Why the Resistance to Starfleet as a Military?

[Crazy Eddie]

Yes it does. Starfleet wasn't a military organization when it went into the expanse, and yet you're saying it was conducting a military action despite this. Ergo, a non-military organization can conduct a military action.

You are using circular logic.

I'm using pure empiricism here. Forrest explicitly distinguished Starfleet from the military immediately before Enterprise went into the expanse. Hernandez explicitly drew that distinction again after they returned.

In this case especially, it is literally canon vs. your opinion.

MIlitaries take military actions in defense of their controlling states and their interests.

So do insurgents, mercenaries and counterintelligence agencies. The key thing that defines a military is that it is the organization given primary legal authority to take those actions: in a phrase, they are the designated lawful combatants. If Starfleet does not have that authority, it isn't the lawful combatant and therefore isn't a military.

The implication, of course, is that Starfleet would be violating Federation law every time it opened fire. But Enterprise has now firmly established that United Earth doesn't really make a distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants. There are many possibilities why this might be, but the most important one is that NOBODY ELSE makes that distinction either. It appears, instead, to be a freak occurrence unique to Earth legal tradition that has since become outmoded since First Contact.

No, this is simply a weak argument. Starfleet is easily defined as a military through what it does, even in addition to acting in defense of the Federation. Exploration and everything else is not mutually exclusive with Starfleet being a military and in fact militaries have done so historically and continue to do so.

But in terms of descriptive priority, Starfleet's MAIN priority--indeed, its founding principle--is space exploration.

Thus saying "they engage in combat, so they're the Federation's military" is the same as saying "Data plays the violin, so he's the Enterprise' music director."

Kind of like Starfleet would in the vastness of space, what with all those ships and people trained to operate them.

With the difference being that those ships were originally built for exploration IN THE FIRST PLACE. This is completely ass-backwards from military priority, which first develops a new functionality (pressurized water reactors for submarine engines) and THEN commits that functionality to a non-combat role.

Again, that's descriptive priority. The military develops functionality along defensive priorities; nuclear reactors were developed for submarines and surface vessels because of the need for greater endurance and speed while submerged, thus gaining the ability to avoid anti-submarine air patrol and direct engagement by surface ships. The teardrop hull was also designed, in the years after Nautilus, to optimize submerged performance for a vessel that would spend most of its time submerged. ALL of this development was driven by defensive priorities, specifically those of the Cold War and competition with the Soviet Navy.

Nut Nautilus was not CONCEIVED as an exploration vessel. From the outset it was designed for combat, and the expedition to the North Pole was first and foremost a test of its engine system. The Enterprise--in fact, every Starship to carry the name--was designed from the outset for EXPLORATION, with combat as a secondary role.

The only ship in Starfleet that is known to have been designed purely for combat was USS Defiant; the development project for Defiant was so low on Starfleet's priorities that it could only be justified by the presence of a stupefyingly dangerous threat.

Why, because a few characters said so?

That's what "explicit" means, yes.

Again, actions speak louder than words

And actions do not define the military, THE LAW defines the military. Earth law says the MACOs are the military. Federation law has never been expanded on in this issue, and since many other worlds have a wide variation of legal tradition on the subject, it doesn't seem to matter all that much.

But without knowing Federation law, we can guess based on priorities. Starfleet's priorities center around exploration, and thus they act like explorers FAR more often than they act like military officers. If you believe actions speak louder than words, why do ignore the fact that their actions say "explorer" much more often than "soldier"?

Earth was under military threat, so its military should have dealt with that threat.

How? Their military didn't have any starships.

It would be exactly the same if an alien space craft suddenly appeared in Earth orbit and dropped a nuclear warhead on New York. NORAD goes to Defcon-1, every ICBM in the country is armed and aimed at the thing. But before we pull the trigger, the President decides to send a shuttle up there to talk to these guys and figure out what their beef is.

Trouble is, nobody in the air force knows how to operate the shuttle, and it would take too long to train them. NASA still has some Air Force pilots on its payroll, so it assigns them to the flight crew. And because he's worried about hostilities, the mission commander has a pack of RIM-161s mounted in the cargo bay and has two marines assigned to the flight crew as mission specialists.

