Is Starfleet Military?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And the little tidbit that West was named after an actual Marine (Oliver North - get it? North? West? ) doesn't exactly hurt either.

I just LIKE the notion of Starfleet having Marines, that's all. It seems like the simplest option. They may have different ranks, and different uniform colors (in my headcanon, the Marine color in SNW/TOS is black, and in TNG and future eras, it's light gray), but they are still Starfleet, and would probably be rather offended at being regarded as a separate service.

The Starfleet navy flies the ships, the marines are the boots on the ground. Like I said - easy peasy.

 

[Farscape One]

In SPACE: ABOVE AND BEYOND, all the Marines are ground fighters and pilots. It's just that some are simply better at one area of combat than the other.

Why can't Starfleet be similar?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

In SPACE: ABOVE AND BEYOND, all the Marines are ground fighters and pilots.

They're FIGHTER pilots, yes. Not starship crew. Even S:AAB had a navy for that.

Why can't Starfleet be similar?

It just seems kind of weird for ground forces to have navy ranks, that's all.

 

[fireproof78]

Why? It's a rank. As long as it's consistent and they know their jobs.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

I'm fine with select units having (Lieutenant) Colonels and Majors instead of Captains and (Lieutenant) Commanders, but junior officers should always be Ensigns, Lieutenant Junior Grade* to Lieutenant**, in a "built from the group up" force like Starfleet.

* Second Lieutenant is also acceptable here.
** First Lieutenant is also acceptable here.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm fine with select units having (Lieutenant) Colonels and Majors instead of Captains and (Lieutenant) Commanders, but junior officers should always be Ensigns, Lieutenant Junior Grade* to Lieutenant**, in a "built from the group up" force like Starfleet.

* Second Lieutenant is also acceptable here.
** First Lieutenant is also acceptable here.

I think so long as its clear what the chain of command is, and the insignia and uniform reflect appropriately, you can call them Specialist, Archon and Overseer.

 

[The Wormhole]

Still, though, a Colonel appearing in the very next film, does seem fairly definitive.

Navies don't have Colonels, so what's the next closest thing? Marines, of course.

Easy peasy.

Except he wears an Admiral's uniform and rank insignia, suggesting Colonel isn't actually his rank. Indeed, the novels said he was an Admiral and Colonel was just his nickname.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Except he wears an Admiral's uniform and rank insignia, suggesting Colonel isn't actually his rank.

Perhaps they just didn't bother making a unique uniform for West to wear, since we were obviously never going to see him again...

The guys in ST V, on the other hand? Assuming they were marines, giving them a unique turtleneck color would be no big deal, since that's, well, just a turtleneck. Much easier. It's just another color in the Monster Maroons color scheme. I think it jibes with Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise as well (command = white, yellow = operations, light green = medical, gray = sciences, red = cadet, black = enlisted, and dark blue = marines)

I'm fine with select units having (Lieutenant) Colonels and Majors instead of Captains and (Lieutenant) Commanders, but junior officers should always be Ensigns, Lieutenant Junior Grade* to Lieutenant**, in a "built from the group up" force like Starfleet.

* Second Lieutenant is also acceptable here.
** First Lieutenant is also acceptable here.

In my headcanon the Starfleet Marines have eliminated the rank of Marine Captain (to avoid confusion with the naval Captain), moved up both Lieutenant grades, and added a new rank - Sublieutenant, maybe - at the bottom.

So it would go like this: Sublieutenant, 2nd LT, 1st LT, Major, Lt. Colonel, Colonel, General.

It would certainly be more logical than, say, Star Wars ranks. Now that one's a HUGE mess.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

So it would go like this: Sublieutenant, 2nd LT, 1st LT, Major, Lt. Colonel, Colonel, General.

I prefer my design, but yours follows the same basic concept so I'm not against it.

 

[fireproof78]

So it would go like this: Sublieutenant, 2nd LT, 1st LT, Major, Lt. Colonel, Colonel, General.

Checks out.

It would certainly be more logical than, say, Star Wars ranks. Now that one's a HUGE mess.

Well, it is a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away. The terms changed over time

 

[The Wormhole]

Perhaps they just didn't bother making a unique uniform for West to wear, since we were obviously never going to see him again...

