Families on ships

[Loupjo]

Having families on board would make sense if the Enterprise would have fulfilled a very longterm space exploration mission; sorta little house in the prairie meets star trek. It would make sense to take the family along for a colonisation mission in the deep unknown. However throughout the show the enterprise d was most of the time just hanging around in known space. It never seemed to be that far from civilisation or even earth. For the mission it ended up fulfilling having families on board makes no sense.

I do see a difference with space stations though. Space stations are not a military operation only usually, they also harbour civilians to run for , are a trade and negotiation centre between private parties etc, probably some space stations provide hard to get provisions for smaller worlds such as alien food; It does become a city in space. It therefore does make sense that people would bring their families on such stations as they are living there on a permanent basis, making their home there.

 

[Xelo]

I always wondered what all those kids did when the ship would go to red-alert. Did they just keep playing with thier clay sculptures and ignore it, or go into some sort of duck-and-cover drill? Oh well, I'm sure Picard knew what he was doing, right?

 

[JoeZhang]

Having families on board would make sense if the Enterprise would have fulfilled a very longterm space exploration mission; sorta little house in the prairie meets star trek.

Which is why the children were there - because that's what the show was suppose to be - shame it wasn't.

 

[BenRoethig]

Whole families get wiped off of Federation colonies all the time.

Aside from the Galaxy-class and the Saratoga, have there been any other indications of families on board ships?

The Enterprise could be explained by justifying that it is designed for long term missions. Asking families to spend several years apart could be an undue hardship. If they felt that it was worth the risk, then I could see where Starfleet would allow it.

As for the Saratoga, it's possible that the ship was merely designed to patrol the relatively secure spacelanes of the Federation, and that the Borg attack was a highly unusual happening.

I think it was basically a trial of the mid-24th century. By the time the Enterprise-E was commissioned, they realized how completely stupid the idea was and discontinued the practice.

Well you also have to remember they weren't intended to be warships.

That is basically 24th century political correctness. Starfleet vessels are armed vessels designed for combat, that by definition makes them warships. Yes they have scientific and diplomatic roles, but using the military for exploration and diplomacy is nothing new.

 

[Sci]

While Starfleet may have military facets, it's primary function is not military but exploratory. I think that's been pretty well stated numerous times in canon.

What I took Sci to mean is not necessarily that it's only military, but the ships certainly deal with military situations regularly enough to warrant a generalization.

It's not just a "generalization." It's its actual legal status; a military is the organization legally empowered by the state to defend the state. That's Starfleet. Now, a military's missions may not be purely combat-related -- the Canadian Forces, for instance, consider humanitarian aide to be one of their primary missions. But that doesn't mean that they're not military.

Another one of the distinguishing legal traits of a military is the capacity to use force to compell obediance amongst its members. Hungry Howie's Pizza is not a military because it does not have the right to imprison an employee who misbehaves or to convene its own court and charge him with violations of the Hungry Howie's Pizza Code with sentences including imprisonment. The United States Navy, on the other hand, is legally empowered to convene courts-martial, charging disobediant members with violations of the Uniform Code of Justice with sentences including imprisonment. The power of court-martial has been established numerous times for Starfleet. Heck, it's right there in the name: Court-martial. "Martial court." "Court of the military."

 

[Triskelion]

Fine but neither is Starfleet's mandate purely military, I'm just saying.

 

[Sci]

Fine but neither is Starfleet's mandate purely military, I'm just saying.

If you mean that its mandate is not purely combat-related, I agree completely. Starfleet's primary mission is as much exploration, diplomacy, research, and humanitarian aide as it is defense; to try to place any one of those functions above any of the others would be a mistake.

I think we're using two different definitions of "military." To me, that's a value-neutral term that describes a certain type of legal entity; to you, I'm getting the impression that it is a word inherently associated with violence and jingoism. But if you look at the history of military forces, all of those peaceful functions I mentioned above have been amongst the primary functions of real-life militaries, too. It all depends on what the military is used for.

 

[robjkay]

That is basically 24th century political correctness. Starfleet vessels are armed vessels designed for combat, that by definition makes them warships. Yes they have scientific and diplomatic roles, but using the military for exploration and diplomacy is nothing new.