It's a military mission to be sure. Arguably it is even lead by a military crew. But NASA is not part of the military, they don't become part of the military during the mission, nor do they remain one after the mission. The only reason NASA is involved at all is because they have a space craft capable of doing what the military cannot.

The lack of this happening is directly attributable to hack writing, but an in-universe explanation would be that Starfleet was a military organization at that point

Why? The only reason it would NEED to be would be to satisfy the vagaries of international law. If those laws are no longer relevant, then there's no need to commission them, is there?

Or the military still has the best equipment and funding, as defense isn't exactly an area a state would want to be lacking in.

Why not? Most of Starfleet's tactical capability was intended to defend THEMSELVES, not the state. This is true even in the 24th century, where the saucer separation feature, rather than being an effective force multiplier, is intended to ensure the safety of the ship's civilian population: the families of Starfleet officers and non-Starfleet researchers on board.

In any case, given the incomprehensible distances separating hostile powers, the massive number of worlds over which they are competing for control, and the simple fact that majority of rival powers never actually engage in hostilities, let alone make any attempt to invade each other's home worlds, planetary defense would be something Starfleet is almost never bothered with. Planetary defenses are adequate for the job 99% of the time; as with the above example, why would you spend the time and energy to militarize NASA when you could just stockpile enough ICBMs to nuke a dozen Earth-sized planets?

No, you didn't. You avoided the question, so I am forced to ask again - what exactly is your issue with Starfleet being a military?

The simple fact that it ISN'T a military. You may not understand that (you appear to be actively avoiding understanding) but to me it would be no different from calling a Genesis a weapon of mass destruction. That's not what it is, it's not what it was intended for. Frankly I'm perplexed that I even have to explain why.

You mean the movie in which Starfleet was explicitly referred to as the military?

By the same man who a day earlier explicitly referred to James Kirk as a "boyscout" and later tried to stab him in the back, saying "He killed everybody we left behind!" Reliable source, that one.

Almost as reliable as Kruge who repeatedly refers to Genesis as a weapon of mass destruction.

Again, no, this is a hyperbolic comparison

There's nothing hyperbolic about it. Genesis was designed and conceived for a peaceful purpose, and yet the nature of the device is such that everyone--even its designers--realize its enormous military potential.

In exactly the same way, Starfleet was conceived for the purpose of peaceful exploration, and yet the nature of Starfleet is such that everyone realizes its enormous military potential. Had Genesis been developed into a functional system I have no doubt that it WOULD, on occasion, be used by the Federation as a powerful WMD capable of M.A.D.-style deterrence. That does not change the fact that Genesis NOT a weapon in the same way that Starfleet is NOT a military.

There is not even remotely a basis for comparison here any more than the idea that somehow saying that since an individual has a hobby that is not their primary job, Starfleet is not a military, which is essentially arguing that Starfleet defends the Federation and fights wars as a hobby.

Not as a hobby, but as a mission role which is secondary to all other considerations.

But here's a question you might want to consider: how often does Starfleet fight wars in defense of the Federation? From what I can tell we've only ever seen this once, in the case of the Dominion War, which saw the unprecedented steps of Federation alliances with both the Klingons and the Romulans. Prior to this, when has Starfleet gone to war and for what?

In TOS, it was war with the Klingons. Not in the defense of the Federation, but over control of a handful of disputed systems in the Arcanis sector. It TNG, it was the Cardassians; not in defense of the Federation but--once again--over control of a handful of disputed systems along what become the demilitarized zone. Even either case you could say they were acting in defense of Federation citizens, but not in defense of anything that could be legitimately called Federation worlds.

It does appear that against anyone other than the Dominion, even antiquated defenses are more than adequate for planetary defense. Border worlds and colonies don't have those kinds of resources, though, and they either rely on Starfleet for that purpose, or--in the case of the DMZ--they raise the funds and do it themselves.

Participating in exploration and scientific research is not mutually exclusive with being a military.

I don't remember saying that it was. In fact I'm pretty sure I just suggested otherwise (which one of us raised the example of the Nautilus' north pole shakedown, again?).

Why do you now insist on arguing that Starfleet is somehow different, and can't be a military and carry out exploration and scientific research.

