When will the UFP crumble?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

At one point in 'Shockwave' I think, he mentioned that a Federation monument was missing.

That was because they were in an alternate timeline where the Federation was never formed.

I'm aware of that, but that wasn't the point of why I wrote it in my post.
Daniels was aware of the fact that with the time-line intact the monument would exist ... and the existence of such a monument could point to a direction ... read on in my post.

I'm still not sure what you mean. Daniels did note the absence of the monument, but that's the point - in his world, the monument WAS there. Are you implying that because there's a monument to the Federation in his time, then there was no Federation anymore? I didn't get that impression.

 

[captcalhoun]

it could've been a monument to the end of the UFP, a monument to its founding, to its 250th anniversary or the admission of its 200th member...

 

[USS KG5]

We know it apparently exists into the 29th Century. How big do you speculate it is by then? What other major powers still challenge the UFP in the Milky Way? Is the UFP in other galaxies?

When will the UFP fall? All great powers die eventually. Will the galaxy fall into chaos, or evolve past the UFP?

Just speculation....

You could argue that the Roman Empire still survives to this day - after all there is a massively powerful organisation wielding powerr worldwide that still bears its name!

In fact there was a "Holy Roman Empire" (famously not really holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire) into the 19th centruy - which had it's roots in the remnants of the Roman Empire.

Genuinely long lived organisations tend to suffer defeats and then evolve a bit - the Ottoman Empire lasted until the 20th century but was not wiped out, just evolved into the modern country of Turkey.

The Federation would have to change as time went by but there is no reason it would "fall" - it is not an Empire holding its people by force, it is more of a club.

Clubs - like NATO and the UN - tend to survive very well.

 

[Sci]

We know it apparently exists into the 29th Century. How big do you speculate it is by then? What other major powers still challenge the UFP in the Milky Way? Is the UFP in other galaxies?

When will the UFP fall? All great powers die eventually. Will the galaxy fall into chaos, or evolve past the UFP?

Just speculation....

You could argue that the Roman Empire still survives to this day - after all there is a massively powerful organisation wielding powerr worldwide that still bears its name!

In fact there was a "Holy Roman Empire" (famously not really holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire) into the 19th centruy - which had it's roots in the remnants of the Roman Empire.

Genuinely long lived organisations tend to suffer defeats and then evolve a bit - the Ottoman Empire lasted until the 20th century but was not wiped out, just evolved into the modern country of Turkey.

The Federation would have to change as time went by but there is no reason it would "fall" - it is not an Empire holding its people by force, it is more of a club.

Clubs - like NATO and the UN - tend to survive very well.

Well, there's never really been anything like the United Nations organization or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in history up until the 20th Century, so saying that a type of institution that has literally never existed until very recently tends to survive is a bit premature, I think.

Plus, the Federation isn't really like the UN or NATO. NATO is a defensive alliance, and the UN is simply an intergovernmental organization writ large. The Federation, on the other hand, is a genuine state in its own right, albeit one that gives its members far more autonomy than current federations like Canada or Germany or the US.

I would say that there's no way to apply historical trends from Earth to the Federation's ability to perpetuate itself, because there has literally never been an interstellar federal state comprised of citizens and citizenries of numerous different species. To say nothing of the fact that there's never really been a federation that allowed its members as much autonomy as the Federation presumably does. What I would say is that history does tend to suggest that large states comprised of members whose senses of identities are fragmented will tend to survive longer when it grants those members autonomy -- the Roman Empire lasted so long because it granted its conquered territories rights and autonomies so long as they bowed down to Rome, etc.

 

[Crewman47]

If the Federation were to still survive right into the 30th/31st century and in a way different to what we know of it in the 23rd and 24th century do you suppose Earth will still be the center of it or will the central Government be relocated to a more localised location? I mean the way I see it is if you compare it to the Galaxy in Star Wars which is a little smaller than our own but the central planet, Coruscant, is a lot larger and more suited for it's position than Earth is so if a Galactic Federation did exist then wouldn't it make sense to relocate to a different Planet?

 

[Sci]

If the Federation were to still survive right into the 30th/31st century and in a way different to what we know of it in the 23rd and 24th century do you suppose Earth will still be the center of it or will the central Government be relocated to a more localised location? I mean the way I see it is if you compare it to the Galaxy in Star Wars which is a little smaller than our own but the central planet, Coruscant, is a lot larger and more suited for it's position than Earth is so if a Galactic Federation did exist then wouldn't it make sense to relocate to a different Planet?