Thats really not true! Just because a vessel is armed does not make it a warship. Yes SF vessels are armed, but are only armed enough so they can defend themselves. What I mean is the weapons are for defensive purposes not offensive purposes & being the SF ships are built for multiple purpose duties it is kind of hard to tag them as warships.

There have been only a couple of Federation ships that held a warship classification. The Connie which was called a heavy cruiser and the Defiant a battleship (there might have been a couple of more, but these are the only two I can remember that have been shown). Normally SF ships are called Explorers, transports, science vessel, supply ship.

 

[JoeZhang]

That is basically 24th century political correctness. Starfleet vessels are armed vessels designed for combat, that by definition makes them warships. Yes they have scientific and diplomatic roles, but using the military for exploration and diplomacy is nothing new.

Thats really not true! Yes SF vessels are armed, but are only armed enough so they can defend themselves. What I mean is the weapons are for defensive purposes not offensive purposes.

Simply not true cf. For the Uniform.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

We saw starships being destroyed all the time in TNG and pre-Dominion War DS9.

But how many of those starships carried families? It has been established in canon, that it was a fairly unusual practice outside of the Galaxy class.

"Canon" has established no such thing, one way or the other. We only get a glimpse inside a couple of other ships during the serieses either visually or by dialog. The Lantree had a crew of ~23. The Brattain had a crew of ~50 (IIRC). I tend to doubt either of those ships had families on them. Likewise with the Tsiolkovsky.

On the other hand, we have the Saratoga which had kids, the Galaxy-class which was the first class designed for families. We also have the Vico, where we learn that Starfleet control panels in the 24th century are "childproofed", to prevent accidents. If families are rare on 24th century ships, that would be unnecessary.

 

[CaptainKirkFan]

I think that having children onboard Starships is pretty dumb, but I've also heard my Dad's stories about how hard it was on his first marriage to be gone for six months at a time while a Nuclear operator on the USS Nimitz. Families shouldn't be separated for five + years, and they could always send the civilians away in the shuttlecraft or stop by a station/colony on the way to battle (I never liked "Emissary.")

IMO, I believe that Starfleet is a military organization. However, as was alluded to before I believe, the British Navy was responsible for exploring the Americas, IIRC. Also, every nation I know of selects military pilots for their astronaut programs (which Riker said was an early ancestor of Starfleet, so I believe the Navy and NASA slowly merged.)

 

[Timo]

I tend to doubt either of those ships had families on them. Likewise with the Tsiolkovsky.

Then again, the Tsiolkovsky had some 80 people aboard, when the crew requirement for ships of that design can be as low as seven (TNG "Interface"). Since the Tsiolkovsky was engaged in a longterm survey of a dying star, I wouldn't wonder a bit if some of the scientists brought along their families.

The point about childproofing the consoles is a good one; I don't see a reason to assume that any Starfleet ship type would be technologically incapable of accommodating a civilian presence, including young children. The assignment would be the defining factor.

I think we're using two different definitions of "military."

We could even be looking at three different ones.

Not too long ago, "military" referred to ground forces specifically, and was basically the opposite of "navy" or "naval". Said "military" had few if any noncombat roles, as a standing army was an economically unfeasible concept for any purpose other than active warfare. In sharp contrast, a navy back then could afford and indeed had to perform secondary roles, because a navy always has to be "standing" - a warship cannot be "drafted" at a moment's notice the same way a rifle batallion can.

Today, it is fashionable to define "military" as encompassing all "branches" of armed forces, including ground troops, navies, air assets, space assets, logistics, intelligence, communications and so forth. The playing field is different now, and there are no sharp contrasts between an army and a navy: both rely on permanently existing, hyperexpensive infrastructures and combat assets, and have to find peacetime justification for their existence. But the future is unknown, and in Star Trek, weird is par for the course.

It would explain a great many things if "military" again specifically referred to ground combat forces in the 22nd to 24th centuries. There would be perfect justification for Archer and Forrest's distrust of "the military" in ENT "The Expanse", then, even when the United Earth Starfleet itself clearly is a combat force, with Archer commanding a regular contingent of heavily armed troops aboard a heavily armed starship throughout the first two seasons - it would be classic interservices rivalry, with the "Navy" distrusting the "Army".