I didn't say it can't. I said it isn't. At least not in the prime universe (waiting for the next Trek movie to be sure, but the Abramsverse Starfleet appears to function differently).

Militaries exist to serve their state and its politics. This goes for everything from expansionism, to basic defense, to exploration and many other roles.

Indeed, the military can fill any role from national defense to bagging your groceries at the supermarket. The issue here is whether or not the military is needed for any of those things. Why, for example, is WalMart staffed by part-time workers instead of E-1s? Why are space shuttles, airliners, ocean liners and trains serviced by civilian engineers instead of the Army Corps of Engineers? When someone breaks into your house, why do you call the cops instead of the Military Police or the National Guard?

Is it because the military can't perform those roles? Absolutely not (in most cases we're probably better off if it doesn't). But we don't send the military to perform those roles, because there are other organizations and corporations that are specifically arranged to fill them. That's why the military doesn't conduct manned space exploration, we have an organization specifically for that purpose. It's also why the military no longer coordinates the development of space launch vehicles; satellite launchers no longer share common hardware with ICBMs, and private industry has taken over that role as well.

The only role the military HAS to fill is that of national defense, and the only thing that defines the military for that role is legal precedent.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Oh give it up. An exploration organization wouldn't have starships that could devastate the entire habitable surface of a planet.

Hell, an ore freighter with a tractor beam could devastate an entire planet. But is that equipment INTENDED for that purpose, or is that a possible use for them in an emergency?

 

[BillJ]

Oh give it up. An exploration organization wouldn't have starships that could devastate the entire habitable surface of a planet.

Hell, an ore freighter with a tractor beam could devastate an entire planet. But is that equipment INTENDED for that purpose, or is that a possible use for them in an emergency?

We're not talking about an ore freighter... we're talking about a 'exploration' craft with a very peculiar feature set. It's like giving a NOAA plane nuclear missiles.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Oh give it up. An exploration organization wouldn't have starships that could devastate the entire habitable surface of a planet.

Hell, an ore freighter with a tractor beam could devastate an entire planet. But is that equipment INTENDED for that purpose, or is that a possible use for them in an emergency?

We're not talking about an ore freighter... we're talking about a 'exploration' craft with a very peculiar feature set.

I repeat: you could devastate an entire planet with a tractor beam if you had a mind to (in point of fact it would probably be easier than doing it with phasers; drop a few well-placed asteroids over populated areas, then you've also sealed the fate of the survivors too). Enterprise has a tractor beam, doesn't it?

It's like giving a NOAA plane nuclear missiles

How about a Genesis Device on a science vessel?

 

[T'Girl]

It would be exactly the same if an alien space craft suddenly appeared in Earth orbit and dropped a nuclear warhead on New York. NORAD goes to Defcon-1, every ICBM in the country is armed and aimed at the thing. But before we pull the trigger, the President decides to send a shuttle up there to talk to these guys and figure out what their beef is.

Trouble is, nobody in the air force knows how to operate the shuttle ...

From Nasa astronaut recruitment requirements.

Although flying experience is only a requirement for the Pilot Astronaut Candidate, it is also beneficial for the Mission Specialist Astronaut Candidate. The Pilots selected have had military pilot training.

Military Astronaut Candidates are detailed to the Johnson Space Center and remain in an active duty status for pay, benefits, leave, and other similar military matters.

If selected, military personnel are detailed to NASA for a selected period of time.

http://nasajobs.nasa.gov/astronauts/content/faq.htm

While there have been a very few never been military civilian pilots, most shuttle pilots are military attached to NASA, or retired military.

-----

The only purely manual piloted re-entry with a shuttle was by a Air Force pilot, STS 02.

Thus saying "they engage in combat, so they're the Federation's military" is the same as saying "Data plays the violin, so he's the Enterprise' music director."

If playing the violin was Data's primary job, and he would dropp everything else in order to do it, then yes you could say he was the Enterprise's music director.

 

[BillJ]

How about a Genesis Device on a science vessel?

Which science vessel would that be? It was never aboard Grissom and we have no clue whether or not it was intended to be test detonated from Reliant.

And Regula I was a civilian station developing Genesis in concert with Starfleet.

