Would a series of Star Trek soldier/pilot novels work?

[Geoff Thorne]

The Federation is NOT surrounded by enemies. We've seen the maps.

The Federation has no armed forced as we understand that term. They say so and we've seen no contradictory evidence to say otherwise.

The Federtion is a mishmash of various TOTALLY ALIEN cultures working together for a common good which is NOT based on fear of outsiders or protection from enemies but mutual benefit and growth. We've seen the easy interaction of multiple humans with unfamiliar species and societies, both as members of the federation and non members. At no time do the react with xenophobia. Modern humans cannot make that claim even about one another. Ergo something has changed.

The Federation is organized around basically democratic values and seems to have a Bikl of Rights similar to thise enjoyed in the west (Innocent until rpoven guilty, etc). They have a President and in several of the novels (AotF cheif among them) we have seen the workings of that government and hints of the election process.

The Federation, officially, does not enjoy capitalism as we know it but seems to enjoy a complex barter system based not on currency but on exchange of information and skills. Multiple officers have expressed surprise that a new culture is "still using money." While, also being comfy with the fact that the Ferengi Alliance is driven it.

Replicator technology, alone, would remove nearly every motivation for conflict that currently exists and would, necessarily, shape the DESIRE for armed forces, out of humanity just as constant contact with and intermarriage with aliens has shaped xenophobia out of most of us (except Bones who is still a bigot on some level).

And, of course, we have the unequivocal, unparsable statements by members of the fictional society who describe it as something other than the opposition asserts.

I take the members of that society, fictional or not, at their word when describing where and how they live. Why don't you?

Surrounding by enemies or not does not affect whether or not a military exists. One need not be surrounded to have one. Neither does one need to have one if surrounded.

They do too have armed forces. Every ship has weapons (even the science vessels) and every officer takes a phaser with them on away missions (even peaceful ones). They are all every bit of armed.

Now, we're talking about the Federation (the government) not Starfleet (the military). The Federation is that which they joined. The nation of the Federation however is protected by their military--Starfleet.

The federation is democratic.. Starfleet is ABSOLUTELY NOT democratic, otherwise they wouldn't have a rank structure and orders would never be given, each officer would vote on every decision.

Not sure how capitalism affects a military's existance...

Replicator tech removed most of the internal conflict, yes. But given all the ludicrous amounts of space and ground battles we've seen in all Star Trek series obviously this hasn't removed any such conflicts at all. Not to mention the lack of conflict does not have any bearing on whether or not a military can exist. Conflict does not need to exist for a military to exist too. Does the US military suddenly cease existing when all wars are over and it is peace time? Of course not.

These statements are hardly unequivocal and unparseable. You need to take them all into context. If you are heavily armed and trying to meet new people, why would you tell them "We are a military organization" when you know (as evidence by this thread especially) that the preconceived ideas behind a military are that they are militant and belligerent. Picard choosing to state that they are an Exploratory organization helps diffuse
the idea that they are just flexing their muscle. Just like as you pointed out that Sisko stated he was a soldier because that's what he was doing at the time. So does this make him NOT an explorer too? Just because Sisko is a soldier, doesn't exclude him from being an explorer. Just like Starfleet being exploratory does not exclude them from being military.

No. Sisko said he was a soldier because he perceives himself to be a soldier. Sisko is not, personally, an explorer. What exploring does he do? Just as he is not personally a doctor.

Picard described an entire organization, not just himself. There's no parsing. There's no wiggle room.

Starfleet is not a military organization.

Its purpose is exploration.

End of story.

 

[Geoff Thorne]

It's called Propaganda.

So, rather than assume our main and featured characters in the canon material are telling the truth about their motivations and the structure of the organization they joined and would, presumably, die in the service of (if necessary), you presume they are all lying, naive or flat out wrong?

No, I presume they're trying to show their organization in the most positive light. And as shown by your reactions to the term military, this term has a certain negative ring for some, so naturally Starfleet officers often try to minimize the military aspect of their organization, and try to highlight their scientific and humanitarian work more, especially when trying to make a good first impression to unknown races.

