Families on ships

[J.T.B.]

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.

Read what I wrote again. I didn't say the term couldn't refer to armed forces collectively, but that the ground-forces-only meaning was the original and is still used today. The dictionary definition you quoted is the same as I did, that says the word especially refers to ground forces only.

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.

I believe your contention earlier was that the word had been synonymous with armed forces ever since the Roman Empire, not the 15th century. At any rate, I already cited examples of the original "military" usage that antedate the Napoleonic Wars by more than a century, and there are many more. The Royal Flying Corps was created in 1912 with a Military Wing and a Naval Wing. The Military Cross and Military Medal were instituted by the British government during WW1 for army personnel only. My 1959 Encyclopaedia Britannica has a section on "Military Science" articles, which deal exclusively with armies and land forces, and a different section on "Naval Science." Even today many diplomatic missions include a military attaché, an army officer, and a naval attaché, a naval officer. The examples can go on and on, but what's the point? I already said that the usage of "military" to refer collectively to armed forces has become prevalent since WW2.

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!

Yes, or it is unfeasible, economically or otherwise, not to do it.

--Justin

 

[BenRoethig]

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.

High power phaser arrays and photon torpedo are not defensive weapons. Defensive weapons would be something similar to CWIS.

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.

Defiant was an escort. The term explorer is, like I said for political correctness purposes. With the exception of the Oberth, every starship we have seen has been designed to various degrees for heavy combat. Having other primary roles does not change that. As I've said before, most exploration is done by military units.

 

[Timo]

...It should be noted that the hospital ship USS Pasteur was also heavily armed with long, thick phaser strips in "All Good Things..", even though Worf declared the weaponry "not a match" for what the future Klingon cruisers had.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the Trek equivalent for 16 inch naval cannon is in fact readily applicable as a civilian tool. The heavy phasers of a starship can be and are used for excavation work, or for "defending" targets from cometary impacts. A hospital ship might well have a legitimate civilian use for a heavy phaser in sorting through rubble at disaster sites, or diverting the flow of rivers, etc.

FWIW, the TNG Technical Manual tries to suggest that modern Starfleet weaponry is the offspring of systems and devices originally used for meteoroid sweeping and such. Sheer propaganda, of course, but perhaps with a kernel of truth in it?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[robjkay]

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.

Read what I wrote again. I didn't say the term couldn't refer to armed forces collectively, but that the ground-forces-only meaning was the original and is still used today. The dictionary definition you quoted is the same as I did, that says the word especially refers to ground forces only.

Yes originally it meant ground forces of which you said until recently it still meant that which is untrue. Also the definition of "military" if you read it does not strickly refer to only ground forces. "2 a: performed or made by armed forces"

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.

I believe your contention earlier was that the word had been synonymous with armed forces ever since the Roman Empire, not the 15th century. At any rate, I already cited examples of the original "military" usage that antedate the Napoleonic Wars by more than a century, and there are many more. The Royal Flying Corps was created in 1912 with a Military Wing and a Naval Wing. The Military Cross and Military Medal were instituted by the British government during WW1 for army personnel only. My 1959 Encyclopaedia Britannica has a section on "Military Science" articles, which deal exclusively with armies and land forces, and a different section on "Naval Science." Even today many diplomatic missions include a military attaché, an army officer, and a naval attaché, a naval officer. The examples can go on and on, but what's the point? I already said that the usage of "military" to refer collectively to armed forces has become prevalent since WW2.

And what does Royal Flying Corps, Military Cross, and Military Science have to do with the term military? Anyway the term "military" begun to be applied to armed forces as a whole during the Nepoleonic wars and not WW2. Ether way it was not something that happened too long ago.

Also I never said that the word had been synonymous with armed forces ever since the Roman Empire. I asked are we (or you) going all the way back to the Roman Empire of which when I looked up the term "military" which was created sometime during the 15th century.

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!

Yes, or it is unfeasible, economically or otherwise, not to do it.

--Justin

Well if it was unfeasible, economically or otherwise, then nobody would have any form of military.

 

[robjkay]

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.

High power phaser arrays and photon torpedo are not defensive weapons. Defensive weapons would be something similar to CWIS.

Phasers, photon torpedoes are used to protect a ship hence making them defensive weapons, SF has to protect there ships somehow! Also during ST we have never seen anything like a CWIS.

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.

Defiant was an escort. The term explorer is, like I said for political correctness purposes. With the exception of the Oberth, every starship we have seen has been designed to various degrees for heavy combat. Having other primary roles does not change that. As I've said before, most exploration is done by military units.

Check again!

Voy: Drone

 

[J.T.B.]

Yes originally it meant ground forces of which you said until recently it still meant that which is untrue. Also the definition of "military" if you read it does not strickly refer to only ground forces. "2 a: performed or made by armed forces"

You're missing my point. All I was saying is that the earlier, stricter definition is still in use. Obviously, that does not preclude the newer definition from being prevalent.