*shrugs* If technologies like transwarp are developed that allow nearly instantaneous travel across the galaxy, I don't know why the capital planet would be moved for any reason other than something purely symbolic (i.e., to a planet that's nearly centrally located in the galaxy and thus roughly equidistant to the outermost of the Member States). I mean, Washington, D.C., was chosen as the USA's capital because it was centrally located and roughly equidistant from the US's northernmost and southernmost borders in the late 18th Century, but they didn't move the American capital to Kansas when the US's borders expanded westward.

I don't really see that that would be necessary. Earth isn't the capital planet of the Federation because it's better or more important than any other Member; it's the capital because it was the "honest broker" that brought the rivalrous Andorians, Tellarites, and Vulcans together, the one that drove the creation of the Federation and whom the others trusted. There's historical value in keeping the capital on Earth -- it's part of the Federation heritage.

 

[Deks]

That was because they were in an alternate timeline where the Federation was never formed.

I'm aware of that, but that wasn't the point of why I wrote it in my post.
Daniels was aware of the fact that with the time-line intact the monument would exist ... and the existence of such a monument could point to a direction ... read on in my post.

I'm still not sure what you mean. Daniels did note the absence of the monument, but that's the point - in his world, the monument WAS there. Are you implying that because there's a monument to the Federation in his time, then there was no Federation anymore? I didn't get that impression.

I said it was one of the possibilities (nothing definitive) that the monument indicates the Federation did not exist anymore in the 31st century and was replaced by another organization that encompassed larger galactic powers in a unified alliance under a single name but was heavily based on the Federation.
There are a bunch other possibilities to consider of course ... I merely named one.

 

[USS KG5]

Well, there's never really been anything like the United Nations organization or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in history up until the 20th Century, so saying that a type of institution that has literally never existed until very recently tends to survive is a bit premature, I think.

Well -the United States has lasted since 1766 and is not in any serious danger of breaking up, and there is no reason to believe it ever will.

Plus, the Federation isn't really like the UN or NATO. NATO is a defensive alliance, and the UN is simply an intergovernmental organization writ large. The Federation, on the other hand, is a genuine state in its own right, albeit one that gives its members far more autonomy than current federations like Canada or Germany or the US.

Hmm - what makes you say that? The Federation is portrayed fairly inconsistently in this regard, but it seems to do very little to control internal affairs, and indeed seems to follow a middle ground between the UN and the USA in terms of the way it works.

I would say that there's no way to apply historical trends from Earth to the Federation's ability to perpetuate itself, because there has literally never been an interstellar federal state comprised of citizens and citizenries of numerous different species.

Which renders the whole thread moot if you go down this road.

To say nothing of the fact that there's never really been a federation that allowed its members as much autonomy as the Federation presumably does.

Yeah there is - the UN, or if you prefer, the European Union - which is a political alliance of independent countries. The only difference between the EU and the Federation as seen is the lack of a unified military.

What I would say is that history does tend to suggest that large states comprised of members whose senses of identities are fragmented will tend to survive longer when it grants those members autonomy -- the Roman Empire lasted so long because it granted its conquered territories rights and autonomies so long as they bowed down to Rome, etc.

Agreed - the tighter the grasp, the shorter the time you can afford to hang on.

 

[Sci]

Well, there's never really been anything like the United Nations organization or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in history up until the 20th Century, so saying that a type of institution that has literally never existed until very recently tends to survive is a bit premature, I think.

Well -the United States has lasted since 1766 and is not in any serious danger of breaking up, and there is no reason to believe it ever will.

1776, actually. Although there's some disagreement over whether the United States that existed between the Declaration of Independence and the adoption of the Constitution can be said to have been a state or an alliance of states, and whether or not it is therefore actually the same entity as the current United States. But I digress.

Plus, the Federation isn't really like the UN or NATO. NATO is a defensive alliance, and the UN is simply an intergovernmental organization writ large. The Federation, on the other hand, is a genuine state in its own right, albeit one that gives its members far more autonomy than current federations like Canada or Germany or the US.

Hmm - what makes you say that? The Federation is portrayed fairly inconsistently in this regard, but it seems to do very little to control internal affairs, and indeed seems to follow a middle ground between the UN and the USA in terms of the way it works.