That isn't supported by the canon material. Starfleet deals with an open hand. When attacked they militarize their explorer force but that force is not, in itself, a military. We know this because they SAY they're not. Unequivocally, multiple times.

They certainly don't open up with new species with Spin. Some of the new species are telepaths. What would be the point of spin? When aliens have described them as a military they have argued, again, without any wiggling, that they are not.

Picard and the others are simply stating the facts as they know them.

 

[LightningStorm]

Its purpose is exploration.

Nobody's denying that. That, however is NOT its SOLE purpose as you apparently think it is. Starfleet is also tasked with defense. Starfleet is also tasked with lending aid to other worlds both inside and outside of the Federation. Starfleet is also tasked with going on the offense when at war. Starfleet is also tasked with diplomatic (non-exploratory) missions to bring known worlds into the Federation. Starfleet is also tasked with mediation of two conflicting outside governments when asked.

Just because they have a purpose of exploration DOES NOT mean they do not have other purposes too that a military has and they most certainly do have ALL of the tasks that make a military.

And that is the end of story. (See I can make declarative statements of finality too.)

 

[Santaman]

In the old days navys explored the world, military ships were quite a lot used to chart shores and the like and even make "first contact" kinda like Hornblower did in 'The Captain" where he visited and tried to form an allience with a Spanish madman in South America, which is just like Kirk does in TOS now and then besides guarding borders and so on, Roddenberry stated a lot of times that Star Trek was very much like a sort of Hornblower in space.

Starfleet is just like the Royal Navy in those days in a lot of area's.. they're definitly military but also they need to chart new "shores" so to speak.

 

[Geoff Thorne]

Its purpose is exploration.

Nobody's denying that. That, however is NOT its SOLE purpose as you apparently think it is. Starfleet is also tasked with defense. Starfleet is also tasked with lending aid to other worlds both inside and outside of the Federation. Starfleet is also tasked with going on the offense when at war. Starfleet is also tasked with diplomatic (non-exploratory) missions to bring known worlds into the Federation. Starfleet is also tasked with mediation of two conflicting outside governments when asked.

Just because they have a purpose of exploration DOES NOT mean they do not have other purposes too that a military has and they most certainly do have ALL of the tasks that make a military.

And that is the end of story. (See I can make declarative statements of finality too.)

No. You can't get that out of "Its purpose is"

That means it has ONE purpose. A single ethos. A single reason for existing.

Everything outside that is a modification to suit circumstances and, once the new circumstance is finished, SF goes back to its single original purpose.

Or, rather, its purpose as defined in the TNG era which is, essentially, "now" as far as we're concerned. he doesn't say "Its primary purpose is" or "One of its main purposes is." One purpose. Not military.

Butter knife to dagger. Chair to club. Telescope to fire starter. The original purpose isn't changed by a modification of use.

 

[Trent Roman]

No, I presume they're trying to show their organization in the most positive light. And as shown by your reactions to the term military, this term has a certain negative ring for some, so naturally Starfleet officers often try to minimize the military aspect of their organization, and try to highlight their scientific and humanitarian work more, especially when trying to make a good first impression to unknown races.

Maybe it's a question of semantics. I cannot believe Picard was intentionally lying or even obfuscating, nor is he naive that he would fail to recognize the character of an organization he's been involved with for so long (he might, however, choose one side in a current debate--say, "What is Starfleet's purpose"--like the conflict between military-minded and science-minded shown in SF:Y1, but Picard is usually a pretty even-handed guy). He might simply a complex situation for an outsider's pespective, considering the military aspect of their organization the least and most infrequently manifested (at this point in the chronology) aspect of the fleet. But, as I was doing a spot of research, I couldn't help but notice how many different terms people insist on usign for what is essentially the same phenomena--military, paramilitary, militia, etc.--placing emphasis on minor formal point of distinction. So Starfleet, which is chartered and constituted so radically differently from even the most beneficient contemporary military, could very well have its' own term for itself, which individual like Picard then negatively contrast which the more 'purely' military organizations of its' more belligerent neighbours - the Klingon Defence Force, the Cardassian Legions, etc. I never consider linguistic differentials to be particularly satisfying ways of resolving such conundrums, but it would be a way of accomodating Picard's comments; we might be tempted to call it a military, but only because it's the closest analoguous organization for us modern audiences, and the uniformed men, women and Hermats of the 24th century have their own terminology for the hybrid organization they represent.