There would be justification for Picard's line in "Peak Performace", too. When he says outright that "Starfleet is not a military organization - our purpose is exploration", he could be expressing disgust at those subtypes of combat forces that concentrate solely on warfare. The 24th century Military would be like that, while the 24th century Navy, that is, UFP Starfleet, would not.

That is, Picard wouldn't be saying that Starfleet's sole purpose is exploration and that Starfleet doesn't do combat. He would be saying that Starfleet is an organization that can do other things besides combat (quoting as proof the fact that "their", that is, Picard's great warship's, current purpose was exploration), and thus shouldn't stoop down to the mindless war drills that are a defining part of ground forces (aka the Military) which in the 24th century have nothing else to do besides doing war and practicing for it.

The 24th century Military might not really be a bunch of warmongers, but the excuse for holding such a view would certainly exist if this suborganization had no secondary raison d'etre.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Families shouldn't be separated for five + years, and they could always send the civilians away in the shuttlecraft or stop by a station/colony on the way to battle (I never liked "Emissary.")

And, as shown with the Odyssey, that is what happens if there is time. The fleet being assembled for Wolf359 was thrown together so quickly they only had time to get to the fight, where every ship was needed badly.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

The assignment would be the defining factor.

I think this sums it up in a nutshell...the nature of the assignment and the expected length of deployment would be the determining factors.

 

[CaptainKirkFan]

Families shouldn't be separated for five + years, and they could always send the civilians away in the shuttlecraft or stop by a station/colony on the way to battle (I never liked "Emissary.")

And, as shown with the Odyssey, that is what happens if there is time. The fleet being assembled for Wolf359 was thrown together so quickly they only had time to get to the fight, where every ship was needed badly.

I know, but they still could have launched their shuttlecraft while enroute (in Enterprise they had Reed climb out of the ship while it was in warp, I don't see why they couldn't do the same with a shuttle.)

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

I tend to doubt either of those ships had families on them. Likewise with the Tsiolkovsky.

Then again, the Tsiolkovsky had some 80 people aboard, when the crew requirement for ships of that design can be as low as seven (TNG "Interface"). Since the Tsiolkovsky was engaged in a longterm survey of a dying star, I wouldn't wonder a bit if some of the scientists brought along their families.

The point about childproofing the consoles is a good one; I don't see a reason to assume that any Starfleet ship type would be technologically incapable of accommodating a civilian presence, including young children. The assignment would be the defining factor.

I think we're using two different definitions of "military."

We could even be looking at three different ones.

Not too long ago, "military" referred to ground forces specifically, and was basically the opposite of "navy" or "naval". Said "military" had few if any noncombat roles, as a standing army was an economically unfeasible concept for any purpose other than active warfare. In sharp contrast, a navy back then could afford and indeed had to perform secondary roles, because a navy always has to be "standing" - a warship cannot be "drafted" at a moment's notice the same way a rifle batallion can.

Today, it is fashionable to define "military" as encompassing all "branches" of armed forces, including ground troops, navies, air assets, space assets, logistics, intelligence, communications and so forth. The playing field is different now, and there are no sharp contrasts between an army and a navy: both rely on permanently existing, hyperexpensive infrastructures and combat assets, and have to find peacetime justification for their existence. But the future is unknown, and in Star Trek, weird is par for the course.

It would explain a great many things if "military" again specifically referred to ground combat forces in the 22nd to 24th centuries. There would be perfect justification for Archer and Forrest's distrust of "the military" in ENT "The Expanse", then, even when the United Earth Starfleet itself clearly is a combat force, with Archer commanding a regular contingent of heavily armed troops aboard a heavily armed starship throughout the first two seasons - it would be classic interservices rivalry, with the "Navy" distrusting the "Army".

There would be justification for Picard's line in "Peak Performace", too. When he says outright that "Starfleet is not a military organization - our purpose is exploration", he could be expressing disgust at those subtypes of combat forces that concentrate solely on warfare. The 24th century Military would be like that, while the 24th century Navy, that is, UFP Starfleet, would not.

