On the other hand we have this:
Whom Gods Destroy said:
Metamorphosis said:
I think GR always wanted Starfleet (and Kirk) to be a multipurpose/mission organization.
Why the Resistance to Starfleet as a Military?
- Thread starter Vincent Law
- Start date
On the other hand we have this:
I think GR always wanted Starfleet (and Kirk) to be a multipurpose/mission organization.
A chicken wing. I'm not sure what your aim is here, but you seem to have completely missed the point of that quote, which is to say that something by any other name is still what it is. So you can call Starfleet whatever it is you like, but it is still a military because it acts like one.
No, not always, as we've already seen examples of Starfleet personnel referring to themselves as soldiers. And again, regardless of how resistant any of the characters may be to do so, the fact remains that Starfleet still acts like a military, and actions speak far louder than words.
Except I haven't really seen that. All I have seen is a resistance to the idea of Starfleet being a military for reasons that usually boil down to a dislike of the military, usually through a fundamental misunderstanding of what the military is. To them, the military only represents a belligerent force dedicated purely to death and destruction. They fail to recognize any other aspect of the military, such as humanitarian aid its continued role in scientific research and exploration, as well as the historical role militaries have had in those areas. As for its role in the political arena, the military serves politicians toward political ends.
I think that's probably true, but which purpose was primary seemed to shift from time to time. In one episode, Kirk would say something like "I'm a soldier, not a diplomat." In another episode, he would say that he's primarily an explorer, not a soldier. It was all rather fluid.
Regardless, though, in his later years, as with so many other things, Roddenberry seemed to change his view on this as well. He seemed to get to the point where he wanted to pretend that Starfleet had no military component at all. That's where he ended up getting into arguments with Harve Bennett, prompting Bennett to comment that it was Roddenberry, not him, who put phasers on the Enterprise.
The military is a multipurpose/mission organization.
I know.
Some people fancy themselves as something different than what they are. Therefore Starfleet is the military, and its officers are just fancying themselves as something different when they say "I'm an explorer, not a soldier." Problem solved.
Kirk is both and says so. Picard on the other hand is swimmng in that Egyptian river.
It seems strange that an organization charged with defending the entire Federation against military threats, doesn't like to think of themselves as the military.
Unless Starfleet personnel have a firm idea of what they are, it would make it harder for them to make decisive military style decisions.
It may explain why they suffered such huge losses during the Dominion war.
Or waiting until it was nearly too late to mine the wormhole.
Still, if they kept the Klingons and Romulans and Cardassians at bay, they did a pretty good job.
Unless Starfleet personnel have a firm idea of what they are, it would make it harder for them to make decisive military style decisions.
It may explain why they suffered such huge losses during the Dominion war.
Or waiting until it was nearly too late to mine the wormhole.
Still, if they kept the Klingons and Romulans and Cardassians at bay, they did a pretty good job.
Right. So wrap your brian around this Starfleet is not the military. Starfleet is the Starfleet. It is something we do not have today, though it performs the same function as something we DO have today, and also performs the function of OTHER things we have today.
Today we have roses, and today we have chicken wings. Some day we may have rose-scented chicken wings as well; when we do, they will still be three completely different things.
No, it's a starfleet. Doesn't matter what it acts like; hell Hezbollah acts like a military too, that doesn't make it so.
Hell, I've heard gang bangers refer to themselves as soldiers. That's not all that impressive IMO.
Or so you and various others invariably accuse whenever somebody disagrees with you. I've never seen or heard anyone actually take that position, it's always "Oh, you're just saying that because you don't like the military... you just don't understand what the military is!"
Most of the people you're talking to know EXACTLY what the military is, and that's why they recognize it in shows like NuBSG or Stargate SG-1, where any or all of the protagonists can be expected to espouse on the concept of military tradition and honor, the unpleasant but necessary nature of their jobs and more than occasionally the fact that righteous application of deadly force is fundamental to their way of life (bear in mind that alot of us are also anime fans, where military factions are VERY well represented in space opera). Starfleet is distinctly different both by self-description and by operational doctrine, enough that "it's a military" describes it about as well as "it's a nuke" describes a photon torpedo.