Not really. The Federation possesses all of the characteristics of a state: It has its own military in Starfleet, it has a government with an executive (the President) who is commander-in-chief of that military and who conducts foreign relations, it has a legislature with the power to pass legally binding law throughout the Federation, and it has a Supreme Court that is the ultimate arbiter of legal disputes in the UFP. It has an extensive bureaucracy, its Constitution protects fundamental rights, its Charter is the supreme law of the land (or space), and its government is capable of overriding Member State governments in declaring martial law. There's next to nothing about the Federation that's UN-like -- it has a UN-ish flag and the people who decided if Coridan would join it were called "Ambassadors" in "Journey to Babel." That's about it.

It's probably fair to say that when the Federation was created in early TOS, it was meant to be a UN in space, but later portrayals -- especially in Star Trek VI and DS9 -- have made it pretty clear that the Federation has all of the traits that we associate with a state, traits that the UN, as an intergovernmental organization that lacks sovereignty, does not have.

To say nothing of the fact that there's never really been a federation that allowed its members as much autonomy as the Federation presumably does.

Yeah there is - the UN, or if you prefer, the European Union - which is a political alliance of independent countries. The only difference between the EU and the Federation as seen is the lack of a unified military.

Well, see, the United Nations is not an alliance or a federation. It is an intergovernmental organization composed of sovereign states who are members. It has no sovereign power of its own -- its stated purpose is to facilitate cooperation on various international issues, including international law and world peace. Membership is voluntary, and the UN does not have plenary power over its Member States. It can't tax anyone, it doesn't have a dedicated military, and when it makes a decision, it needs the support of the majority of its member governments.

In other words, sovereign states are the equivalent of individual people, and the UN is the equivalent of, say, a Rotary Club. It's a voluntary association of sovereign states lacking plenary power in its own right.

The European Union is a better comparison, but here we enter tricky waters, because the EU is still evolving. The peoples of Europe may well decide one day to allow the European Union to evolve into its own genuine state, but as it stands now, the EU Member States are still "masters of the treaty," and the EU still only has authorities that they delegate to it. And the ultimate test of statehood is possessing a legal right to legitimately use force, and the EU lacks this (as does the UN). The Federation, on the other hand, has been possessed exercising the legitimate right to use force on numerous occasions. The EU may well continue to evolve into an out-and-out state at some point, but for now, it's more accurate to refer to it as an intergovernmental organization that has had some, but not all, of the plenary powers of its Member States delegated to it, but lacking the authority to keep those powers should the Member States withdraw them.

The majority of indicators we have with the Federation its that while its member states retain a great deal of autonomy, they're not truly independent anymore. That's the key difference -- no one talks about Vulcan policy towards the Klingons or Andorian negotiations with the Cardassians.

 

[Deks]

The EU might be the only organization that resembles the Federation in a small fashion, but there ARE vast differences between the two as well.

Using contemporary or historical aspects to compare with the Federation is not exactly viable since we are looking at a different organization set in space in which there is no money, is technologically developed (far ahead in comparison to us at the moment), it's not an empire, it has a unified military and resources are shared freely throughout it ... also spans 8000 Ly's and has an entirely different set of rules.

If you want to be able to look at it better, you wouldn't be able to apply historical or temporary aspects to Trek regardless of how you put it ...
I think there is a good possibility that what the TV show portrayed was a fairly inaccurate representation of the Federation and that if you were to suddenly go into a universe and time where it exists, it would in fact be quite different in it's function than what was displayed onscreen (which was essentially watered down so the 'common' people could 'relate' to it somehow ... and there were a lot of inconsistencies about many things throughout the series).

 

[USS KG5]

1776, actually. Although there's some disagreement over whether the United States that existed between the Declaration of Independence and the adoption of the Constitution can be said to have been a state or an alliance of states, and whether or not it is therefore actually the same entity as the current United States. But I digress.

Sorry - believe it or not that was a typo.

Not really. The Federation possesses all of the characteristics of a state: It has its own military in Starfleet, it has a government with an executive (the President) who is commander-in-chief of that military and who conducts foreign relations, it has a legislature with the power to pass legally binding law throughout the Federation, and it has a Supreme Court that is the ultimate arbiter of legal disputes in the UFP.

The EU has all these though - perhaps a better model than the UN.