I love it when people trot out the old tired cliché that "if you can nuke a planet from orbit, you don't need ground troops". If you want to capture, and hold, an area of ground, you sure as shit DO need troops. What's the point of fighting for territory if you have to destroy it?

What's the point of fighting? But, seriously, if they wanted to destroy the enemy, they could just shot a couple of torpedos. If they wanted to capture an area, they could set the ship's phasers on stun, like it was mentioned upthread Kirk did, capture the entire battalion of ground-pounders in addition to the territory. Starships have great destructive potential, but they're also very precise instruments. Couple of life-sign scans, some pinpoint phaser strikes. If the foe is hiding in populated areas, and you don't want to stun them all, you could probably use transporters. The only time ground combat becomes necessary is when, like I said, local conditions combine to make all of that impossible, or you have no ships available (like "Rocks and Shoals").

In the old days navys explored the world, military ships were quite a lot used to chart shores and the like and even make "first contact" kinda like Hornblower did in 'The Captain" where he visited and tried to form an allience with a Spanish madman in South America, which is just like Kirk does in TOS now and then besides guarding borders and so on, Roddenberry stated a lot of times that Star Trek was very much like a sort of Hornblower in space.

That exploration was incidental, if not outright accidental. The navies of the European powers were not sent out for the love of discovery or to make peaceful contact with new peoples, they were sent out to seize territory, seize resources, enslave/slaughter the natives depending on how easily they could be bent to the colonizer's will, and deny all the above to their foes. There's no comparing the purposes that animate them and those that animate Starfleet.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Santaman]

That exploration was incidental, if not outright accidental. The navies of the European powers were not sent out for the love of discovery or to make peaceful contact with new peoples, they were sent out to seize territory, seize resources, enslave/slaughter the natives depending on how easily they could be bent to the colonizer's will, and deny all the above to their foes. There's no comparing the purposes that animate them and those that animate Starfleet.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

They were a necessity, no charts meant no way to expand your empire... or to find ways to places the competition wasn't aware of, it wasn't that incidental at all.
Before you go anywhere for any reason you need to have the place checked out which is exactly the same as what Starfleet does, no difference there except that Starfleet isn't interested into the expanding of its empire by force.

 

[Trent Roman]

Those navies saw 'exploration' as a means to an end: imperial and capitalist expansion. Starfleet sees discovery as an end in and of itself. It's something they pursue for it's own sake. New territories and new resources are certainly a bonus, but it's not what drives them. They don't need a reason to go somewhere; or rather, the fact that somewhere else exists is reason enough.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[captcalhoun]

, they could set the ship's phasers on stun, like it was mentioned upthread Kirk did, capture the entire battalion of ground-pounders in addition to the territory

and who captures them?

i want you to get OCD about this Geoff. aside from JL's bitching in Peak Performance cite us three clear-cut unecquivable examples of people saying we're explorers not soldiers

 

[Trent Roman]

^ Ship's security, I would imagine... although, being stunned, pretty much anybody could just beam them into whatever brig they have on hand, which security then... secures.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

But, seriously, if they wanted to destroy the enemy, they could just shot a couple of torpedos.

Which can be defeated by ground-based shield generators.

If they wanted to capture an area, they could set the ship's phasers on stun, like it was mentioned upthread Kirk did, capture the entire battalion of ground-pounders in addition to the territory.

See above.

Starships have great destructive potential, but they're also very precise instruments.