Plus 'The Wrath of Khan' gives us the 'Starfleet Corps of Engineers' which I would think would be the 23rd century equivalent of the 'Army Corps of Engineers'.

CAROL: This? It took the Starfleet Corps of Engineers ten months in space suits to tunnel out all this.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It would be exactly the same if an alien space craft suddenly appeared in Earth orbit and dropped a nuclear warhead on New York. NORAD goes to Defcon-1, every ICBM in the country is armed and aimed at the thing. But before we pull the trigger, the President decides to send a shuttle up there to talk to these guys and figure out what their beef is.

Trouble is, nobody in the air force knows how to operate the shuttle ...

From Nasa astronaut recruitment requirements...

It's an analogy, dude. The only military officer on Enterprise' crew (former or otherwise) was Malcolm Reed. The shuttle program runs differently.

While there have been a very few never been military civilian pilots, most shuttle pilots are military attached to NASA, or retired military.

And yet NASA still isn't part of the military. Fancy that.

Thus saying "they engage in combat, so they're the Federation's military" is the same as saying "Data plays the violin, so he's the Enterprise' music director."

If playing the violin was Data's primary job, and he would dropp everything else in order to do it, then yes you could say he was the Enterprise's music director.

And you would tell me he IS the music director because you never know when some omnipotent being will threaten to destroy the entire ship unless somebody on board can arrange a 15-piece orchestra to play his theme song in forty minutes or less. Only Data could pull that off, and everyone knows it. What, just because the situation never came up means we never got to see him acting in his primary role as music director? Oh well.

Anyway, let's examine the occasions when Starfleet actually "dropped everything" and committed all of its resources to a defensive operations.

There is the Dominion War, and there there's... um...

Er...

 

[Crazy Eddie]

How about a Genesis Device on a science vessel?

Which science vessel would that be?

How do you suppose Carol Marcus' team got to Regula-1 in the first place? They either own their own ship, or they chartered one.

we have no clue whether or not it was intended to be test detonated from Reliant.

It wasn't. Genesis was a civilian project under Dr. Marcus' exclusive control. Essentially, NOAA inventing a nuclear warhead (or something equally powerful) for its own purposes.

And Regula I was a civilian station developing Genesis in concert with Starfleet.

In concert? Starfleet was at their disposal. Technically they weren't even partners.

 

[BillJ]

In concert? Starfleet was at their disposal. Technically they weren't even partners.

If Starfleet were at their disposal and not vice-versa then Marcus would've had no problem shooing Reliant away. Evidently, Starfleet had some say in development and implementation of the Genesis project.

CAROL (on viewscreen): Why are you taking Genesis away from us?

CAROL (on viewscreen): Please help us. I will not let them have Genesis without proper authorization!

She seems to be looking to Kirk for that proper authorization.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In concert? Starfleet was at their disposal. Technically they weren't even partners.

If Starfleet were at their disposal and not vice-versa then Marcus would've had no problem shooing Reliant away.

She did. I believe her exact words were "I have no intention of allowing Reliant or any other unauthorized personnel access to our work or materials."

Even her calling Kirk suggests that neither Starfleet General Staff would constitute "proper authorization," and neither is Kirk.

Evidently, Starfleet had some say in development and implementation of the Genesis project.

No they didn't. Carol dictated the terms of the project right down to the selection criteria for the test planet.

Furthermore, even the original Genesis proposal was made while the project was already underway as an appeal to the Federation for funding. That would include resources and money, and the assignment of a starship in support of the project. Beyond that, Starfleet had no say in the matter, as Genesis was--in Carol's EXACT WORDS--a civilian project under her control.

And then there's David's line to consider: "Every time we have dealings with Starfleet, I get nervous. We are dealing with something that could be perverted into a dreadful weapon." In essence, Starfleet is not even a regular participant in the project.

 

[BillJ]

And then there's David's line to consider: "Every time we have dealings with Starfleet, I get nervous. We are dealing with something that could be perverted into a dreadful weapon." In essence, Starfleet is not even a regular participant in the project.

You said it all right there... we know what the civilians in the Star Trek universe think about whether Starfleet is the military or not.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ Well, we certainly know what David Marcus thinks about the subject. History shows that his grasp of facts--like his judgement and his knife-fighting skills--leave much to be desired.