There's next to nothing about the Federation that's UN-like -- it has a UN-ish flag and the people who decided if Coridan would join it were called "Ambassadors" in "Journey to Babel." That's about it.

I'd say the Feds are at their most UN-like in Journey to Babel. In fact I'd say there is a fairly good argument that Starfleet only became the unified military for everyone at around this time.

It's probably fair to say that when the Federation was created in early TOS, it was meant to be a UN in space, but later portrayals -- especially in Star Trek VI and DS9 -- have made it pretty clear that the Federation has all of the traits that we associate with a state, traits that the UN, as an intergovernmental organization that lacks sovereignty, does not have.

I sorta concur here - I think that from its creation at the end of ENT through to the end of DS9 the Federation got more and more state like, though I suspect its Federal government still has somewhat less power than the US over internal affairs of member planets.

Well, see, the United Nations is not an alliance or a federation. It is an intergovernmental organization composed of sovereign states who are members. It has no sovereign power of its own -- its stated purpose is to facilitate cooperation on various international issues, including international law and world peace. Membership is voluntary, and the UN does not have plenary power over its Member States. It can't tax anyone, it doesn't have a dedicated military, and when it makes a decision, it needs the support of the majority of its member governments.

Well membership of the Federation is voluntary, and tax is never mentioned. Also lets remember the "United Nations" was a name originally given to the victorious military alliance of WW2. It seems to have lost it's teeth over the years.

The European Union is a better comparison, but here we enter tricky waters, because the EU is still evolving. The peoples of Europe may well decide one day to allow the European Union to evolve into its own genuine state, but as it stands now, the EU Member States are still "masters of the treaty," and the EU still only has authorities that they delegate to it.

Actually, the EU has a LOT of power that states can only really take back by leaving. The European Court over-rules many others, and its power is a source of great controversy.

And the ultimate test of statehood is possessing a legal right to legitimately use force, and the EU lacks this (as does the UN).

Thr UN has had several wars - Korea was definitely the UN's war, and the Gulf arguably was as well.

The majority of indicators we have with the Federation its that while its member states retain a great deal of autonomy, they're not truly independent anymore. That's the key difference -- no one talks about Vulcan policy towards the Klingons or Andorian negotiations with the Cardassians.

Except in Journey to Babel - though of course this is the "early" Federation.

 

[Sci]

1776, actually. Although there's some disagreement over whether the United States that existed between the Declaration of Independence and the adoption of the Constitution can be said to have been a state or an alliance of states, and whether or not it is therefore actually the same entity as the current United States. But I digress.

Sorry - believe it or not that was a typo.

I believe it -- though it's not like it's a huge deal to make that sort of mistake about another country's founding date. I couldn't tell you off the bat when Canada was confederated or when federation in Australia took place, and until recently I couldn't have told you when the Acts of Union were passed.

Not really. The Federation possesses all of the characteristics of a state: It has its own military in Starfleet, it has a government with an executive (the President) who is commander-in-chief of that military and who conducts foreign relations, it has a legislature with the power to pass legally binding law throughout the Federation, and it has a Supreme Court that is the ultimate arbiter of legal disputes in the UFP.

The EU has all these though - perhaps a better model than the UN.

The European Union is almost certainly a better model than the United Nations. The interesting thing will be to see if the European Union evolves into a much more state-like institution in the next few decades....

I'd say the Feds are at their most UN-like in Journey to Babel. In fact I'd say there is a fairly good argument that Starfleet only became the unified military for everyone at around this time.

Hmm. If we were going by TOS alone, that would actually be a very valid argument. It's almost inevitable that there would have been conflicts within the Federation's first hundred years about the divisions of power between the Federation government and its members' governments. (There were similar conflicts over the division of power between the US federal and state governments during its first century, too -- the Nullification Crisis, Bleeding Kansas, the slavery debates, and the Civil War immediately come to mind.)

It would nicely explain why Kirk refers to the Enterprise as a United Earth ship in early episodes (and would also explain why the Federation Starfleet has basically the same name as ENT's UE Starfleet). However, later series seem to rather firmly put the founding of the Federation Starfleet in 2161 along with the Federation itself as a separate institution -- TNG's establishing Starfleet Academy as having been founded in 2161, for instance. Still, it's an interesting theory worth pondering. (Perhaps JJ Abrams' upcoming film will shed some light on it?)