And what does Royal Flying Corps, Military Cross, and Military Science have to do with the term military?

Those are all examples of "military" being distinct from "naval."

Also I never said that the word had been synonymous with armed forces ever since the Roman Empire. I asked are we (or you) going all the way back to the Roman Empire of which when I looked up the term "military" which was created sometime during the 15th century.

OK, but that's not how your sentence read.

--Justin

 

[Timewalker]

You have to wonder what sort of psychological problems that the kids on-board developed.

Woken in the middle of the night on a regular basis by alarms and the computer screaming "Warp core breach in progress".

Skipping to school and watching a part of the ship being pulled out and crewmen sucked to their deaths.

Being phased, gassed or knocked out by the alien of the week.

Having nightmares because they are unable to sleep for days on end.

Etc etc..

I bet they all developed twitches and coke habits.

Since it's standard practice to have a Ship's Counselor on board, it would not be difficult to notice if any child is having psychological problems stemming from living on board the ship. If necessary, alternate arrangements could be made for the child's care.

I think that Trek's way of dealing with things is that parents in that universe don't raise their kids under a glass bell.
As a result, they'd be far more capable of dealing with whatever life throws at them better than contemporary kids.

Strictly speaking, we never got much of a look at 23rd and 24th century kids in general -- just Starfleet kids. And considering the differences in planetary cultures, I would suggest there really isn't a "normal" standard for raising children, other than the obvious requirement that they be nurtured and taught to become productive adults in whatever culture they're part of.

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?

Every crewmember has a "battle station" that includes standard actions to perform. The same would apply to civilians; in the case of children, that would mean they would go to their quarters and do whatever other actions were required for their safety.

 

[nx1701g]

I have to add fuel to the fire of the Federation Military. In Deep Space Nine there are times where they call Starfleet "The Federation Navy".

As for families on Starships. In the novel's (yes noncanon blah blah blah) the decision to stop allowing families on Starships came after the destruction of the E-D and the Odyssey because of the number of noncombatants/civilians that would have been killed. I believe in one of the Q novels (it was the trilogy a few years ago) they refer to it as the Enterprise Doctrine.

 

[robjkay]

I have to add fuel to the fire of the Federation Military. In Deep Space Nine there are times where they call Starfleet "The Federation Navy".

I don't think the reference "Federation Navy" was ever used in DS9. If it was, what episode was it stated in?

 

[Vonstadt]

I quote James T. Kirk in Errand of Mercy, when appealing to the council or Organia

"Gentlemen I am a Soldier, not a diplomat"

I always saw Starfleet as a mix of the source material The English Navy of Horatio Hornblower and the U.S. Navy of Today.

There for Defense of it's country and yet while maintaining such a defense it travels (using the best tech available for defense) and preforms exploration, scientific and even ambassadorial duties as well.

A sort of floating and in Star Trek's time a Flying all purpose arm of the government they represent.

Such as in Amok Time, during the change of government Starfleet and the Federation demanded a presence of Three Starship to be in orbit to show the flag as a display of Strength to the unstable region.

Jaques Costeau (spelling I know) 's Calypso would hardly serve such a purpose, neither would the Space Shuttle nor a Soyuz Capsule from Russia.

Militaries can be benevolant and like the Modern US Navy can be heavily involved in scientific investigation and research when required.

I have served and as most know, no one loathes war, battle and conflict more than a soldier, sailor, airman, marine, or coast guardsmen. If orders came down to facilitate a scientific team, most in our Military would gladly stand to and salute with a hardy 'Yes Sir/Ma'am"

It's why i always found it amusing since TNG that it always became necessary to point how much Starfleet was not a military organization. Or how to squish it into a box calling it an armed NASA and or make weird Coast Guard References (as if they weren't military themselves). For me it always felt a little like retconning what had been established in TOS. I mean even the draconian General Order 24 reminded me of a Nuclear submarine....yet it so impressed me as a child to see a organization that has such a protocol and then yet have the maturity and responsibility NOT to use it. Yet be prepared in case such an extreme situation requires it (Please don't ask me what that might be, I've never been quite sure...a war protocol...a deterent....containment of severe biological outbreak...etc. *shrugs* who can say)

However I will say when i first heard about the families aboard the Galaxy Class I was impressed. The first thought that came to my mind was this is going to be about deep deep deep exploration. Roddenbury was finally gonna be doing his wagon train to the stars....a city in space...heading off into the deep unknown.

I was supportive of the idea then, gone for more than I think they mentioned two decades? four times the original five years journey....So It made sense. A flying frontior community ...Sorta a F troop kinda flying base with the town that supports it.

When it didnt make sense was when the Ent-D remain relatively local. I think then as we saw on the Saratoga and others that it was a relative disaster and an unecessary risk.

Still a very neat concept though for deep deep space patrolling, I just wish they had explored that a bit more in depth.

Just my two cents sorry for the long post