Of course in 11 star trek movies, David is the only character who ever uses the word "military" in a sentence, let alone in reference to Starfleet. In the same span, he is also the only person who has ever voiced any serious misgivings about Starfleet's intentions. I suppose you think that's just a coincidence...

 

[BillJ]

^ Well, we certainly know what David Marcus thinks about the subject. History shows that his grasp of facts--like his judgement and his knife-fighting skills--leave much to be desired.

Of course in 11 star trek movies, David is the only character who ever uses the word "military" in a sentence, let alone in reference to Starfleet. In the same span, he is also the only person who has ever voiced any serious misgivings about Starfleet's intentions. I suppose you think that's just a coincidence...

Well... you also have the whole 'mothballing the starfleet' discussion from Star Trek VI in response to Gorkon's peace initiative.

The whole engagement with the Borg from the beginning of Star Trek: First Contact sure looked like a military operation to me.

To me the preponderance of evidence shows Starfleet as a military organization and contrary to Roddenberry's personal belief later in life, having a military does not equate to being evil. Having a force dedicated to keeping the peace does not seem as something that is likely to go away in the near or distant future.

 

[neozeks]

Anyway, let's examine the occasions when Starfleet actually "dropped everything" and committed all of its resources to a defensive operations.

There is the Dominion War, and there there's... um...

Er...

"Dropped everything" doesn't have to mean Starfleet comitted all it's resources. Response is proportional to the scale of the threat. Starfleet "dropped everything" everytime Enterprise stopped an exploration mission of some sort to go fight some pirates, or patrol the Neutral Zone, or go on a rescue mission.

Seriously, a simple question. If Starfleet had to choose between ordering the only ship available to explore some nebulae and ordering it to race to the border to fight off an alien incursion, which one would it choose? That right there says what Starfleet's primary mission is.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ Well, we certainly know what David Marcus thinks about the subject. History shows that his grasp of facts--like his judgement and his knife-fighting skills--leave much to be desired.

Of course in 11 star trek movies, David is the only character who ever uses the word "military" in a sentence, let alone in reference to Starfleet. In the same span, he is also the only person who has ever voiced any serious misgivings about Starfleet's intentions. I suppose you think that's just a coincidence...

Well... you also have the whole 'mothballing the starfleet' discussion from Star Trek VI in response to Gorkon's peace initiative.

Which is silly, because nobody said anything about the fleet, only the outposts along the neutral zone, which were themselves a relatively recent installation if this is the same neutral zone established by the Organian Peace Treaty.

And the very next line was "I'm sure our scientific and exploration programs would be unaffected..."

The whole engagement with the Borg from the beginning of Star Trek: First Contact sure looked like a military operation to me.

Did it? To me it looked like a clusterfuck with every ship in the sector coming to try and save Earth.

To me the preponderance of evidence shows Starfleet as a military organization and contrary to Roddenberry's personal belief later in life, having a military does not equate to being evil.

I don't give a damn about Roddenberry's personal beliefs, I'm mainly referring to Starfleet as presented in the series. It ISN'T presented as a military organization, only an armed one with impressive capabilities and experience.

This draws a huge contrast to me with space-faring organizations that ARE presented as military organizations, and that contrast is extremely hard to ignore. I am not so enamored by the idea of the protagonists soldiers that I have to shoehorn that assumption into situations where it doesn't smoothly fit.

Having a force dedicated to keeping the peace does not seem as something that is likely to go away in the near or distant future.

But you, Starfleet is not (in the Prime universe) dedicated to keeping the pace. It's dedicated to peaceful exploration of space. That is its primary function, it's what it spends most of its time doing, it's what it is rarely prevented from doing even in time of war (Or did you fail to notice that the border wars with the Cardassians actually took place DURING the first three seasons of TNG, with Enteprise--the so-called "flagship" never once participating in it?)

 

[BillJ]

"I'm a soldier, not a diplomat." - James T. Kirk, Errand of Mercy

And as Neozeks pointed out... you don't commit every asset when you're fighting a conflict. You commit every asset to fighting the Cardassians, you get bum rushed by the Romulans and the Tzenkethi.

In Angel One, we see the Enterprise being sent to the Romulan border as a show of strength...