And no, I'm not saying that because I don't like nukes. Yes, I understand what a nuclear warhead is. Yes, I recognize that photon torpedoes technically do the same thing that nukes do. They're not the same thing.
I believe that "Starfleet" IS the firm idea they have of what they are. It's not something we can really relate to with a 21st century noun since we don't have any single organization that does all the things that Starfleet does. We have about a half dozen separate ones that operate in parallel and occasionally share funding and resources, but I doubt they would all fall under a single umbrella if they were suddenly combined into a single organization.
False. There has only ever been one time in canonical Star Trek in which an officer of the Federation Starfleet (FSF) refused to refer to the FSF as a military, and that was Picard in "Peak Performance."
You are confusing the legal status of being a military with the act of undertaking a war.
Clearly, the FSF is an organization that tries to avoid conflict whenever possible and encompasses duties beyond defense. This does not mean it it is not a military. The United States Coast Guard encompasses plenty of duties beyond war, yet it is still a military organization. The Canadian Forces views the delivery of humanitarian aide to be amongst its primary objectives, yet it is still a military.
Don't conflict a legal classification with an organization's ethos. You can have a military that is not militaristic -- one which does not in general favor violence even as it remains the state's official defense agency.
There is no reason to do this. The United Earth Starfleet (UESF) is no more the same organization as the Federation Starfleet just because they both have the word "starfleet" in their name than the Massachusetts State Navy is the same organization as the United States Navy just because they both have the word "navy" in their name. As such, there's no reason to bring the legal classification of the UESF into consideration. It is utterly irrelevant to the legal classification of the FSF.
This is not true.
Kirk refers to himself as a soldier in "Errand of Mercy," as did Nog in "Valiant." Starfleet is explicitly described as operating a system of courts-martial in numerous episodes, most especially "Court-Martial." Starfleet is described as a military on numerous occasions in "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost." Pike urges Kirk to enlist in Starfleet in ST09 without it ever being seen as a bad thing. When David objects to the idea of Starfleet, the "military," controlling the Genesis research, Carol replies that Starfleet has kept the peace for a hundred years and does not object to the idea of their being a military.
Really, the only reference to the Federation Starfleet not being a military is from "Peak Performance." The preponderance of evidence is that Starfleet is a military and that no one has a problem with this -- but that Starfleet does not have a jingoistic ethos, unlike many present-day militaries.
Historically, real militaries have conducted diplomatic and scientific/exploratory functions. This does not mean they are not militiaries -- being a military, after all, is a legal status characterized by the organization in question being raised by the state to serve as its official defense organization in times of conflict. Having other duties in addition to that does not mean that the military ceases to be a military, too.
I believe the most important point here is whether somebody in FSF referred to FSF as a military.
I mean, nobody denied it, except for Picard. But if nobody confirmed it, either, then we are actually in a very satisfactory situation: we can define "military" as a pejorative, or as a word that does not apply to the style of armed forces that FSF represents even when FSF definitely is an armed forces largely if not primarily dedicated to warfare.
It could be as simple as "Military vs. Starfleet". That is, "Army vs. Navy". There could exist a land army in the Federation that goes by the well-established historical designation "military" - a word that used to be the opposite of "navy". And Picard could be adamant that since his own armed service is the Starfleet and not the Military, he shouldn't be doing idiotic Military things like combat drills but should be doing sensible Starfleet things like exploring, fighting wars, and letting Data devise new combat maneuvers in his free time using the ship's vast computing resources.
The fact that Sisko considers Leyton's activities a "military coup" could be a case of pejorative use. He says "military coup" but he could just as well say "gangster takeover" without literally meaning that Leyton is a gangster or a member of the military. The Marcuses could similarly use the word in the insulting sense. None of this would mean Starfleet would be a nonmilitary organization. It would merely mean that in futurespeak, a member of a military organization called Starfleet can say "Starfleet is not a military organization" and be correct about it.
Timo Saloniemi
The thing is, Starfleet is a military. It looks like one, and more importantly it acts like one by acting as the Federation's military during times of military conflict. So the insistence to come up with some other name for it or to otherwise attempt to argue that Starfleet isn't a military is similar to trying to call a rose by another name. Simply referring to a rose by another name will not change the fact that a rose is a rose.
And that is a hyperbolic comparison.
