Why the Resistance to Starfleet as a Military?

[Crazy Eddie]

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.

Because acting like a military and BEING a military are two very different things. In exactly the same way smelling like a rose and BEING a rose are not the same thing.

The difference you keep glossing over is literally a matter of WORDS. Starfleet has called itself many things, but the one thing it has never called itself was "the military."

The part where they are clearly shown conducting military operations and acting as the Federation's military during times of war.

That's hyperbolic to you? I think one of us is confused.

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.

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you.

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.

The extremely delayed application of deadly force in what are clearly hostile situations is a recurring theme in TNG; the "kid gloves" approach to openly hostile forces already engaging in violence is, frankly, inconsistent with ANY military organization past or present. Not because of the DEFINITION of the military, but the overall nature of the job: standing militaries cannot be formed or properly maintained in a culture that is willing to subject its servicemen to greater potential harm in order to safeguard the lives of belligerents. Such organizations would have to balance the use of deadly force with a restraining philosophy, one that generally restricts the use of deadly force to a mere means to an end to achieve a narrow and specific set of objectives.

Police forces can operate this way, because on some level a police officer understands that his primary duty is to impose and maintain order though whatever means have been made legally available to him. Use of deadly force is sometimes one of those means; use of deadly force on a massive scale is more rare, as in the case of riots hostage situations or terrorist attacks. In the end, however, the police officer differs from the military officer in that the former is required to restrain himself in order to properly carry out his duty, while the latter is not, and cannot be, because the nature of his job requires only that he either defeats his enemies or at the very least avoids being defeated himself.

My point, which you have intentionally missed so far, is that we in the 21st century do not have a word for a person who is authorized to engage in hostilities with that level of inherent self-restraint. Current technology and the nature of modern warfare precludes that type of restraint, and therefore precludes that type of organization. The flip side of this is that once you've developed the kind of technology that would allow that sort of restraint, you no longer need the military in the first place; your country gets invaded by the Holy Mexican Caliphate, a cadre of State Police can neutralize the entire invasion force with their hand phasers and then arrest the invaders for trespassing.

That wouldn't preclude a military still existing somewhere (and the Federation undoubtedly has a very effective one, and I'd bet my left arm it's headquartered on Andor Prime), it may simply mean that this particular society chooses to react to external threats using something other than its dedicated military arm.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

As you said, the act of fighting a war and the legal status of being a military are NOT the same thing.

Actually, yes, it is. The only other legal force would be a mercenary force?

No, a legal force is, by definition, any force you have given legal authority to do so. Doesn't matter if its the military, a corporation or Mrs. Crusher's girl scout troop. Legal cover is legal cover, and in some countries their armed forces don't even have THAT much.

Are you suggesting that Starfleet is a private security firm?

No more than you're suggesting that the United Federation of Planets is primarily based on the U.S. Constitution.

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.

... at least, in early 21st century Earth, at a time when first-world countries have abolished privately organized militias. None of the Trekiverse races have ever bothered to make that distinction, including the Federation. Indeed, some of the Federations allies (the Klingons and the Bajorans, just for starters) find that distinction both laughable and meaningless.

Most astronauts are military officers

No, most pilots are military officers. The larger portion of shuttle and/or ISS crews have been civilians.

Not that it matters much, since NASA is not a military organization and neither is Roskosmos, nor would either of them BE a military organization even if 100% of their astronauts were also members of their countries' militaries.

Nasa performs an exploratory role that has traditionally been done by the military

LOL! When has the military ever been involved in space exploration (manned or otherwise)?

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.

Sauce for the goose: you still haven't demonstrated that their diplomatic role is any more an innovation in their mission role than the military one. You have merely suggested that Earth Starfleet and Federation Starfleet aren't necessarily the same organization... on the other hand, this reduces the number of precursor candidates to zero, and there's no reason to believe the Federation version was initially any more militarized than its Earth equivalent.

He also calls Starfleet a "peacekeeping armada."

In point of fact, he calls the FEDERATION a peacekeeping armada.

Which makes things so much more clear.

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 do. Far a I can tell the re-imagined Starfleet IS being recast as a purely military organization with a secondary exploratory role. Not that we have much to go on from a single film, but there was one tiny detail that caught me eye this time more than others: when Kirk entered the Narada for the first time, his phaser was already set to kill. He did not switch to the stun setting except to obtain intelligence from an enemy gunman.

Usually you have to murder his son, blow up his ship and strand him on an exploding planet before he gets that pissed.

 

[Sci]

In the DS9 episode "Homefront," we find this exchange:

LEYTON
Captain Sisko has several
suggestions on how to combat
Dominion infiltration. I think
you'll find them very interesting.

Sisko takes a PADD out of the briefcase and hands it to
the President. Jaresh-Inyo takes the PADD and scans
the contents.