PICARD: I want all departments prepared for a warp six trip into the Neutral Zone as soon as the away team completes its mission.
WORF: Trouble, Captain?
PICARD: Insurance. Romulan battle cruisers have been detected near one of our border posts.

***

PICARD: That is ridiculous, Doctor. I have an away team down there, in less than friendly territory, and in addition I have an appointment with several Romulan battlecruisers.

***

LAFORGE: Well, no recent contact, sir, but I have informed them of the medical situation up here and the growing Romulan threat to our Neutral Zone outpost.

***

LAFORGE: We're going to be seriously undermanned if we're forced to engage the Romulans in battle.

***

LAFORGE [OC]: One third of the crew is down, and the latest information from the Neutral Zone outpost is that more Romulan vessels are converging on that area.

So you're telling me that Starfleet considers a 'non-military' exploration vessel a match for multiple Romulan warbirds?

Hell, they even have military formality (from Encounter at Farpoint)...

LAFORGE: Sir, the Enterprise is arriving
RIKER: Is this an official report, Lieutenant?
LAFORGE: Sorry, Commander. Sir, Lieutenant La Forge reporting. The Enterprise arriving, but without the saucer section, sir.

For not being a duck, it sure in the hell quacks like one.

 

[Sci]

Of course in 11 star trek movies, David is the only character who ever uses the word "military" in a sentence, let alone in reference to Starfleet.

And no one contradicts him.

To me the preponderance of evidence shows Starfleet as a military organization and contrary to Roddenberry's personal belief later in life, having a military does not equate to being evil.

I don't give a damn about Roddenberry's personal beliefs, I'm mainly referring to Starfleet as presented in the series. It ISN'T presented as a military organization, only an armed one

"That's not a duck! It just has a beak and some feathers and quacks a lot!"

Having a force dedicated to keeping the peace does not seem as something that is likely to go away in the near or distant future.

But you, Starfleet is not (in the Prime universe) dedicated to keeping the pace. It's dedicated to peaceful exploration of space.

Pardon me, but where has it ever been claimed that Starfleet's greater priority lies one way or the other?

 

[NX-01]

I have to be honest whist watching ST I had always just thought of it as the Navy of the Future (since they have naval ranks). It wasn't till I watched ENT and they introduced the MACO's that I realised that I was wrong however I don't see why they are not Military... I mean they protect Earth against outside threats, in the same way the armies of the world protect there own boarders.

Also among the first couple of pages of this thread, I read someone wrote that Military=Evil....I am not sure how they come to that conclusion. :s

 

[Vincent Law]

]
That's not a confusion, Sci. The primary purpose of a military organization is national defense against other countries, or more specifically, other countries' militaries.

Actually, no, it's against any outside threat to the state and its interests.

Starfleet's primary task is not focused on on defense against other worlds, least of all other world's space forces.

It can be when necessary. You can't simply dismiss that aspect of Starfleet because it doesn't suit you. In every way, Starfleet acts like a military, and that includes is exploratory role.

In this case especially, it is literally canon vs. your opinion.

NO, actually it is a case of you taking a few lines of dialog and giving them more clout than the actual actions the organization takes.

So do insurgents, mercenaries and counterintelligence agencies.

No, insurgents operate on their own according to their own agenda. Mercenaries work for hire, and I seriously doubt Starfleet is a band of mercenaries. And let's not forget that the Federation has a clandestine intelligence agency in addition to Starfleet's official one.

As for legality, that is a big definer for a military force as far as defining it's legal right to exist and to legally take military actions, which is something Starfleet would need. Again, this is in no way an effective argument against Starfleet being a military.

But in terms of descriptive priority, Starfleet's MAIN priority--indeed, its founding principle--is space exploration.

That is entirely a subjective interpretation and there has been nothing on screen to ever establish this. So again, it comes down to what Starfleet actually does.

Thus saying "they engage in combat, so they're the Federation's military" is the same as saying "Data plays the violin, so he's the Enterprise' music director."

No, it isn't. One is a hobby that an individual partakes in, the other is a matter of defense of the state. Starfleet has been shown to act as the Federation's military during times of war.

With the difference being that those ships were originally built for exploration IN THE FIRST PLACE. This is completely ass-backwards from military priority, which first develops a new functionality (pressurized water reactors for submarine engines) and THEN commits that functionality to a non-combat role.