I do not simply accuse anyone based on nothing more than disagreement, I base my opinion on what has been said, and where I sense the main resistance to be. I have yet to see a well articulated argument that does not boil down to a personal dislike of the military in general, and usually that comes from a misconception that person has with what the military is.
Actually they aren't even remotely similar, unless you hold that having a "reaction" or that exploding is enough to make them similar.
Perhaps the residents of the 23rd/24th century see military differently than we do? Why must we always try to define stuff by our modern viewpoint? It's what leads to tragedies like Abrams Trek where hacks rewrite all the characters to act like they are from the year 2009.
Starfleet in the 24th century was different from Starfleet in the 23rd century. I'm sure the Khitomer Accords had something to do with it. Remember one of the Admirals wondering if that meant "mothballing Starfleet" and she was corrected and reminded that Starfleet did other things. It's not a large stretch, for those of you who want to think in militaristic terms, that Starfleet developed different language because of that treaty.
The 24th century, aside from a few isolated incidents until the late 2360s, was rather peaceful. Such a long period of peace probably changed a lot of philosophies. It also created people like Picard who were so enlightened that they felt calling themselves military officers was below them and brutish.
I view it as a combined service. Certain aspects of it were what we'd define as military, but certain aspects were different. It just so happens we saw the more military side because that is more interesting than watching anything else.
Starfleet in the 24th century was different from Starfleet in the 23rd century. I'm sure the Khitomer Accords had something to do with it. Remember one of the Admirals wondering if that meant "mothballing Starfleet" and she was corrected and reminded that Starfleet did other things. It's not a large stretch, for those of you who want to think in militaristic terms, that Starfleet developed different language because of that treaty.
The 24th century, aside from a few isolated incidents until the late 2360s, was rather peaceful. Such a long period of peace probably changed a lot of philosophies. It also created people like Picard who were so enlightened that they felt calling themselves military officers was below them and brutish.
I view it as a combined service. Certain aspects of it were what we'd define as military, but certain aspects were different. It just so happens we saw the more military side because that is more interesting than watching anything else.
Am I really, since I've already suggested that the act of undertaking a war might not be the sole purview of military organizations?
Nobody said it did. The thing of it is, Starfleet's OTHER roles take budgetary and organizational priority ninety percent of the time, a condition that changes only in the event of immanent or declared hostilities.
As you said, the act of fighting a war and the legal status of being a military are NOT the same thing. Nor is the entire Federation strictly based on the legal conventions of an Earth United Nations organization that we know canonically didn't survive the third world war (probably for good reason).
Same advice to you, sci. An organization that involves itself in fighting a war does not automatically become a military anymore than an organization that delivers humanitarian aid ceases to be one. The same logic applies: if the military can do take on traditionally non-military roles, there's nothing to stop traditionally non-military organizations from taking on military roles.
And I again suggest that "Starfleet" may be a definition in itself not actually analogous to anything that currently exists, much the way modern space agencies (NASA et al) have no equivalent organization in the 17th century.
Except we don't really know that, do we? For all we know the only difference between Earth Starfleet and the Federation Starfleet is that the latter absorbed the Earth Cargo Service and slapped NCC numbers on their hulls. Or perhaps Federation's Starfleet derived from the union of Roskosmos and the Japanese Air Force... who knows? Who cares?
Again, I'm not basing this on anything except Starfleet's self-description and its actual mission roles.
He referred to himself as a diplomat too; does that mean he's an ambassador?
Curiously, he uses the word "enlist" when he specifically means GO TO STARFLEET ACADEMY. I suppose the definition of "enlistment" might have changed after 300 years... but then again, so might the definition of "military."
Not to me, not unless you squint at really really hard. The most you can say is that it is ADEQUATE in a military role, but just barely.
We don't have to come up with anything. It is called "Starfleet" and has always been called that. It has only ever been COMPARED to a military organization in either pejorative terms, in a time when Starfleet was caught doing something it was clearly not supposed to be doing.
But again, it's not a chicken wing either. Starfleet passes the smell test, but it still tastes like chicken.
Which part? Starfleet officers comparing themselves to soldiers or gang bangers doing the same thing?
I just gave you one, and so did Timo, and so have others in this very thread.
Maybe you're projecting?