JARESH-INYO
Hmm. I understand the need for
increased security, but...
(referring to the PADD)
Blood screenings and phaser
sweeps?

SISKO
They've proven very effective on
Deep Space Nine.

DEEP SPACE NINE: "Homefront" - 11/04/95 - ACT TWO 26.

26 CONTINUED:

JARESH-INYO
I'm sure they have. But I hope
you'll keep in mind that this is
Earth, not a military
installation.

It's there. It's explicit. In talking about Federation Starbase Deep Space 9, the Federation President refers to it as a military installation. Starfleet is a military.

But why stop there? We also have this scene, from "Paradise Lost:"

38 INT. ADMIRAL LEYTON'S OFFICE - DAY

As before. Leyton and Sisko face each other across
Leyton's desk. Sisko keeps his phaser trained on
Leyton.

SISKO
Admiral, don't you realize what's
going on here? Even if you win,
even if you do manage to oust
Jaresh-Inyo, you still lose. We
all lose.

Leyton remains cool and firm in his convictions.

LEYTON
I can't say I agree with you.

SISKO
Do you think the other Federation
worlds are going to sit back and
let their President be replaced by
a military dictatorship?

LEYTON
Hardly a dictatorship, Ben.

Sisko can't believe what he's hearing. He's having a
hard time controlling his righteous indignation.

SISKO
Overthrowing a legitimately
elected President and giving
Starfleet direct control over
the government? Sounds like a
dictatorship to me. And I'm sure
I won't be the only one who thinks
so.

So, even under normal circumstances, Starfleet starbases are referred to as military installations by the civilian Federation President. And when a Starfleet admiral tries to overthrow the government and put Starfleet in charge of the entire UFP, he only argues that it's not a dictatorship -- even he doesn't argue it would be a military government.

Then there's this, from "Rules of Engagement." Sisko speaking to Worf:

SISKO
(continuing)
You made a... military decision to
protect your ship and crew. But
you're a Starfleet officer, Worf.
We don't put civilians at risk --
or even potentially at risk -- to
save ourselves. Sometimes that
means we lose a battle... and
sometimes we lose our lives. But
if you can't make that choice, you
can't wear that uniform.

DEEP SPACE NINE: "Rules of... " - REV. 1/26/96 - ACT FIVE 58.

67 CONTINUED: (2)

Worf knows that everything Sisko is saying is true.

WORF
Yes, sir.

SISKO
Now all that being true... the
reality is... no harm was done.
There are no dead children on your
conscience. You got lucky.

A "military decision" and a distinction between Starfleet and civilians. Military.

In "Inter Arma Silent Leges," we find this exchange, in reference to a high-level conference between Starfleet and the Romulan Imperial Fleet:

BASHIR
Think about it. We're in the
middle of a very sensitive
military conference. What if the
Romulans saw him as an obstacle
to their war objectives? What if
they wanted to remove that
obstacle by --

A Starfleet conference is called a military conference.

Then there's this exchange from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan:

DAVID
I've tried to warn you. Scientists
are always pawns of the military --

CAROL
(angry)
Starfleet has kept the peace for
a hundred years, I cannot and
will not subscribe to your
interpretation of this event.

Even someone who supports Starfleet acknowledges them as a military.

And that's to say, again, nothing of Kirk and Nog referring to themselves as soldiers.

An organization that involves itself in fighting a war does not automatically become a military

It is if it is the official war-fighting organization of a state. And it is especially if it has a system of courts-martial that enforce special law upon its members, which is a trait that only militaries have. Joe's Pizza can't lock you up if you break Joe's Pizza Code, but you bet your ass the Navy can lock you up if you violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- just like Starfleet can lock you up if you violate the Federation Uniform Code of Justice.

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.

Oh, I dunno about that. I rather wonder NASA and other space agencies couldn't be nicely equated to any civilian explorer who operated on a royal charter.

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.

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.

Even if the Federation Starfleet inherited all of the United Earth Starfleet's property, ships, and personnel, it would still be a legally separate entity because it would be serving a different state. There would have to be a separate Federation Starfleet Charter (since the Federation government would be legally responsible for raising its starfleet), and UESF personnel would have to be given FSF commissions (because, otherwise, they would have no legal right to serve in the FSF). It's the same way the British Royal Navy is a separate organization from the English and Scottish Royal Navies.

Again, I'm not basing this on anything except Starfleet's self-description and its actual mission roles.

No, you're basing it on one instance of a Starfleet officer claiming that the FSF is not a military organization, while ignoring a preponderance of evidence which contradicts that single statement.

Kirk refers to himself as a soldier in "Errand of Mercy," as did Nog in "Valiant."

He referred to himself as a diplomat too; does that mean he's an ambassador?

