I look forward to the style guide.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
It's Constantly Evolving.
If you look at my older posts, I didn't write this way.
It's changed over time, if it ever becomes finalized, I'll make Style Guide.
OtherWise, I'm in a Experimental Phase.
Good luck with that.
One of the United States Coast Guard primary missions is environmental and aquamarine research.
They're a branch of the US Military and helped to patrol our coastal waters during World War II and actively engaged in hunting German U-Boats.
They're a branch of the US Military and helped to patrol our coastal waters during World War II and actively engaged in hunting German U-Boats.
Oh, look, the Military Argument. Y'all are tilting at windmills on this, as everyone has an opinion on whether Starfleet is a military or not and will not be convinced to change their mind on this. Those on the Not Side like to bring up the five examples of it being stated that Starfleet is not a military in dialogue (technically six examples now, but the most recent example was a Lower Decks joke reference this very fandom argument, so doesn't really count). Those on the Is Side will point out that Starfleet is an armed uniform service with rank structure and martial discipline responsible for defending the Federation and fighting its wars, and no other defense organization in the Federation has ever been established. Both are correct in a strictly canonical context, Starfleet is stated to not be a military yet is also depicted as a military in spite of this. Star Trek's worldbuilding is incredibly sloppy and on matters like this or whether the Federation has money or practices religion are a result of the fact that from TNG onwards, Roddenberry's mad ramblings were forced on the franchise's writers as holy writ. Leaving us in this weird situation where Starfleet has become a sort of Schrodinger's Military.
The intent in TOS is that Starfleet was the military, period. Contrary to popular belief, TOS was not trying to reinvent the wheel. They knew they had to present concepts the audience would understand if the audience were to be expected to tune in week after week. "Adventures of a military spaceship" is a concept the audience can grasp and indeed, adventures of military explorers was a trope quite common on TV in the 60s and one which had a known success rate. It certainly helped that most of TOS's writers and a few of its cast had military experience which they drew on to lend an air of credibility to the show.
When Phase II began development and later when it was turned into TMP, a conscious effort was made to downplay the military side of Starfleet, but this was a reflection of the politics of the time. Because of Vietnam, the military wasn't very popular in the US in the 1970s. Later when Roddenberry was removed from authority over the Trek movies was when he began claiming Starfleet was not a military, though this was mostly just him launching a smear campaign against Nick Meyer and Harve Bennett and the more overtly militaristic depiction of Starfleet in TWOK. Then later when TNG began production, Roddenberry decided he now hated the military and issued a decree by fiat that Starfleet was not a military, which could be enforced now since he had definitive power over TNG. An enforcement he took way too far, like when he banned Trek novel author Diane Carey from writing any further Trek novels just because she dedicated a Trek novel to a friend who had been killed in military service, which Roddenberry claimed was "glorifying the military" and "not what Star Trek was about." This ban wouldn't be lifted until after Roddenberry died and all his loyalists and sycophants were fired from Paramount. Even then, it should be noted, a first season TNG episode written by Roddenberry actually refer to Starfleet as a military, though this often gets dismissed by people on both sides of the argument because it's from a line spoken by Q.
So the idea that Starfleet is not supposed to be a military is not part of any intentional worldbuilding in the franchise and is only a by-product of real world politics, a smear campaign and later a delusional mentally ill alcoholic abusing his power over his TV show in his declining years of life. Add into that that there aren't very many involved in Trek from TNG onwards with military experience to draw from and therefore they aren't injecting any military flair to the shows like TOS had, and we've got the impression Starfleet isn't supposed to be a military. Although many of the franchise's esteemed writers from the 90s like Ron Moore had admitted to thinking of Starfleet as a military anyway, but were instructed from above that it wasn't because "Gene's Vision."
But never mind me, I'll let everyone get back to yelling "IS A MILITARY!" and "ISN'T A MILITARY!" at each other for the next thirty pages.
