... yes, one could argue that the UFP angered some species (like the Klingons) with its (very successful and non-violent) expansion... but then again, they still respected borders of other major powers, and tried to not antagonize them.... it was those species propensity for violence and aggression which was 'agitated' by the premise UFP was able to expand very rapidly in just 100 to 200 odd years of its existence and gorw in power and influence in that section of the galaxy (the Klingons, Romulans and Cardassians don't like to be challenged in this way I suppose... and by the 24th century, we saw that even Klingons tend not to raise their weapons/hands so readily against SF.).
Last edited:
I think I've found our problem right here. Saying that Starfleet is a military means that Starfleet is primarily about killing people. I can't even buy into that. Not even about real life militaries.
1) You haven't answered my question as to why the Jem'Hadar was any difficulty at all for the other military powers in the quadrant who obviously would have been building the kind of ships you describe if it was just a matter of will. (And if you have, I apologize.)
2) I gathered that a Defiant was just as difficult and tricky to build as any ship in Starfleet. I'd use the word "expensive" but that has its own problems. That's why it remained rare even in a time of all out war. (Again, haven't seen all of DS9.)
Roddenberry was calling the Enterprise a "battleship" as late as The Motion Picture. (The term Heavy Cruiser was a polite fiction was how he put it, I believe.)
Yes, TOS was far more "colonial" than TNG. But if there is a disagreement between TNG and TOS then I'm siding with Those Old Scientists.
"Defensive" is the military part right there.
You are mixing a lot of "Federation" in with your description of "Starfleet". Militaries do what their governments tell them. (Unless the military is the government but that certainly isn't the case here.)
Last edited:
I guess it is time for the history lesson, it's in the other threads, but anyway.
The first example of Starfleet's militaristic side being downplayed was when Phase 2 was being developed, which later became TMP. This was mainly a reflection of the politics of the time, the military wasn't very popular in the US because of Vietnam. Then when TWOK was released, Roddenberry suddenly decrees that Starfleet is not a military and never was, but that was just because Roddenberry was pissed over Paramount removing him from authority over the movies after TMP, so he launched a smear campaign against Nick Meyer and Harve Bennett in an attempt to discredit them. Then when TNG began, Roddenberry for some reason decided he now hated the military, and made it immutable law that Starfleet is not military, even going so far as to ban Diane Carey from writing anymore Trek novels just because she dedicated a TNG novel to a friend of hers who was killed in military service. A ban which was not lifted until after Roddenberry died. Ironically, though, there is a first season TNG episode written by Roddenberry which actually does state that Starfleet is a military, Hide and Q.
The writers throughout the Berman era have said they thought of Starfleet as a military anyway, but were usually instructed by others that it isn't which is why they write Starfleet as though it is a military while simultaneously saying it isn't. While the current day novel writers usually make a meta joke about the inconsistency, like having an alien comment "Starfleet isn't a military" and the other responds with "only they believe that." Hell, a recent episode of Lower Decks even made a meta joke about this argument and had two characters arguing over whether or not Starfleet is a military.
Similar threads