For what it's worth, the novel Articles of the Federation by Keith RA DeCandido establishes that the UE and UFP Starfleets are separate institutions.

But, yeah, the Federation is definitely depicted as being far more UN-like in "Journey to Babel" than in later depictions.

It's probably fair to say that when the Federation was created in early TOS, it was meant to be a UN in space, but later portrayals -- especially in Star Trek VI and DS9 -- have made it pretty clear that the Federation has all of the traits that we associate with a state, traits that the UN, as an intergovernmental organization that lacks sovereignty, does not have.

I sorta concur here - I think that from its creation at the end of ENT through to the end of DS9 the Federation got more and more state like, though I suspect its Federal government still has somewhat less power than the US over internal affairs of member planets.

I agree. One interesting question to consider is, when the Federation was established in 2161, was it meant to be more of a coalition/alliance of sovereign states, was it meant to be a state in its own right (as the name implies), or was it mean to be EU-ish (somewhere in between)? Depictions of the Federation in the TOS films and TNG era seem to depicted it as being rather unambiguously a state, but within the history of ST, perhaps the Federation evolved into a state over time?

It's an interesting question to consider. If I had to guess, I would tend to imagine that the Federation might have been rather like the US under the Constitution -- in other words, the founders of the Federation may have deliberately tried to avoid answering the question of whether the central or member governments would be the ones who hold sovereignty, adopting a "We'll figure it out later" attitude that the Founding Fathers of the United States adopted. (Asked whether sovereignty would belong to the federal or state governments, James Madison rather famously avoided the issue by saying that it belonged to the people of the United States and not to either government....)

Well, see, the United Nations is not an alliance or a federation. It is an intergovernmental organization composed of sovereign states who are members. It has no sovereign power of its own -- its stated purpose is to facilitate cooperation on various international issues, including international law and world peace. Membership is voluntary, and the UN does not have plenary power over its Member States. It can't tax anyone, it doesn't have a dedicated military, and when it makes a decision, it needs the support of the majority of its member governments.

Well membership of the Federation is voluntary, and tax is never mentioned.

Well, membership in the US is voluntary -- joining, anyway. The question is whether or not continued membership in the Federation is voluntary. Continued membership in the Union is rather famously compulsory in the United States (except, founding father James Madison noted, in the event of a revolution undertaken to secure the people's natural rights from the abuses of a corrupted government). Whereas a United Nations member state can leave the UN unilaterally, since the UN is essentially a voluntary club rather than an actual state.

Taxes are, indeed, never mentioned -- but given that the Federation possesses all of the other traits of a state, I rather imagine that during the pre-end-of-scarcity-coming-with-the-invention-of-the-replicator era, the Federation possessed the power to tax. It certainly possessed the power to regulate many forms of commercial transactions ("Mudd's Women").

Also lets remember the "United Nations" was a name originally given to the victorious military alliance of WW2. It seems to have lost it's teeth over the years.

Yeah -- although it's important to note that the United Nations of World War II was a separate institution from the United Nations established in 1945 (originally called the United Nations Organization, or UNO), although it did come into being as a result of the wartime alliance.

The European Union is a better comparison, but here we enter tricky waters, because the EU is still evolving. The peoples of Europe may well decide one day to allow the European Union to evolve into its own genuine state, but as it stands now, the EU Member States are still "masters of the treaty," and the EU still only has authorities that they delegate to it.

Actually, the EU has a LOT of power that states can only really take back by leaving. The European Court over-rules many others, and its power is a source of great controversy.

As I understand it -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- de jure, the EU Member States are the ones who extend to the EU its various authorities, and the EU itself cannot assume an authority without the Member States' approval. As I understand it, the Member States could, de jure, retake those authorities anytime they want, although they would have to act on concert in doing so and it would, therefore, be virtually impossible to affect such a change because of a lack of political will, but not because of any legal barrier. The Member States remain masters of the treaty with ultimate authority that they've legally delegated but retain ownership of if they so choose (though making that choice would be unrealistically difficult).

Even if I'm misunderstanding the situation is wrong, though, the ability to end the EU's authority by leaving the EU unilaterally (without necessitating a revolution undertaken to secure natural rights from an abusive government) is still a major difference between the EU and a genuine state.

And the ultimate test of statehood is possessing a legal right to legitimately use force, and the EU lacks this (as does the UN).