A soldier would be even more precise.

Couple of life-sign scans, some pinpoint phaser strikes. If the foe is hiding in populated areas, and you don't want to stun them all, you could probably use transporters.

And the enemy would use transport inhibitors - we've seen it.

 

[Turtletrekker]

But, seriously, if they wanted to destroy the enemy, they could just shot a couple of torpedos.

Which can be defeated by ground-based shield generators.

Which can be overloaded by constant bombardment, or if the attackers have the shields frequency, they can fire right through it, ala Generations.

If they wanted to capture an area, they could set the ship's phasers on stun, like it was mentioned upthread Kirk did, capture the entire battalion of ground-pounders in addition to the territory.

See above.

See above.

Starships have great destructive potential, but they're also very precise instruments.

A soldier would be even more precise.

It depends on the assignment.

Couple of life-sign scans, some pinpoint phaser strikes. If the foe is hiding in populated areas, and you don't want to stun them all, you could probably use transporters.

And the enemy would use transport inhibitors - we've seen it.

We've also seen that any tech that can be deployed can be subverted or over-ridden or destroyed.

Much, much, much better to not risk an actual irreplacable life, on either side, if it can be avoided.

 

[Sci]

Those navies saw 'exploration' as a means to an end: imperial and capitalist expansion. Starfleet sees discovery as an end in and of itself. It's something they pursue for it's own sake. New territories and new resources are certainly a bonus, but it's not what drives them. They don't need a reason to go somewhere; or rather, the fact that somewhere else exists is reason enough.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

None of which is material to the fact that militaries have historically undertaken missions of exploration, and that the fact that Starfleet undertakes missions of exploration therefore does not exclude Starfleet from the military label.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

But, seriously, if they wanted to destroy the enemy, they could just shot a couple of torpedos.

Which can be defeated by ground-based shield generators.

Which can be overloaded by constant bombardment

Which would not be particularly effective if 1) the enemy on the surface has ways of masking their lifesigns so you can't even find where they are, or 2) their friends from orbit come by and fire at you.

Why do you think Starfleet didn't just park the Defiant in orbit of AR-558, for example, and just let 'er rip?

or if the attackers have the shields frequency, they can fire right through it, ala Generations.

And how often does THAT happen? The only reason it did in the film was because they kidnapped Geordi and nicked his VISOR.

And the enemy would use transport inhibitors - we've seen it.

We've also seen that any tech that can be deployed can be subverted or over-ridden or destroyed.

Just like the transporter.

Much, much, much better to not risk an actual irreplacable life, on either side, if it can be avoided.

Tell that to the starship's crew.

And besides, the very fact that there is an enemy on the surface *for* the ship to shoot at, proves that the UFP must also have surface forces - you can't afford not to have something that the enemy does have. It would give them an advantage, however small.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

"Turning and turning in the widening gyre..."

 

[Deano2099]

The definition of words can change over time. There's no choice but to accept that Starfleet is a military organisation by our definition of that word. But in the 24th century they could see themselves as non-military organisation, with the definition of that word shifting to focus on other things (such as the more clearly defined miltaries of the Klingons etc). So Picard could claim they weren't a military organisation by his standards and be right. Judged by ours, he clearly isn't.

But applying and debating over a 21st century definition of military seems somewhat pointless. After all, I'm not even sure some of the alien 'militaries' might not fit those precise definitions. Do the Klingons have a separate martial court? Is the Cardassian military answerable solely to the civilian government? (the answer to those might well be 'yes' - I'm not sure). The point is, applying our definition of the word, while a valid argument, is not the entire story, as it's a definition predicated on a culture that no longer exists.

 

[Sci]

The definition of words can change over time. There's no choice but to accept that Starfleet is a military organisation by our definition of that word. But in the 24th century they could see themselves as non-military organisation, with the definition of that word shifting to focus on other things (such as the more clearly defined miltaries of the Klingons etc). So Picard could claim they weren't a military organisation by his standards and be right. Judged by ours, he clearly isn't.

