Which, in the context of the existence of the human race, is a relatively recent innovation. Like the related concepts of Absolute Monarchy, Fascism, religious fanaticism, resource scarcity and punitive justice, I do not expect them to last forever. And apparently neither does Star Trek.
Not exactly. Police forces have this role as well, as do mercenary groups and corporations. We do not define them as "militaries" because it is inconvenient to do so, since it confuses what we define a "military" to be. Starfleet is not defined as a military for the same reason: the Federation doesn't think of it AS a military and doesn't treat it as such. What WE think about it is basically irrelevant, because that is clearly not what THEY think about it. Just like they don't think of the Tantalus Colony as a gulag (and like many Americans are reluctant to describe Guantanamo Bay along the same lines. Tomatoe. Tomahtoe...)
Indeed. The Federation has a mechanism in place to regulate resources in exchanges with other cultures and even within itself. It's just that, you can only hear so many characters just flat out and say "We don't use money anymore" before you begin to BELIEVE them.
Yes, by the arbitrary definition of "military" established in 20th century international parlance. This particular useage of the word is less than 200 years old when it was broadened to also include naval forces. I don't consider it a leap to imagine that this could change again 200 years from now.
Only if you can find me the appropriate wiki article published some time in the 2230s. Otherwise, you're just extrapolating a narrow set of 20th century English terms onto what is explicitly described as an interplanetary organization some 200 years in the future. This would be like an 18th century musketeer pointing at the NYPD and calling it "The Militia."
Well "what the characters have said" is pretty concise in this regard and I am not prepared to accept the explanation that they were just bullshitting. As for Federation documentation and/or policy statements (which I assume you're asking for) I don't think such a thing has ever been introduced in canon at all to establish the matter one way or the other, in fact the official record is vague enough that other organizations could well exist completely independent of Starfleet both for combat and for exploration (the Vulcan Science academy and the mysterious UESPA being candidates for the latter).
Depends on the circumstances and what country you're in. In the U.S., for example, the posse commititus act prohibits regular military forces from operating on US soil, so a large scale incursion by, say, foreign terrorists or a well armed anarchist/Dominionist/whatever militia, then law enforcement agencies would have to mobilize to deal with that. Many other countries--Iran, for example--include local police forces in the order of battle in the event of foreign invasion (actually, so do most countries that have experienced invasion in the last four decades or so).
Which doesn't change the fact that both have been considered "military" organizations at various times in the past (and Blackwater USA was even considered part of Rumsfeld's "total force" and defined as a kind of Daywalker: a military organization that isn't subject to military justice).
More like two million, but even accepting 200,000 years, the invention of a concept in the last 3000 (1% of our existence) fits the bill for "relatively recent." Especially in the context of the Trekiverse where humans are bumping elbows with civilizations that were colonizing other worlds when humans were still trying to make fire. The Vulcans, for example, were nuking each other with ICBMs and space vessels at around the same time the Roman Empire began to assemble its first professional military.
Well no, because that would require both notions of organization and a concept of statehood meaningfully similar to our own. Neither concepts are applicable to pre-historic societies, in fact they're not really applicable to a number of historic societies for a variety of reasons. There are parallels you can draw by analogy or similarity--just like you can draw parallels between, say, corporate capitalism and feudalism--but the application thereof and underlying concepts are so different that it's practically apples and oranges.
Nobody said it was. I said that those concepts, by at least the 23rd century, have been subject to such a huge degree of modification that they are no longer intelligible as such by OUR standards.
A good analogy, since the idea of a military is a SOLUTION to a complex problem much the way a bureaucracy is a solution to an organizational problem. But then, the Federation doesn't seem to be a bureaucracy either. Actually, considering the alarming lack of major Starfleet training centers anywhere but EARTH, I am under the growing impression that the Federation is a type of extremely dynamic adhocracy.
I was not aware that television shows were capable of referring to themselves. Could you be more specific?
Unless the state chooses not to recognize it AS the military for some reason. I mean, there's legal definition from U.N. conventions (which we know in Trek has been done away with by at least the year 2079) and then there's etymology and word usage. In the latter sense it's a tad harder to define, like the difference between "executed" and "murdered".
20th century legalisms were, again, rendered irrelevant by the year 2079.
You're free to do so. As long as you are aware that this is, in point of fact, a disagreement between you and Star Trek.
Whatever a particular culture/state/language chooses as a way to define "military." This will vary from culture to culture and even century to century in the same culture. The concept is not specific enough or special enough that it must always exist, nor that it cannot be superseded by other concepts.