That is, Picard wouldn't be saying that Starfleet's sole purpose is exploration and that Starfleet doesn't do combat. He would be saying that Starfleet is an organization that can do other things besides combat (quoting as proof the fact that "their", that is, Picard's great warship's, current purpose was exploration), and thus shouldn't stoop down to the mindless war drills that are a defining part of ground forces (aka the Military) which in the 24th century have nothing else to do besides doing war and practicing for it.

The 24th century Military might not really be a bunch of warmongers, but the excuse for holding such a view would certainly exist if this suborganization had no secondary raison d'etre.

Timo Saloniemi

One of the best posts I've read in a long time in regards to the whole "Is Starfleet a military?" debate.

 

[robjkay]

I tend to doubt either of those ships had families on them. Likewise with the Tsiolkovsky.

Then again, the Tsiolkovsky had some 80 people aboard, when the crew requirement for ships of that design can be as low as seven (TNG "Interface"). Since the Tsiolkovsky was engaged in a longterm survey of a dying star, I wouldn't wonder a bit if some of the scientists brought along their families.

The point about childproofing the consoles is a good one; I don't see a reason to assume that any Starfleet ship type would be technologically incapable of accommodating a civilian presence, including young children. The assignment would be the defining factor.

I think we're using two different definitions of "military."

We could even be looking at three different ones.

Not too long ago, "military" referred to ground forces specifically, and was basically the opposite of "navy" or "naval". Said "military" had few if any noncombat roles, as a standing army was an economically unfeasible concept for any purpose other than active warfare. In sharp contrast, a navy back then could afford and indeed had to perform secondary roles, because a navy always has to be "standing" - a warship cannot be "drafted" at a moment's notice the same way a rifle batallion can.

Today, it is fashionable to define "military" as encompassing all "branches" of armed forces, including ground troops, navies, air assets, space assets, logistics, intelligence, communications and so forth. The playing field is different now, and there are no sharp contrasts between an army and a navy: both rely on permanently existing, hyperexpensive infrastructures and combat assets, and have to find peacetime justification for their existence. But the future is unknown, and in Star Trek, weird is par for the course.

It would explain a great many things if "military" again specifically referred to ground combat forces in the 22nd to 24th centuries. There would be perfect justification for Archer and Forrest's distrust of "the military" in ENT "The Expanse", then, even when the United Earth Starfleet itself clearly is a combat force, with Archer commanding a regular contingent of heavily armed troops aboard a heavily armed starship throughout the first two seasons - it would be classic interservices rivalry, with the "Navy" distrusting the "Army".

There would be justification for Picard's line in "Peak Performace", too. When he says outright that "Starfleet is not a military organization - our purpose is exploration", he could be expressing disgust at those subtypes of combat forces that concentrate solely on warfare. The 24th century Military would be like that, while the 24th century Navy, that is, UFP Starfleet, would not.

That is, Picard wouldn't be saying that Starfleet's sole purpose is exploration and that Starfleet doesn't do combat. He would be saying that Starfleet is an organization that can do other things besides combat (quoting as proof the fact that "their", that is, Picard's great warship's, current purpose was exploration), and thus shouldn't stoop down to the mindless war drills that are a defining part of ground forces (aka the Military) which in the 24th century have nothing else to do besides doing war and practicing for it.

The 24th century Military might not really be a bunch of warmongers, but the excuse for holding such a view would certainly exist if this suborganization had no secondary raison d'etre.

Timo Saloniemi

Since when did the term of "military" only refer to ground forces? Unless we are talking about all the way back to the days of the Roman Empire, the term "military" refers to the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, & Coast Guard.

Also a standing army has always been economically feasible, but when a country has a large standing army. This is when it is not economically feasable, hence why after a war its military force is reduced to smaller numbers.

Also a military force does not need justification to exist in peacetime, being there is something going on or some type of threat.

 

[Timo]

The last reference I have seen on "military=army" was the excellent book British Battleships by Oscar Parkes, from 1957. Granted that Parkes is deliberately using arcane expressions for effect... But basically, it's around the Napoleonic times that "military" in English or French or German begins to take on the broader connotation of "armed forces" instead of solely describing the profession of the foot soldier, the cavalryman or (at times) the artilleryman.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[J.T.B.]