If that was the case, weaponry would not be as powerful or plentiful on mainline Starfleet ships because there simply wouldn't be as much emphasis on weaponry. And for all this argument over primary and secondary roles, it still comes down to things like Starfleet acting in defense of the Federation and its interests, as well as rank structure, traditions, and the existence of legal justice system that applies only to Starfleet personnel, which is why Starfleet carries out courts martial.

Earth law says the MACOs are the military.

Actually nothing much was said on the matter. From all appearances, the MACOS were more like the SEALs than a full blown military, even if they also sucked at what they did.

If you believe actions speak louder than words, why do ignore the fact that their actions say "explorer" much more often than "soldier"?

I'm not. Historically the military has always taken on an exploratory role, which means that these actions are not mutually exclusive.

Trouble is, nobody in the air force knows how to operate the shuttle, and it would take too long to train them.

Space Shuttle pilots are Air Force and Navy pilots. Astronauts have traditionally been military pilots since NASA's founding. You also seem to be forgetting that the Air Force has developed its own space shuttle in preparation for the current orbiter's retirement. And speaking of history, you realize that prior to the treaty being signed that limited the militarization of space, that the Air Force was starting to do the same kind of research that NASA would eventually take over, right? You do realize that NASA owes its existence to the Cold War, right? And when you look at Starfleet, it has far more in common with a naval force than NASA.

But here's a question you might want to consider: how often does Starfleet fight wars in defense of the Federation? From what I can tell we've only ever seen this once, in the case of the Dominion War, which saw the unprecedented steps of Federation alliances with both the Klingons and the Romulans. Prior to this, when has Starfleet gone to war and for what?

A war with Cardassia is mentioned during TNG's run, having taken place some time prior to the series, and during TOS, there actually was a declared war between the Federation and the Klingon Empire, which the Enterprise and other Starfleet ships acted as combatants in. It wasn't very long due to the treaty that was forced on both sides by the Organians, but it did happen.

In TOS, it was war with the Klingons. Not in the defense of the Federation, but over control of a handful of disputed systems in the Arcanis sector. It TNG, it was the Cardassians; not in defense of the Federation but--once again--over control of a handful of disputed systems along what become the demilitarized zone. Even either case you could say they were acting in defense of Federation citizens, but not in defense of anything that could be legitimately called Federation worlds.

You seem to be forgetting the "and its interests" part. Those systems were either within the boundaries of the Federation itself, or they were considered interests of the state to the point that the state did not want to lose control of them.

I didn't say it can't. I said it isn't.

It certainly looks that way to me. In any case it appears that you are mincing words; it seems evident that you feel that a military cannot also fill an exploratory role in addition to its defensive role because all of your arguments are directed toward that point. In any case, you still have not answered my original question.

 

[Saito S]

Full disclosure: I didn't watch more than a few eps of ENT, and thus cannot offer my take on the issue of Earth Starfleet's military status. However, I don't think it has any bearing on the discussion of whether or not the Federation Starfleet - as depicted in TOS thru VOY - is "a military" or not.

Seriously, a simple question. If Starfleet had to choose between ordering the only ship available to explore some nebulae and ordering it to race to the border to fight off an alien incursion, which one would it choose? That right there says what Starfleet's primary mission is.

This illustrates why I hold the position I do: that neither mission (exploration vs. defense) can really be said to be "THE mission" with the other one being of lesser importance. Exploration is, certainly, what Starfleet WANTS to be doing for the most part. But the defense mission is critical, because without it, the UFP would be destroyed; thus, when a conflict or threat DOES arise, it takes precedence over everything else (not just the exploration duties, but the other duties Starfleet carries out). So, in the end, there is a balance: neither is "more" important. One is preferred, and the other must out-prioritize everything else (even the preferred one) when it comes up.

^ Well, we certainly know what David Marcus thinks about the subject. History shows that his grasp of facts--like his judgement and his knife-fighting skills--leave much to be desired.

Of course in 11 star trek movies, David is the only character who ever uses the word "military" in a sentence, let alone in reference to Starfleet. In the same span, he is also the only person who has ever voiced any serious misgivings about Starfleet's intentions. I suppose you think that's just a coincidence...