I don't. Any more than the ability to cause things/people/places/god-like-space-beings explode is enough to make Starfleet a military. To borrow a line from sci, the ethos is all wrong; they wrestle with their consciences too often and are way too quick to internalize the ramifications of deadly force. And this is not exactly a RECENT observation, there is fan-made (and some Paramount-sanctioned) background material that implies that regulations actually prohibit the destruction of sentient life by Starfleet officers, not even to save their own lives. Nothing in canon ever went that far, to be sure, but the same mindset of "I see that you're trying to kill me, but I'm not going to commit deadly force just yet" persists in situations that would be most inappropriate (and in a few ways, devastating) in a military organization.
If it's an actual military it's an amazingly ineffectual one, but since the Federation is not often involved in large-scale wars it is usually just good enough to get the job done.
Last edited:
That's an interesting theory for an in-universe explanation, but that usually only happens when a nation loses a conflict. For instance, Japan is constitutionally banned from having a military, but it gets around this by saying the JSDF is technically a branch of its police force.
Though really the modern military does do the humanitarian missions and has the scientific side to it as well, so Starfleet is in every way like the military, even if it isn't very good at actually fighting when it is forced to do so.
I didn't say it's a good military, just that it's a military. And Starfleet does act like a military? Why the continued attempts at mental gymnastics to get around that fact. A rose is a rose, regardless of what other name you want to give it.
The part where they are clearly shown conducting military operations and acting as the Federation's military during times of war.
Statements like this are what lead me to believe the resistance to the idea that Starfleet is a military come from a misconception of the military.
Except that it isn't in the show, so it doesn't count, sorry. I base my analysis on what can actually be seen, not on background material that never ended up being used, probably because it doesn't make any sense.
Actually, yes, it is. The only other legal force would be a mercenary force? Are you suggesting that Starfleet is a private security firm? Because it certainly seem so beholden to a civilian government. And while there are some circumstances which allow for civilians to defend their homeland, such as during the initial invasion, for the most part civilians who participate in military conflict are considered illegal combatants.
Actually, no, the same logic does not apply, for the reasons I stated above.
Most astronauts are military officers. Nasa performs an exploratory role that has traditionally been done by the military, largely because of treaties forbidding the militarization of space due to Cold War tensions. Starfleet also performs the same kind of exploratory and scientific missions that the military has traditionally done all along, as well as acting as the defense arm of the Federation, just like a military. It comes down to the fact that in every way, Starfleet looks and acts like a military, which is a really good indication that it is.
The military does have a diplomatic function already, and since civilian ambassadors might not always be handy on various missions, it isn't out of the question for that role to grow as far as Starfleet is concerned.
He also calls Starfleet a "peacekeeping armada." But then, I do not put much stock in anything from the new movie or in any of the others which follow its continuity. I see statements such as that as an amusing attempt by people to follow the original Gene Roddenberry without much thought or understanding as to what exactly it is they are saying.
So what? You can say the very same thing for the US Coast Guard, yet it is still a military organization. Though I very much doubt what you said is actually true for Starfleet. They may talk a lot about exploration and promote it as a key goal, but how many of it's ships actually engage in exploration? I'd say just a small percentage, with most being busy by patrolling the Federation borders and it's space. You talk about priority, what about mission priority? Let's say a need arises for Enterprise to both study a nebula and fight of some marauders attacking a colony. I wonder which one will they choose? As much as some people don't want to hear it, the military mission is the main mission of Starfleet simply because it trumps all other missions.
But let's clear one thing. Ok, let's say for some reason the definitions have changed by the 24th century. I don't think it's likely but I guess it's posible. But do you agree Starfleet is a military organization by today's definitions?
Robert DeSoto
Lieutenant Commander
I mentioned the JSDF earlier and I think Starfleet is very much like the JSDF. The Japanese constitution states that the Japanese people renounce war and they will never develop a military or become a threat to world peace again.
So the Japanese military is never referred to as a military, but a "self defense force". And it is legally part of the police force.
I think Starfleet is very much the same thing. The Starfleet charter spews all this feel good crap about exploring space and making peaceful contact with new life and new civilizations. So it is never referred to as the military by its officers or government. But anyone with common sense can see that Starfleet is the military, just like the Japanese Self Defense Force.
Similar threads