Well, even in real life, the term "ambassador" is often informally used for high-level diplomats who do not actually hold that title. The U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., for instance, formally holds the title of "Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, with the rank and status of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, and Representative of the United States of America in the Security Council of the United Nations." Given how fluid and informal the term "ambassador" is, I'm not sure that's the best comparison for you.

But either way, we have seen instances of Starfleet officers being legally empowered to represent the Federation in high-level diplomatic negotiations -- Captain Jellico negotiating with the Cardassian Union in "Chain of Command," for instance. It's entirely possible that they do hold ad hoc positions as ambassadors for the duration of those missions. We have no data on that. But they clearly do have some sort of diplomatic recognition under Federation and interstellar law.

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.

Does it really help your argument to compare the Federation Starfleet to a terrorist organization like Hezbollah?

No, not always, as we've already seen examples of Starfleet personnel referring to themselves as soldiers.

Hell, I've heard gang bangers refer to themselves as soldiers. That's not all that impressive IMO.

Were those gang-bangers commissioned officers in the organization chartered by the government to defend the state against hostile foreign militaries in times of war? 'Cos if they were, they get to call themselves soldiers legitimately, even if they were also gang-bangers on the side.

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.

You mean, it leads to one of the best movies of 2009 and one of the best entries in the entire Star Trek canon? Then I'm all for it.

It's not a large stretch, for those of you who want to think in militaristic terms,

No one here wants to think in militaristic terms. Militarism is a philosophy that views the violent resolution of conflict as preferable in most situations. Making arguments about an organization's legal status (i.e., "Is it the organization chartered by the government to defend the state in times of war, possessing the legal right to enforce a unique system of law upon its members under a system of courts-martial? If so, it is a military.") is not the same thing as thinking in militaristic terms.

I view it as a combined service.

The problem with that term, from your POV, is that it was used in response to a question about which branch of the military Kirk served in. In other words, it meant that he served in a military that combined branches.

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.

This is untrue. Starfleet has been called a military in both pejorative and non-pejorative contexts. The Federation President himself referred to a Starfleet starbase as a military installation long before anyone in Starfleet was doing anything wrong in "Homefront," for instance.

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.

I hate to tell you this, but whether or not an organization is a military has nothing to do with its ethos. It's a legal question and nothing more. Even if every single member of the Army of the Republic of Equatorial Kundu is only ever issued pea-shooters as their weapons and they all go home crying every day over their guilt for having murdered an innocent butterfly, if the Army of the Republic of Equatorial Kundu is the organization raised by the government of the Republic of Equatorial Kundu to defend the state against attacks from hostile foreign states and possesses the legal authority to enforce unique law over its members via a system of courts-martial, then that Army is still a military.

Ethos is irrelevant to the question of legal classification, which is what the question of whether or not the Federation Starfleet is a military boils down to. It's a question of law, not a question of ethos.

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.

This would no doubt come as a surprise to the numerous Starfleet officers we have seen taking the lives of sentient entities in self-defense throughout the Star Trek canon, most especially during the Dominion War.

 

[T'Girl]

LOL! When has the military ever been involved in space exploration (manned or otherwise)?

The U.S. Naval Observatory is one of the oldest scientific agencies in America, established in 1830.

The very first American satellite was launched by the Army Ballistic Missile Agency on January 31, 1958, NASA didn't even exist. That first satellite (Explorer One) engaged in energy particle exploration and discovered the Van Allen radiation belt.

In 1994, the Clementine space probe made the first complete map of the moon (it mapped the poles), and discovered that there is ice on the moon. The project was through the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization and was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California

The Russia space program was a military program from the 1930's through to the year 1991 when it was transferred to a civilian agency. In other words the Russian military put the first satellite in orbit, put the first Human (a military officer) in orbit and made the first (unmanned) moon landing.

The extremely delayed application of deadly force ... [snip] ... is, frankly, inconsistent with ANY military organization past or present.

Very consistent with many of today's militaries, It took years of provocations by Iraq before the the coalition nation's militaries invaded and removed the Iraqi civil government. It's policy for the American military to be very circumspect about use of force in the majority of circumstances.

the Japanese military is never referred to as a military, but a "self defense force". And it is legally part of the police force

All personnel in the JSDF are national government "special civil servants," and I don't believe are connected to the Japanese police department in any way. And JSDF personnel do refer to themselves as "the military," I've heard this myself from guests in our home, when my family was stationed in Japan .

 

[Chaos Descending]

As always, Wikipedia is to be taken with a grain of salt, but Wiki defines the JSDF as "The Japan Self-Defense Forces (自衛隊, Jieitai?), or JSDF, occasionally referred to as JSF or SDF, are the unified military forces of Japan".

 

[Nightdiamond]

Starfleet has a ranking system, dress code, and most importantly a court marshal procedure.