But why give him Admiral's insignia? A Colonel is equal in rank to a Naval Captain, if West were a Colonel he should be wearing the same insignia as a Captain. And they doubled down on this by not just giving him an Admiral's insignia, but also an Admiral's unique uniform with gold trim. If West were really meant to be a Marine and had to wear that specific uniform for some reason, it would make more sense to make him a General, not a Colonel. And if he were a Marine, why did he wear a white turtleneck instead of blue turtlenecks like the supposed Marines in TFF?

 

[J.T.B.]

If starfleet were military they'd carry marines (note the show Enterprise) but we don't see them again right?

The US Navy hasn't carried marines on surface combatant vessels for almost 30 years.

Perhaps one answer is starfleet is more like a coast guard. They have many missions, even have real weapons, with a chain of command and promotion potential.

To carry out wartime missions, the US Coast Guard has to operate as an adjunct to a larger organization which has been equipped and trained for the warfighting role. It can't fill that role on its own. Unlike Starfleet.

No free nation in it's right mind let's the army act as the civil police. Indeed most free countries have very strict laws forbidding the military from such things and very tightly narrowing it's legal authority, and for every good reason.

Are nations such as France, Italy and the Netherlands not free then, or not in their right minds?

It should be noted that for hundreds of years, there were privateers. These were privately-owned vessels that were crewed by civilians which were granted letters of marque by a sovereign to engage other nations’ vessels in warfare. There is historical precedence for combat training utilizing a ship without being in the military.

I don't follow the comparison. Privateers were intended to capture merchant shipping, the vessels and cargo of which could then be sold; that was the profit motive that made privateering feasible. It was often used by naval underdogs to inflict damage on a more powerful enemy, and/or by nations whose standing navy was very small. Privateers were not trained by or with the country's navy. With very few exceptions, a privateer going into action against a warship was doomed. (If anyone is thinking of the giant French privateer frigate in the movie Master and Commander, that was absurd and probably the stupidest thing in the movie.)

In more modern times (like the world wars), civilian vessels which were armed for defensive action usually carried a detachment of naval personnel to handle the weapons, to avoid questions of lawful combatants and so on.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

To carry out wartime missions, the US Coast Guard has to operate as an adjunct to a larger organization which has been equipped and trained for the warfighting role. It can't fill that role on its own. Unlike Starfleet.

Yeah, not really as the US Coast is transferred to the Department of the Navy during wartime (individual units or even personnel are regularly transferred back and forth during peacetime as well). Coast Guard cutters are more than capable of carrying out their wartime role without direct tactical or operational control by the US Navy, but neither the Treasury or Homeland Security can cut orders for units to deploy overseas (particularly within sovereign waters of another nation), but Defence can.

 

[longhorn355]

I don't follow the comparison. Privateers were intended to capture merchant shipping, the vessels and cargo of which could then be sold; that was the profit motive that made privateering feasible. It was often used by naval underdogs to inflict damage on a more powerful enemy, and/or by nations whose standing navy was very small. Privateers were not trained by or with the country's navy. With very few exceptions, a privateer going into action against a warship was doomed. (If anyone is thinking of the giant French privateer frigate in the movie Master and Commander, that was absurd and probably the stupidest thing in the movie.)

In more modern times (like the world wars), civilian vessels which were armed for defensive action usually carried a detachment of naval personnel to handle the weapons, to avoid questions of lawful combatants and so on.

The comparison was that there were non-military vessels in the past that would be armed, sanctioned by a government, and expected to be trained by its captain, owner, etc. in how to use such weapons and employ tactics to engage other hostile vessels. Sometimes these other vessels would be naval vessels they ran across by accident. This was in response to BillJ’s assertion that the war games Picard engaged in during Peak Performance was indicative of Starfleet being military. The counter argument could be that if Enterprise was not a military vessel then it would still be prudent to practice engaging hostile vessels as others have done in the past just in case.

 

[BillJ]

The comparison was that there were non-military vessels in the past that would be armed, sanctioned by a government, and expected to be trained by its captain, owner, etc. in how to use such weapons and employ tactics to engage other hostile vessels. Sometimes these other vessels would be naval vessels they ran across by accident. This was in response to BillJ’s assertion that the war games Picard engaged in during Peak Performance was indicative of Starfleet being military. The counter argument could be that if Enterprise was not a military vessel then it would still be prudent to practice engaging hostile vessels as others have done in the past just in case.

I understand where you’re coming from and the point you’re trying to make, but Starfleet clearly doesn’t exist in that way, at least as far as the TV shows (and merchandising materials) go. Starfleet exists as a government entity and are chartered as such.