Thr UN has had several wars - Korea was definitely the UN's war, and the Gulf arguably was as well.

Well, sort of. The Korean War was fought in part under the United Nations Flag under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 82 through 85. Those Resolutions requested that United Nations Member States render military aid to South Korea and that they place their forces under a UN-established Unified Command with the United States being put in overall charge of the Unified Command and designating one of their own officers (United States Army General Douglas MacArthur) as commander-in-chief.

Similarly, the Persian Gulf War was fought by US and allied forces operating under United Nations Security Council Resolution 678, which, again, requested Member States to provide military support in protecting Saudi Arabia and repelling Iraq from Kuwait.

In other words, for the duration of the Korean and Persian Gulf Wars, the UN established a military alliance of its member states, in the same way that NATO's member states will put their forces under a unified NATO command structure. But that's not the same thing as actually possessing the legal capacity to declare a state of war, a power still reserved by UN Member States (though, of course, the effect is the same -- people shooting each other).

The majority of indicators we have with the Federation its that while its member states retain a great deal of autonomy, they're not truly independent anymore. That's the key difference -- no one talks about Vulcan policy towards the Klingons or Andorian negotiations with the Cardassians.

Except in Journey to Babel - though of course this is the "early" Federation.

True. Something else to consider, is that "Journey to Babel" makes it clear that the various Members of the Federation are damn near ready to go to war with one-another, suggesting that the Federation was on the verge of a civil war. As such, the procedures it operated under with regards to admitting Coridan may not have been what it normally operates under when its society isn't on the verge of self-destruction.

 

[AlanC9]

And of course, the ability of Federation members to go to war with one another implies that separate navies still exist in the TOS era. It might be that the crisis convinced everyone that letting the members maintain their own warships wasn't a sensible policy.

 

[USS KG5]

Even if I'm misunderstanding the situation is wrong, though, the ability to end the EU's authority by leaving the EU unilaterally (without necessitating a revolution undertaken to secure natural rights from an abusive government) is still a major difference between the EU and a genuine state.

I think the bottom line is anyone can leave the EU but no-one would want to, for all the harping on about giving away power (and the European Court is the highest ranking judiciary for members I believe, so pretty big stuff) the economic benefits are too big.

Admittedly this situation generally is poorly explored in Trek - the show's general attitude seems to be "well why would you leave the Federation??" which is fine and dandy, but doesn't help us much here of course.

It is also possible there are different levels of integration with the Federation, to the extent that some membersw are only tenuously linked. It seems to confuse young Wesley Crusher at one point ot the stage that he thinks the Klingons have "joined" the Federation .

In other words, for the duration of the Korean and Persian Gulf Wars, the UN established a military alliance of its member states, in the same way that NATO's member states will put their forces under a unified NATO command structure. But that's not the same thing as actually possessing the legal capacity to declare a state of war, a power still reserved by UN Member States (though, of course, the effect is the same -- people shooting each other).

Agreed - in fact I think the whole concept of nationalism as we know it is probably abandoned by the Trek era, because even the United Earth seems to be gradually combining it's forces by the ENT era (though of course we know the Royal Navy existed until very recently).

True. Something else to consider, is that "Journey to Babel" makes it clear that the various Members of the Federation are damn near ready to go to war with one-another, suggesting that the Federation was on the verge of a civil war. As such, the procedures it operated under with regards to admitting Coridan may not have been what it normally operates under when its society isn't on the verge of self-destruction.

Well it is possible even into the 24th century that the Tellarites, Vulcans and Andorians still dislike each other, they just tolerate each other.

After all the secrewt of lasting peace is not for everyone to get along, it is not desiring to kill those whom you don't get on with.

 

[Finn]

^perhaps for the older generations. But its more likely that those born in the late 24th Century, so far removed from an era(s) when they still had hostilities such as war, don't see them any differently from Betazoids, Bolians and Bynars.

 

[Sci]

And of course, the ability of Federation members to go to war with one another implies that separate navies still exist in the TOS era. It might be that the crisis convinced everyone that letting the members maintain their own warships wasn't a sensible policy.

It's entirely possible that separate space forces still exist even into the 24th Century, operating alongside Starfleet. After all, the US states still retain their state Air and Army National Guards and their state defense forces.