It seems to have all the elements of a military.

Or we hope it does, that would be too much power for a private or civilian firm

But I've noticed that sometimes its own soldiers appear wishy washy about their roles- Picard is a flag captain and yet he seems to reject the idea of Starfleet being the miltary.

I've seen episodes where Starfleet officers but heads about what to do, usually with one side hesitating to act, while the other side wants to act all too quickly.


One is Chain of Command where Jericho butted heads about his strategy against the crew (seemingly) not wanting to confront the Cardassians.

Both sides had their points, but the episode itself sort of revealed the tension of this concept.

The other was when before the war stared, the Dominion was destroying Federation ships while Starfleet remained quiet -
Julian sarcastically mused they were going to run out of ships eventually.

I think Starfleet knows it has a military role to fill, but some don't want to admit it or are uncomfortable about it.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

LOL! When has the military ever been involved in space exploration (manned or otherwise)?

The U.S. Naval Observatory is one of the oldest scientific agencies in America, established in 1830.

The U.S. Naval Observatory isn't in space, nor is it involved in the exploration thereof.

The very first American satellite was launched by the Army Ballistic Missile Agency on January 31, 1958, NASA didn't even exist. That first satellite (Explorer One) engaged in energy particle exploration and discovered the Van Allen radiation belt.

Not to be pedantic, but it was actually the THIRD satellite, and it was built by Cal Tech, not the army.

Of course we both know this is in no way consistent with the term "traditional" in any standard use of the term, but whatever.

The Russia space program was a military program from the 1930's through to the year 1991 when it was transferred to a civilian agency. In other words the Russian military put the first satellite in orbit, put the first Human (a military officer) in orbit and made the first (unmanned) moon landing.

Actually their space agency was a loose cooperation of several different engineering teams working both in concert and in competition in the development of ICBMs, satellites, space craft and various technologies for both peaceful and non-peaceful purposes. Not that the distinction made a whole lot of difference (this is Soviet Russia we're talking about).

The extremely delayed application of deadly force ... [snip] ... is, frankly, inconsistent with ANY military organization past or present.

Very consistent with many of today's militaries, It took years of provocations by Iraq before the the coalition nation's militaries invaded and removed the Iraqi civil government. It's policy for the American military to be very circumspect about use of force in the majority of circumstances.

No, that is primarily true of the American GOVERNMENT. Please go back and re-read the parts you snipped from that quotes, as you will find I am not speaking of the usual "sanctions, more sanctions, resolutions, more sanctions... oops, I got caught fucking my interns, time to bomb somebody" process.

I'm referring here to the rules of engagement: once hostilities have begun, all assets are devoted to the completion of the military objective, and the only restraints in play are applicable regulations and war crime laws. Starfleet exercises restraint on a regular basis that goes above and beyond what any military organization would in its right mind expect from its members.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Does it really help your argument to compare the Federation Starfleet to a terrorist organization like Hezbollah?

Why not? Depending on who you ask, Hezbollah is a component Lebanese government and its militant wing is therefore a component of its military. Us outside observers with a more rigid definition of what a "military" disagree, generally on the basis that "military" is a legal term whose definition Hezbollah does not meet. Obviously they disagree, which may or may not render our opinion meaningless if and when they end up running the country and can adopt a definition that suits their purposes (as Iran did in the case of the Revolutionary Guards, as Don Rumsfeld did in the case of Blackwater).

This is untrue. Starfleet has been called a military in both pejorative and non-pejorative contexts. The Federation President himself referred to a Starfleet starbase as a military installation long before anyone in Starfleet was doing anything wrong in "Homefront," for instance.

I seem to recall pointing this out several times before, but Deep Space Nine is technically a Bajoran space station. The Bajoran militia is indisputably a military organization, in fact their side-by-side workings with Starfleet and a comparison between the two is one of the things that first lead me to wonder if Starfleet really was a military organization.

I hate to tell you this, but whether or not an organization is a military has nothing to do with its ethos.

I know that, but I like to think a government as rational and intelligent as the Federation would avoid doing something so mind-numbingly stupid and irrational as to put its soldiers at even greater risk just so they can put up a universal facade of benevolence and/or xenophilia. Perhaps that's the militaristic streak of my OWN character, but the idea of a military organization requiring soldiers to soak up enemy fire for an extra few minutes just to avoid possible misunderstandings just rubs me wrong.

To put that another way: If I were going into hostile territory with a group of Starfleet officers I would want to know for sure that none of them have any reservations about killing enemy aliens in order to save my ass. The captain who gets all misty eyed and whiny because he accidentally kills some stupid alien that inexplicably opens fire on him is not somebody I'd be comfortable taking orders from.

It's a legal question and nothing more.