The problem is that characters from Trek refer to Starfleet as a military fairly often. Every time they talk about courts martial, in point of fact; it's right there in the name. "Court martial." "Military court." So clearly the definition of "military" hasn't changed in any meaningful sense.

The logical thing to do with Picard's single "Starfleet is not a military organization" line from "Peak Performance" is to do the same thing we do with references to the Klingon Empire joining the Federation from "Samaritan Snare" or to transwarp turning people into large newts from "Threshold" or to women not being allowed to be starship captains from "Turnabout Intruder:" Ignore it.

After all, I'm not even sure some of the alien 'militaries' might not fit those precise definitions. Do the Klingons have a separate martial court?

I believe they do, but I can't recall for certain. The Klingon Defense Force clearly constitutes a separate institution dedicated to armed warfare on behalf of the state, though.

Is the Cardassian military answerable solely to the civilian government?

More like the civilian government is answerable solely to the Cardassian military.

Describing the Cardassian government pre-Dominion is a bit difficult, actually. It's characterized, as noted in A Stitch in Time, by a tendency for multiple separate organizations to accumulate power and then compete, sometimes violently, with one-another. Pre-Dominion, the Cardassian Union was governed by the civilian Detapa Council, the military Central Command, and the Obsidian Order. The Detapa Council was virtually powerless, though, and the Obsidian Order tended to stay in the shadows; the Central Command was essentially running things, reducing the Cardassian Union to a de facto military junta

 

[Turtletrekker]

Which can be defeated by ground-based shield generators.

Which can be overloaded by constant bombardment

Which would not be particularly effective if 1) the enemy on the surface has ways of masking their lifesigns so you can't even find where they are, or 2) their friends from orbit come by and fire at you.

Why do you think Starfleet didn't just park the Defiant in orbit of AR-558, for example, and just let 'er rip?



And how often does THAT happen? The only reason it did in the film was because they kidnapped Geordi and nicked his VISOR.

We've also seen that any tech that can be deployed can be subverted or over-ridden or destroyed.

Just like the transporter.

Much, much, much better to not risk an actual irreplacable life, on either side, if it can be avoided.

Tell that to the starship's crew.

And besides, the very fact that there is an enemy on the surface *for* the ship to shoot at, proves that the UFP must also have surface forces - you can't afford not to have something that the enemy does have. It would give them an advantage, however small.

I'm not disagreeing with you on any particular point, just pointing out that there are many alternatives to putting lives at risk, which should always be a final option. As for, "Tell that to the starship's crew", are you suggesting that Starfleet officers would rather see their enemies dead than come to an accord? Because that is wrong on so many levels, 20th or 24th century.

 

[Sci]

I'm not disagreeing with you on any particular point, just pointing out that there are many alternatives to putting lives at risk, which should always be a final option. As for, "Tell that to the starship's crew", are you suggesting that Starfleet officers would rather see their enemies dead than come to an accord? Because that is wrong on so many levels, 20th or 24th century.

Well, that depends on the situation, actually. If the "accord" you're talking about is appeasement, well, yeah, war is preferable. Further, if there's good reason to believe that the enemy will not abide by the accord -- that they cannot be trusted to abide by any cease-fire agreement and that such an agreement will only buy the enemy time to rebuild their forces and thus continue the conflict, then ending the conflict on terms you control is a superior option.

Obviously, a diplomatic solution that is relatively fair to all parties and which all parties can be trusted to act upon is superior to bloodshed. But there's a reason wars are fought even by people who detest warfare.

 

[Geoff Thorne]

, they could set the ship's phasers on stun, like it was mentioned upthread Kirk did, capture the entire battalion of ground-pounders in addition to the territory

and who captures them?

i want you to get OCD about this Geoff. aside from JL's bitching in Peak Performance cite us three clear-cut unecquivable examples of people saying we're explorers not soldiers

Okay. But it'll take some time. It's been a while since i looked at TNG. Give me a few days/weeks.