 

[longhorn355]

I understand where you’re coming from and the point you’re trying to make, but Starfleet clearly doesn’t exist in that way, at least as far as the TV shows (and merchandising materials) go. Starfleet exists as a government entity and are chartered as such.

During WW2, the US federal government owned a vast amount of cargo vessels such as Liberty ships. They were under the control of the War Shipping Administration. They were crewed by Merchant Marines. The Navy would often send a detachment of Navy Armed Guards to operate the installed guns but the US Maritime Service (a government agency) would also train some of the Merchant Marines to operate the guns. These ships had 3-5” deck guns to engage surfaced submarines or other vessels and they had 20MM anti-aircraft guns.

This is an example of a civilian, government-owned vessel that was armed and expected to engage hostile naval vessels.

 

[BillJ]

During WW2, the US federal government owned a vast amount of cargo vessels such as Liberty ships. They were under the control of the War Shipping Administration. They were crewed by Merchant Marines. The Navy would often send a detachment of Navy Armed Guards to operate the installed guns but the US Maritime Service (a government agency) would also train some of the Merchant Marines to operate the guns. These ships had 3-5” deck guns to engage surfaced submarines or other vessels and they had 20MM anti-aircraft guns.

This is an example of a civilian, government-owned vessel that was armed and expected to engage hostile naval vessels.

There is again no evidence that Starfleet operates in this manner, that the Enterprise is a merchant ship taken over by Starfleet due to special circumstances. They are bristling with military equipment and objectives straight out of Spacedock, among many other things they do.

The way we define military, in the modern sense, is clearly what Starfleet is.

 

[longhorn355]

There is again no evidence that Starfleet operates in this manner, that the Enterprise is a merchant ship taken over by Starfleet due to special circumstances. They are bristling with military equipment and objectives straight out of Spacedock, among many other things they do.

The way we define military, in the modern sense, is clearly what Starfleet is.

I’ve never met a member of the military that didn’t know they were in the military. When Picard states Starfleet is not a military organization, obviously there is some sort of ambiguous/quasi status that Starfleet has. While I agree that Starfleet is a de facto military, there clearly is an in-universe reason why it is not a de jure military.

 

[BillJ]

I’ve never met a member of the military that didn’t know they were in the military. When Picard states Starfleet is not a military organization, obviously there is some sort of ambiguous/quasi status that Starfleet has. While I agree that Starfleet is a de facto military, there clearly is an in-universe reason why it is not a de jure military.

There is no in-universe reason, honestly. Roddenberry made his money in the 70’s and 80’s touring college campuses, telling Trek fans what they wanted to hear and some of it spilled over into TNG, as Roddenberry was continuing to peddle his utopian ramblings.

I don’t think anyone can look at TOS or DS9 and see anything other than a military organization. Maybe one could squint for VOY or ENT, but you’d have to squint really hard.

 

[J.T.B.]

Coast Guard cutters are more than capable of carrying out their wartime role without direct tactical or operational control by the US Navy, but neither the Treasury or Homeland Security can cut orders for units to deploy overseas (particularly within sovereign waters of another nation), but Defence can.

I'm interested in what wartime missions you see USCG carrying out completely independent of USN air cover, long range anti-air, ASW and logistics/replenishment capabilities.

This was in response to BillJ’s assertion that the war games Picard engaged in during Peak Performance was indicative of Starfleet being military. The counter argument could be that if Enterprise was not a military vessel then it would still be prudent to practice engaging hostile vessels as others have done in the past just in case.

I suppose, but it seems a stretch. A "war game" is generally understood as a tactical exercise for military commanders and staffs. Practicing to defending oneself against hostile action doesn't necessarily involve "war" planning. In context, it seems that Enterprise was practicing to be used in the kind of wartime operations that Starfleet has been shown to carry out many times.

I’ve never met a member of the military that didn’t know they were in the military. When Picard states Starfleet is not a military organization, obviously there is some sort of ambiguous/quasi status that Starfleet has.

I've never met anyone who wasn't in the military who could be court-martialed, like Picard had been. In the face of all the evidence to the contrary, his "not a military organization" comment makes him appear to be an unreliable narrator.

While I agree that Starfleet is a de facto military, there clearly is an in-universe reason why it is not a de jure military.

Clearly? Time and again choices were made in the production that made it anything but clear. That's why these discussions go on as they do.