On some level this is true... but we do not know the relevant legal precedents recognized by the Federation to settle the question, nor CAN we know, as the Federation is composed of civilizations other than Earth, many of which may very well have a different legal/social understanding of the concept.

On some level it IS a semantic question; the example of the JSDF, that organization is not LEGALLY a military, even though everyone calls it that, primarily because it's the only organization that would become involved in the defense against a foreign power. I would grant that Starfleet is "the military" in that sense... if only because we don't currently have a better word for it.

Even if every single member of the Army of the Republic of Equatorial Kundu is only ever issued pea-shooters as their weapons and they all go home crying every day over their guilt for having murdered an innocent butterfly, if the Army of the Republic of Equatorial Kundu is the organization raised by the government of the Republic of Equatorial Kundu to defend the state against attacks from hostile foreign states and possesses the legal authority to enforce unique law over its members via a system of courts-martial, then that Army is still a military.

Here's something to think about: if the members of that army also have civilian jobs that they're expected to perform whenever they're not in combat, they would be--technically--a militia.

Most countries don't use militias anymore, it's mainly a trick for third world countries or enclaves of failed states that can't afford standing armies. Do you suppose, perhaps, that the concept of "military" might also become outmoded, something maintained only by backwater planets that can't afford starfleets?

 

[T'Girl]

LOL! When has the military ever been involved in space exploration (manned or otherwise)?

The U.S. Naval Observatory is one of the oldest scientific agencies in America, established in 1830.

The U.S. Naval Observatory isn't in space, nor is it involved in the exploration thereof.

So looking through a telescope into space isn't a form of "space exploration"? Interesting POV.

The very first American satellite was launched by the Army Ballistic Missile Agency on January 31, 1958, NASA didn't even exist. That first satellite (Explorer One) ...

Not to be pedantic, but it was actually the THIRD satellite, and it was built by Cal Tech, not the army.

Let's see what I wrote ... first America satellite ... launched by the Army ... Explorer One.

So sorry newtype_Alpha, but I got one hundred percent of my facts straight.

It's policy for the American military to be very circumspect about use of force in the majority of circumstances.

read the parts you snipped from that quotes

The extremely delayed application of deadly force in what are clearly hostile situations is a recurring theme in TNG; the "kid gloves" approach to openly hostile forces already engaging in violence is, frankly, inconsistent with ANY military organization past or present.

My answer stands and is correct. The government's military policy and the military's policy are the same thing, Iraq fired upon American planes for years, supported terrorist organizations for years, violated UN resolutions for years, used WMD against Kurdish populations for years, all made for a hostile international situation. Firing upon our planes and the treatment of the Kurds especially qualifies as "openly hostile forces already engaging in violence." Application of force was delayed until it was clear that all other avenues were ineffectual.

I'm referring here to the rules of engagement: once hostilities have begun, all assets are devoted to the completion of the military objective, and the only restraints in play are applicable regulations and war crime laws. Starfleet exercises restraint on a regular basis that goes above and beyond what any military organization would in its right mind expect from its members.

Consistant with the accomplishment of the mission, restrant is exactly what is exspected from military members in today's service. From the top down.

 

[Sci]

This is untrue. Starfleet has been called a military in both pejorative and non-pejorative contexts. The Federation President himself referred to a Starfleet starbase as a military installation long before anyone in Starfleet was doing anything wrong in "Homefront," for instance.

I seem to recall pointing this out several times before, but Deep Space Nine is technically a Bajoran space station.

It is a Bajoran space station being run as a Federation starbase. That's why its commanding officer is a Federation Starfleet officer rather than a Bajoran Militia officer, and that's why it has the Federation designation of Starbase Deep Space 9 rather than, say, Bajor Station 1.

As such, the fact that it is Bajoran property is irrelevant to the issue. It is a Federation Starbase, and the President referred to Federation Starbases as military installations. That is all that matters.

I hate to tell you this, but whether or not an organization is a military has nothing to do with its ethos.

I know that, but I like to think a government as rational and intelligent as the Federation would avoid doing something so mind-numbingly stupid and irrational as to put its soldiers at even greater risk just so they can put up a universal facade of benevolence and/or xenophilia. Perhaps that's the militaristic streak of my OWN character, but the idea of a military organization requiring soldiers to soak up enemy fire for an extra few minutes just to avoid possible misunderstandings just rubs me wrong.

To put that another way: If I were going into hostile territory with a group of Starfleet officers I would want to know for sure that none of them have any reservations about killing enemy aliens in order to save my ass. The captain who gets all misty eyed and whiny because he accidentally kills some stupid alien that inexplicably opens fire on him is not somebody I'd be comfortable taking orders from.

Frankly, I think you're exaggerating the extent to which Starfleet officers would supposedly react in such a situation. None of the Starfleet officers in "The Siege of AR-558," for instance, were particularly weepy about all those Jem'Hadar they had to kill.