Of course he's reading a play. That's what Shakespear wrote by the definitions of the time. And when he looks at Q wearing an old American army uniform, he's looking at a man in a military uniform, because that's what he was wearing by the definitions of the time. Of course, if Picard was reading from the script of the Kenneth Branagh movie, he's not reading a play, he's reading a script. And if he's reciting it in a holodeck simulation, it's not a play, it's a holonovel.
So does the militia. What you're missing is that an 18th century musketeer isn't going to be using terms based on definitions found in 20th century international law. And neither is Starfleet.
Obviously; it ALWAYS means what it means. Even when what it means changes.
Are you kidding? It's evolved enough since the 18th century. Why would it be the only concept in the human race NOT to evolve in the same amount of time in the future?
Ok, where exactly have the characters said that Starfleet isn't military? I seem to remember only that one statement from Picard.
No. That's where the National Guard, the military organization of the state would come in. Also, there is an exception to Posse comitatus. Look up the Insurrection act. In the case of an 'insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy' federal military forces can act.
But at that point they stop being police forces, they become a part of the military. Or they are military from the start, like the French Gendarmerie.
Picard had the only explicit reference. The others come from Kirk, Archer, Janeway and a handful of other minor characters always responding to SOMEONE ELSE referring to Starfleet as a military by saying "Our mission is peaceful exploration" or something to that effect.
As would police forces until the proper legal channels were exercised.
) really wasn't a military, it only became that later. As for Janeway, well, they were in the Delta Quadrant, sure can't do much defense of the Federation there. And when you're meeting a new race it's sure better to play up the exploration angle more than the combat angle. And anyway, how exactly does stating "our mission is peaceful exploration" prevent them from also being a military? Starfleet has multiple missions.No, they wouldn't, because they don't have the weapons or the skills for that. Well, SWAT units maybe, but if it's such a small scale incursion that you can defeat it with just a SWAT unit it really doesn't fall under defence of the state.
And you know this how?
I'll jot them down as I encounter them on re-watching DVDs. They're not exactly rare.
That's alot of assumptions for one sentence. First of all, I'm not so sure it IS a different organization considering its academy, headquarters, terms, technology and even practices are exactly the same. Actually I'd more readily accept the 24th century organization as "Earth Starfleet" before the reverse proposition.Anyway, Archer doesn't really count, at that point I believe Starfleet (and that's Earth SF, not UFP SF, which are completely different organizations, as Sci will nodoubt remind us
That appears to be the overall mission of STARFLEET, not just individual commanders. Which would kind of explain why ships named "Enterprise" keep being called "the flagship" and are still exploration vessels.
They have no weapons or skills for counter-terrorism or armed insurrection? Since when?
Hence the murky definition of "military" in this regard. In modern terms it's not a matter of the nature of its operations, but of SCALE. This is why groups like, say, the Tamil Tigers or the PKK or even the Taliban's guerillas are not described as a military organization despite the fact that they are acting on behalf of either declared or unofficially declared states.
And you know this how?
Why is then SF also tasked with fighting the Dominion War and all other Federation's military engagements?
Yeah, and? Captain Cook was a Royal Navy guy and he did exploration. One doesn't preclude the other.
Ordinary local policeman? You really think they could fight a organized enemy formation?
Who says Tamil Tigers or the Taliban aren't a military organization? They sure as hell ain't policeman and most definitely aren't civilians.
We're not talking about what people 'feel'. A lot of people would say the US Coast Guard isn't a military, when it officialy is. We're talking about official positions.
I do not recall this ever being established on screen. Curiously, we have seen very few Vulcan, Andorian or Tellarite ships in Starfleet (and fairly few members of any of these races on Starfleet ships).
It is the most important thing, and if not for the fact that the Federation's headquarters is on Earth, this would be a major difference. It seems like the Federation actually absorbed Earth and therefore took over the administration of it's Starfleet.
Because the Federation wanted it to.
Nor does one imply the other; most of the sailors who fought in Queen Annes War were, in fact, mercenaries.
Who said anything about an organized enemy formation? Most of those crazy militia groups are fairly disorganized mob of right wing nutjobs. Police forces have been dealing with them for decades.
The State Department (not I, though).
I agree. Now get someone to explain to me why the U.S. military has been increasingly preoccupied with trying to prevent that sort of thing.
Yes, because only the armed forces are big enough to handle it. This, currently, is how we define "the military," it is "the organization big enough to handle really big combat jobs." That definition is not an ancient or eternal one, nor is it even universal in the human race.
You're right, we're not. He was describing word usage, not feelings. Revolutionary guardsmen are literally referred to as "civilians" by the Iranian army and "military" by the police.
Iran is officially and intentionally vague about its military organization. Constitutionally it is part of their military, but frequently exploits the vagaries of Iranian law to act as an independent organization and sometimes even as a private corporation.