 

[Sci]

Even if I'm misunderstanding the situation is wrong, though, the ability to end the EU's authority by leaving the EU unilaterally (without necessitating a revolution undertaken to secure natural rights from an abusive government) is still a major difference between the EU and a genuine state.

I think the bottom line is anyone can leave the EU but no-one would want to, for all the harping on about giving away power (and the European Court is the highest ranking judiciary for members I believe, so pretty big stuff) the economic benefits are too big.

Admittedly this situation generally is poorly explored in Trek - the show's general attitude seems to be "well why would you leave the Federation??" which is fine and dandy, but doesn't help us much here of course.

It is also possible there are different levels of integration with the Federation, to the extent that some membersw are only tenuously linked. It seems to confuse young Wesley Crusher at one point ot the stage that he thinks the Klingons have "joined" the Federation .

That's possible, but I'm more inclined to just ignore that part of "Samaritan Snare" and assume that the Klingon Empire never joined the Federation, as later writers decided.

We do know that the Federation can enter into a protective alliance with another state, designating them as Federation Protectorates, but that's all we know as far as the "multiple levels of membership" idea goes. Personally, I think that the idea of multiple levels of membership flies in the face of the idea of equality before the law, so I doubt it exists.

In other words, for the duration of the Korean and Persian Gulf Wars, the UN established a military alliance of its member states, in the same way that NATO's member states will put their forces under a unified NATO command structure. But that's not the same thing as actually possessing the legal capacity to declare a state of war, a power still reserved by UN Member States (though, of course, the effect is the same -- people shooting each other).

Agreed - in fact I think the whole concept of nationalism as we know it is probably abandoned by the Trek era, because even the United Earth seems to be gradually combining it's forces by the ENT era (though of course we know the Royal Navy existed until very recently).

The sense that I get is that nationalism in the sense of, "My nation is better than yours and yours should bow down before mine" is dead, but nationalism in the sense of "I am proud of the historical accomplishments and unique culture of my nation while still recognizing, respecting, and taking pride in other nations' histories and accomplishments" is not. But that's just me.

True. Something else to consider, is that "Journey to Babel" makes it clear that the various Members of the Federation are damn near ready to go to war with one-another, suggesting that the Federation was on the verge of a civil war. As such, the procedures it operated under with regards to admitting Coridan may not have been what it normally operates under when its society isn't on the verge of self-destruction.

Well it is possible even into the 24th century that the Tellarites, Vulcans and Andorians still dislike each other, they just tolerate each other.

After all the secrewt of lasting peace is not for everyone to get along, it is not desiring to kill those whom you don't get on with.

Pretty true. Even to this day, there's a lot of rivalry between Yankees and Southerners, for instance, or between Englishmen and Scotsmen. The question is not, "Do they like each other?," it's, "Will they pursue disunity or violence?"

 

[USS KG5]

That's possible, but I'm more inclined to just ignore that part of "Samaritan Snare" and assume that the Klingon Empire never joined the Federation, as later writers decided.

Oh I agree - but I think that logically that there is no real way everything is integrated from day one - it might take 50 years to fully integrate, as part of a multi-stage process.

The sense that I get is that nationalism in the sense of, "My nation is better than yours and yours should bow down before mine" is dead, but nationalism in the sense of "I am proud of the historical accomplishments and unique culture of my nation while still recognizing, respecting, and taking pride in other nations' histories and accomplishments" is not. But that's just me.

Oh I agree here - I'm fiercely proud to be British, but I no longer possess the desire to invade France.

Pretty true. Even to this day, there's a lot of rivalry between Yankees and Southerners, for instance, or between Englishmen and Scotsmen. The question is not, "Do they like each other?," it's, "Will they pursue disunity or violence?"

Yep.

 

[Red Ranger]

People,

Another aspect to consider that was only touched upon in brief a few times in TOS -- the Neutral Planets. mentioned in Journey to Babel. What is their relationship with the Federation, the Romulans, the Klingons, etc.? Are they an interstellar version of Switzerland, for example? Would they inevitably join the Federation if it spanned the entire Milky Way galaxy, or would there always be holdouts?

Red Ranger

 

[captcalhoun]

Pretty true. Even to this day, there's a lot of rivalry between Yankees and Southerners, for instance, or between Englishmen and Scotsmen. The question is not, "Do they like each other?," it's, "Will they pursue disunity or violence?"

Yep.

so we can beat up on the Germans