Since when did the term of "military" only refer to ground forces? Unless we are talking about all the way back to the days of the Roman Empire, the term "military" refers to the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, & Coast Guard.

It's pretty much always meant that, including today. My Merriam-Webster's says "of or relating to armed forces; esp of or relating to ground or sometimes ground and air forces as opposed to naval forces." Thus the US Military Academy and the Royal Military Academy as opposed to the US Naval Academy and the Royal Naval College; New York state's Department of Military and Naval Affairs and so on. Also, before and during WW2, the US Senate and House had Naval Affairs and Military Affairs committees, which were combined and re-titled Armed Services Committees after the war. Referring to all the armed forces as "military" has really only taken hold since World War II. The original title of the Department of Defense in 1947 was the "National Military Establishment," for instance.

Also a standing army has always been economically feasible, but when a country has a large standing army. This is when it is not economically feasable, hence why after a war its military force is reduced to smaller numbers.

Also a military force does not need justification to exist in peacetime, being there is something going on or some type of threat.

Certainly not historically true, but modern warfare is so technically complex that it's pretty much mandatory that some core of trained and experienced people be maintained in peacetime.

--Justin

 

[robjkay]

Since when did the term of "military" only refer to ground forces? Unless we are talking about all the way back to the days of the Roman Empire, the term "military" refers to the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, & Coast Guard.

It's pretty much always meant that, including today. My Merriam-Webster's says "of or relating to armed forces; esp of or relating to ground or sometimes ground and air forces as opposed to naval forces." Thus the US Military Academy and the Royal Military Academy as opposed to the US Naval Academy and the Royal Naval College; New York state's Department of Military and Naval Affairs and so on. Also, before and during WW2, the US Senate and House had Naval Affairs and Military Affairs committees, which were combined and re-titled Armed Services Committees after the war. Referring to all the armed forces as "military" has really only taken hold since World War II. The original title of the Department of Defense in 1947 was the "National Military Establishment," for instance.

No it has not always meant that! With over 15 years in the military not once has the term "military" only refer to ground soldiers!

Please read what Webster's actually said!
Military:
Funtion: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin militaris, from milit-, miles soldier Date: 15th century 1 a: of or relating to soldiers, arms, or war b: of or relating to armed forces; especially : of or relating to ground or sometimes ground and air forces as opposed to naval forces 2 a: performed or made by armed forces b: supported by armed force 3: of or relating to the army.

Wikipedia; The first recorded use of military in English, spelled militarie, was in 1585. It comes from the Latin militaris (from Latin miles meaning "soldier") but is of uncertain etymology, one suggestion being derived from *mil-it- - going in a body or mass The word is now identified as denoting someone that is skilled in use of weapons, or engaged in military service or in warfare.
As a noun the military usually refers generally to a country's armed forces or sometimes, more specifically, to the senior officers who command them.
As an adjective military originally applied only to soldiers and soldiering, but it soon broadened to apply to land forces in general and anything to do with their profession. The names of both the Royal Military Academy (1741) and United States Military Academy (1802) reflect this. However, at about the time of Napoleonic wars "military" begun to be applied to armed forces as a whole and in the 21st century expressions like "military service", "military intelligence" and "military history" reflect this broader meaning.

If there is any question what "armed forces" means, Webster says; The combined military, naval, and air forces of a nation —called also armed services

When the word "military" came out in the 15th century it was for ground soldiers. But by modern, today standards that go as far back to Nepoleonic wars the term "military" is for all branches of the armed forces (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard) which the definition points out.

Also a standing army has always been economically feasible, but when a country has a large standing army. This is when it is not economically feasable, hence why after a war its military force is reduced to smaller numbers.

Also a military force does not need justification to exist in peacetime, being there is something going on or some type of threat.

Certainly not historically true, but modern warfare is so technically complex that it's pretty much mandatory that some core of trained and experienced people be maintained in peacetime.

--Justin

Which means a country has kept a military force, due to this it means it is economically feasible!