But either way, the ethos of Starfleet is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is a military.

It's a legal question and nothing more.

On some level this is true...

On every level this is true.

but we do not know the relevant legal precedents recognized by the Federation to settle the question, nor CAN we know, as the Federation is composed of civilizations other than Earth, many of which may very well have a different legal/social understanding of the concept.

Or, at least, we did not until characters started calling Starfleet a military -- establishing that it has a system of courts-martial in TOS, calling it a military in ST2 and in DS9, etc.

On some level it IS a semantic question; the example of the JSDF, that organization is not LEGALLY a military, even though everyone calls it that, primarily because it's the only organization that would become involved in the defense against a foreign power. I would grant that Starfleet is "the military" in that sense... if only because we don't currently have a better word for it.

Or, because they're called a military. On-screen. On several occasions.

Even if every single member of the Army of the Republic of Equatorial Kundu is only ever issued pea-shooters as their weapons and they all go home crying every day over their guilt for having murdered an innocent butterfly, if the Army of the Republic of Equatorial Kundu is the organization raised by the government of the Republic of Equatorial Kundu to defend the state against attacks from hostile foreign states and possesses the legal authority to enforce unique law over its members via a system of courts-martial, then that Army is still a military.

Here's something to think about: if the members of that army also have civilian jobs that they're expected to perform whenever they're not in combat, they would be--technically--a militia.

Are you contending that the National Guards of the various U.S. states are not militaries, then?

 

[CoveTom]

What does Starfleet do when their officers break the rules? A court martial. We've seen it depicted on screen, we've heard about it numerous times. There's absolutely no escaping it. So, what is a court martial?

Well, from dictionary.com:

a court consisting of military or naval personnel appointed by a commander to try charges of offenses by soldiers, sailors, etc., against military or naval law.

And from Wikipedia:

A court-martial (plural courts-martial, as "martial" is postpositive) is a military court. A court-martial is empowered to determine the guilt of members of the armed forces subject to military law, and, if the defendant is found guilty, to decide upon punishment.

Seems pretty cut and dried then, doesn't it? A court martial is, by definition, a military trial for military personnel. The mere existence of courts martial as the method of justice throughout Starfleet establishes Starfleet as being a military.

 

[Robert DeSoto]

the Japanese military is never referred to as a military, but a "self defense force". And it is legally part of the police force

All personnel in the JSDF are national government "special civil servants," and I don't believe are connected to the Japanese police department in any way. And JSDF personnel do refer to themselves as "the military," I've heard this myself from guests in our home, when my family was stationed in Japan .

I'm sure they do. Just like Nog and Kirk refer to themselves as soldiers. I'm just saying the official position of the Japanese government as reflected in its constitution is that Japan has no military forces. But we all know that it does.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The U.S. Naval Observatory is one of the oldest scientific agencies in America, established in 1830.

The U.S. Naval Observatory isn't in space, nor is it involved in the exploration thereof.

So looking through a telescope into space isn't a form of "space exploration"?

Anymore than looking through a pair of binoculars is a form of trespassing.

My answer stands and is correct. The government's military policy and the military's policy are the same thing, Iraq fired upon American planes for years...

And every time they did, those planes were authorized to fire back. That's a fundamental concept in the enforcement of a no-fly zone, as well as in international waters/airspace where that aggression cannot be interpreted as legitimate border defense.

Foreign policy and rules of engagement aren't the same thing. To a certain extent they're related, but the rules of engagement exist to define and constrain military action, not to define the actions themselves.

Consistant with the accomplishment of the mission, restrant is exactly what is exspected from military members in today's service. From the top down.

Half true; it is also consistent with their own protection from potential or identified harm. When breaching a house that is believed to contain militants, for example, most first-world militaries would rather their soldiers toss a couple of hand grenades into the windows than possibly breach the building and walk into a hail of bullets. Civilian casualties resulting from these actions are always regrettable, but protection of civilians is secondary to the protection of service members.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

This is untrue. Starfleet has been called a military in both pejorative and non-pejorative contexts. The Federation President himself referred to a Starfleet starbase as a military installation long before anyone in Starfleet was doing anything wrong in "Homefront," for instance.

I seem to recall pointing this out several times before, but Deep Space Nine is technically a Bajoran space station.

It is a Bajoran space station being run as a Federation starbase.

To be sure: it is a Bajoran space station ADMINISTERED by Starfleet. Compare with, say, a Vietnamese missile battery being administered by Soviet military advisers in liu of NVA officers who have no experience running a SAM site. In legal terms all of Starfleet's officers and assets are nominally at the disposal of the Bajoran government and are expected to work in cooperation with Bajor's military.