The intent in TOS is that Starfleet was the military, period. Contrary to popular belief, TOS was not trying to reinvent the wheel. They knew they had to present concepts the audience would understand if the audience were to be expected to tune in week after week. "Adventures of a military spaceship" is a concept the audience can grasp and indeed, adventures of military explorers was a trope quite common on TV in the 60s and one which had a known success rate. It certainly helped that most of TOS's writers and a few of its cast had military experience which they drew on to lend an air of credibility to the show.
When Phase II began development and later when it was turned into TMP, a conscious effort was made to downplay the military side of Starfleet, but this was a reflection of the politics of the time. Because of Vietnam, the military wasn't very popular in the US in the 1970s. Later when Roddenberry was removed from authority over the Trek movies was when he began claiming Starfleet was not a military, though this was mostly just him launching a smear campaign against Nick Meyer and Harve Bennett and the more overtly militaristic depiction of Starfleet in TWOK. Then later when TNG began production, Roddenberry decided he now hated the military and issued a decree by fiat that Starfleet was not a military, which could be enforced now since he had definitive power over TNG. An enforcement he took way too far, like when he banned Trek novel author Diane Carey from writing any further Trek novels just because she dedicated a Trek novel to a friend who had been killed in military service, which Roddenberry claimed was "glorifying the military" and "not what Star Trek was about." This ban wouldn't be lifted until after Roddenberry died and all his loyalists and sycophants were fired from Paramount. Even then, it should be noted, a first season TNG episode written by Roddenberry actually refer to Starfleet as a military, though this often gets dismissed by people on both sides of the argument because it's from a line spoken by Q.
So the idea that Starfleet is not supposed to be a military is not part of any intentional worldbuilding in the franchise and is only a by-product of real world politics, a smear campaign and later a delusional mentally ill alcoholic abusing his power over his TV show in his declining years of life. Add into that that there aren't very many involved in Trek from TNG onwards with military experience to draw from and therefore they aren't injecting any military flair to the shows like TOS had, and we've got the impression Starfleet isn't supposed to be a military. Although many of the franchise's esteemed writers from the 90s like Ron Moore had admitted to thinking of Starfleet as a military anyway, but were instructed from above that it wasn't because "Gene's Vision."
But never mind me, I'll let everyone get back to yelling "IS A MILITARY!" and "ISN'T A MILITARY!" at each other for the next thirty pages.
Last edited:
Schrodinger's Military!
Got to say, I've never heard this situation described like that before. (And so accurately.)
Is that the new Classification for StarFleet?
What could I possibly add?
Frank Military. The ultimate Military in Trek. He played B.C. (Biddle Coleridge), the lead "ghost" in 2024 in the Bell Riots two-parter of DS9. 
Sadly, I can't take credit for that. I did get it from one of the other Military Argument threads over the years.Schrodinger's Military!
Got to say, I've never heard this situation described like that before. (And so accurately.)
Now, someone else, I would think is joking right now. But you, I'm worried might actually be serious.
I'm definitely adding that to my Head Canon Lore.
I mean, the Federation is an egalitarian democracy but it also has Section 31 and people like Raffi who drown in their own addictions and mental problems, so should the fact the Federation has angry, sick people drinking and taking drugs and what amounts to a covert agency that co-opts, renders harmless or even kills off anyone who makes the UFP appear vulnerable and weak make me think any less of the institution of the Federation? Starfleet in TOS had random commodores and captains going mad with power and trying to take over starships, planets or even the known galaxy.
It's still pretty much what TOS envisioned, only more fleshed out. But I know the darker, more sinister facets of the organization rankle and annoy a lot of fans.
It's still pretty much what TOS envisioned, only more fleshed out. But I know the darker, more sinister facets of the organization rankle and annoy a lot of fans.
Yes.
Overwritten word-salad false equivalencies with tired Schrodinger jokes doesn't change that.
I'm okay with the darker, sinister sides. It doesn't rankle this fan.
I'm even cool with Section 31. Except for how it's used in DSC, the S31 movie and in the Kelvin Timeline.
Translation: most of Star Trek has been a balancing act between its pie-in-the-sky, altruistic humanism and writing interesting adventure stories.
Similar threads
- Locked