Frankly, I think you're exaggerating the extent to which Starfleet officers would supposedly react in such a situation. None of the Starfleet officers in "The Siege of AR-558," for instance, were particularly weepy about all those Jem'Hadar they had to kill.

After two years of full scale warfare, I wouldn't think so. OTOH, we picked up TNG apparently right after the conclusion of a federation/Cardassian war, by which time Starfleet had returned to its "We have the utmost respect for all sentient life" mode.

Or, at least, we did not until characters started calling Starfleet a military -- establishing that it has a system of courts-martial in TOS, calling it a military in ST2 and in DS9, etc.

Which are all Earth conventions primarily... is Starfleet a purely Earth organization like Earth Starfleet, or is it something new that was created by the Federation?

If the former, then we're looking at the offspring of Earth Starfleet: an otherwise peaceful space program with a secondary military role, whose military aspect has been emphasized in its reincarnation. If the latter, then the inclusion of Earth military traditions in Starfleet is as interesting as it is irrelevant; if Starfleet is not an EARTH organization, then it doesn't matter what features EARTH dwellers include in the definition of "military" as it would have to meet the FEDERATION's definition first and foremost.

I lean towards the former view myself, since it would make Starfleet's duplicity on this issue more a matter of tradition than actual confusion; they would have BECOME a military organization by necessity, not by choice, and apparently did so before the legal instruments establishing them as such were even conceived of. The thing is "Starfleet is an Earth organization" gets as much resistance on the message boards as "Starfleet is not a military," so I think in the minds of many those two possibilities are irreconcilable.

Are you contending that the National Guards of the various U.S. states are not militaries, then?

No, I'm saying the national guards are not MILITIAS.

 

[AstroSmurf]

^ newtype_alpha you need to be using the "Multi-Quote" function instead of double posting. You should know better.

 

[Sci]

I seem to recall pointing this out several times before, but Deep Space Nine is technically a Bajoran space station.

It is a Bajoran space station being run as a Federation starbase.

To be sure: it is a Bajoran space station ADMINISTERED by Starfleet.

Administered by Starfleet as a Starfleet starbase. That's why it's in the listing of Starfleet Starbases on Memory Alpha and in The Star Trek Encyclopedia; it is not being administered as a Bajoran Militia base.

The station itself remains Bajoran property, but it is a Starfleet starbase on Bajoran property. That's why it's called Starbase Deep Space 9 rather than, say, Bajoran Militia Station 1.

And, therefore, when the Federation President refers to it as a military installation, he's not referring to the fact that it's Bajoran property, he's referring to the fact that it's a Starfleet starbase.

Or, at least, we did not until characters started calling Starfleet a military -- establishing that it has a system of courts-martial in TOS, calling it a military in ST2 and in DS9, etc.

Which are all Earth conventions primarily...

Federation President Jaresh-Inyo was a Grazerite, and he referred to Federation Starfleet starbases as military installations. Nog is a Ferengi, and he called himself a soldier. We've seen plenty of courts-martial administered by Vulcans.

Starfleet is a military. Period.

is Starfleet a purely Earth organization like Earth Starfleet, or is it something new that was created by the Federation?

It would necessarily have to be a new organization chartered by the Federation, since the UFP would otherwise have no legal authority over it. (We saw from ENT that the United Earth Starfleet can only take orders from the United Earth government, and we have never seen the U.E. government give orders to Starfleet -- but we have seen the Federation President do so.)

If the former, then we're looking at the offspring of Earth Starfleet: an otherwise peaceful space program with a secondary military role, whose military aspect has been emphasized in its reincarnation.

You're reverting to the question of ethos, which is irrelevant to legal classification. The only relevant question is, is the organization the official defense agency of the state in times of armed conflict, and does it possess the legal authority to enforce unique law upon its members through a system of courts-martial?

A military is the official defense agency of the state in times of armed conflict, and possesses the legal authority to enforce unique law upon its members through a system of courts-martial. The Federation Starfleet is the official defense agency of the state in times of armed conflict, and possesses the legal authority to enforce unique law upon its members through a system of courts-martial. Therefore, the Federation Starfleet is a military.

If the latter, then the inclusion of Earth military traditions in Starfleet is as interesting as it is irrelevant; if Starfleet is not an EARTH organization, then it doesn't matter what features EARTH dwellers include in the definition of "military" as it would have to meet the FEDERATION's definition first and foremost.

And the Federation defines it as a military.

Are you contending that the National Guards of the various U.S. states are not militaries, then?

No, I'm saying the national guards are not MILITIAS.

But the members of the National Guard have civilian jobs they are expected to do when not on active duty. You just claimed that any defense agency whose members retain civilian jobs when not on duty is a militia rather than a military. You are contradicting yourself now.

 

[Mr.AtoZ]

The Federation isn't a military organization, but it has a military branch within it that is known as Starfleet. Starfleet has military vessels but also commerce vessels. And as far as personnel are concerned, soliders and non-combatants (scientists, administrators, diplomats, and so on).

It seems to me that at least across the span of the original series that Starfleet is focused on exploration and diplomatic missions because there is no all out war in progress. Perhaps the expectation is that the unified Federation has helped squelch wars to a significant degree. The Klingons and the Romulans were the only major threats and war was only a phaser blast away at many given points.

Into the Next Generation, the Klingons are allied with the Federation but the Romulans are still a threat. Nevertheless, the Enterprise continues its mission of exploration and diplomacy. You can indeed have military people assigned to non-military tasks. But when the call to war comes, they answer it with all the duty they can muster.

Everything changes in Deep Space Nine. We see major conflicts take place and Starfleet gets caught up in these wars. They are a military organization so they must do their duty.

Remember what the original poster said:

I've always seen Starfleet as a military. In fact, it seems completely obvious given the propensity for Starfleet to act like a military in most every way, up to and including the use of military force. During the depictions of military conflict, Starfleet is shown to act as the Federation's military arm. So I never understand why at points in the different movies and series a certain insistence at times for characters to view Starfleet as a military, while most of the time characters will even refer to themselves as soldiers rather than diplomats. I see the most resistance from Star Trek fans, though, so I am curious to see where this resistance comes from.

So they are implying that a lot of Star Trek fans are resistant to calling Starfleet military. This is based on what scope of observation? Even if they searched across the TBBS for several years worth of postings to make this observation, this is only one venue out of many across the Internet. Or perhaps they are echoing the tendency of episodes to play down Starfleet as military and that most every encounter is prefaced with their mission being peaceful.

I think in summation we can all agree that Starfleet is indeed military and that a majority of the episodes created depict the Federation mostly in peacetime, hence the primary missions of the ships for each series being peaceful in nature. There are exceptions, such as the war against the Borg, the Dominion, etc. But these are resolved and peacetime follows.

 

[Sci]

The Federation isn't a military organization,

Well of course it's not, any more than the Commonwealth of Australia is a military organization. It's a sovereign state.

Starfleet has military vessels but also commerce vessels.

That's news to me. Where have we seen Starfleet commerce vessels?

I think in summation we can all agree that Starfleet is indeed military and that a majority of the episodes created depict the Federation mostly in peacetime, hence the primary missions of the ships for each series being peaceful in nature. There are exceptions, such as the war against the Borg, the Dominion, etc. But these are resolved and peacetime follows.

Yep. Well said!

 

[Crazy Eddie]

We've seen plenty of courts-martial administered by Vulcans.

Puzzling, since the Vulcans definitely do not have a military.

It would necessarily have to be a new organization chartered by the Federation, since the UFP would otherwise have no legal authority over it.

That's a hell of an assumption, isn't it? Again, we don't know the legal precedent under which the Federation operates, it's entirely possible that they DID assume legal authority when Earth joined the Federation. No doubt they did the same for the Andorians, the Vulcans, the Tellarites, etc; all placed their space services, civilian or otherwise, under Federal control.

You're reverting to the question of ethos, which is irrelevant to legal classification.

Whether you like it or not, legal authorization alone does not strictly define a military force. The early history of the Americas, for example, is marked by various wars conducted by privateers commissioned by some government or another in layers of colonial power plays. The privateers themselves could not be called a military force despite European powers depending on them to act as such in time of conflict.

The issue of ethos becomes relevant in considering the Federation's overall character. IF they were going to create a military organization, they would have made sure they made the most effective, most efficient, most dedicated organization imaginable with available technology. Watering it down with a thousand additional mission roles would be potentially hazardous and somewhat unfair to Starfleet in the long run; mission and scope creep would develop into epidemic problems throughout the fleet.

Somewhere in the wings there would HAVE to be a purely combat-oriented organization (hell, AT LEAST one) running in parallel to Starfleet, not unlike the MACOs of the 22nd century. We've never seen them, obviously (or maybe we DID in "Nor The Battle To the Strong") but then, we didn't see or hear about the MACOs either until the Xindi bombed Earth.

Are you contending that the National Guards of the various U.S. states are not militaries, then?

No, I'm saying the national guards are not MILITIAS.

But the members of the National Guard have civilian jobs they are expected to do when not on active duty.

But missing the other part of the definition: the national guards are not privately maintained.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

We've seen plenty of courts-martial administered by Vulcans.

Puzzling, since the Vulcans definitely do not have a military.

Yes, they do. The Vulcan High Command.

There's no indication that a Federation member world has to completely do away with its indigenous military forces. It is true that most of them would be offered positions in Starfleet, but some of the original organization would surely be needed to deal with purely local matters.