In the movies, maybe. But in Trek as a whole, he is hardly the only character to voice "any serious misgivings about Starfleet's intentions".

Besides, Carol Marcus' mental faculties aren't in question, and she defends Starfleet in the very next line of dialog. Doesn't it seem reasonable that if Starfleet were not considered a military, or "the Federation military" or what have you, that she would have corrected David on that point, rather than just pointing out that they have kept the peace?

And... actually, maybe it's just been too long since I watched ST 2&3, but on what basis do you question his grasp of facts? His judgment, absolutely, but his perception of the realities around him?

Did it? To me it looked like a clusterfuck with every ship in the sector coming to try and save Earth.

This was in reference to the Borg battle in FC. And... how is that in any way a rebuttal to the idea that it was a military operation? Military ops DO sometimes descend into clusterfucks with every available resource called in to assist. Especially when dealing with a foe as powerful as the Borg. This HUGE armada of starships is called away from whatever else they might have been doing to defend the Federation (yes, the whole thing; targeting Earth is just a means to an end for the Borg, that end being the assimilation of the entire UFP, and Starfleet is well aware of this) from a "Borg invasion." Sounds like a textbook example of a military operation to me.

I don't give a damn about Roddenberry's personal beliefs, I'm mainly referring to Starfleet as presented in the series. It ISN'T presented as a military organization, only an armed one with impressive capabilities and experience.

I have to go with Sci here: it's a duck, dude. You can call it a water-loving bird that happens to have duck-like qualities, but it sure looks like a duck to me.
I also don't see how it's not presented as a military. They fight the wars, the defend the populace, they explore unknown territory, they perform humanitarian aid missions, they recieve extensive military training, they fly around in ships armed to the teeth that are organized into numbered fleets, individual members call themselves "soldiers" in times of war, and they use a formal, military rank system. More than enough for me.

But you, Starfleet is not (in the Prime universe) dedicated to keeping the pace. It's dedicated to peaceful exploration of space. That is its primary function, it's what it spends most of its time doing, it's what it is rarely prevented from doing even in time of war

Starfleet was very much prevented from continuing with their usual exploration duties during the Dominion war. Starfleet is very much dedicated to keeping the peace, and many individual members place great importance on doing so. They are also dedicated to peaceful exploration of space.

(Or did you fail to notice that the border wars with the Cardassians actually took place DURING the first three seasons of TNG, with Enteprise--the so-called "flagship" never once participating in it?)

From MA:
"The Federation-Cardassian Wars, known in the Federation as the Cardassian Wars or Border Wars, were prolonged conflicts between the Federation and the Cardassian Union, which started as far back as 2347 and lasted into the 2350s. (Smaller skirmishes, not officially considered part of the wars, continued into the 2360s.) The ensuing stalemate by the mid-2360s advantaged neither side in firepower or territory."

TNG S1 was 2364, well into the "this isn't a full-scale war anymore, but hostilities do flare up still" period.

Why not? Most of Starfleet's tactical capability was intended to defend THEMSELVES, not the state.

What? No it wasn't. How do you figure that? (Unless you are talking specifically about pre-UFP Earth Starfleet, in which case I withdraw this response since I can't comment one way or the other).

This is true even in the 24th century, where the saucer separation feature, rather than being an effective force multiplier, is intended to ensure the safety of the ship's civilian population: the families of Starfleet officers and non-Starfleet researchers on board.

So the very existence of this fallback measure to keep the crew and any onboard civs safe means that the Ent-D/Galaxy class is incapable of acting in defense of the UFP as a whole when it is threatened? The only purpose of an ejection system in a military fighter plane is to keep the pilot safe if his plane is crippled in mid-air. The system does NOTHING for the mission at hand, for the defense of any other individual, or for the state.

...planetary defense would be something Starfleet is almost never bothered with.

From DS9 "The Changing Face of Evil", when Sisko and Martok are reviewing the damage to Earth following the Breen attack:
"Starfleet was able to destroy most of the Breen attack force, but..."

From DS9 "In the Pale Moonlight", after we learn of the fall of Betazed:
"There's plenty of blame to go around. The tenth fleet was supposed to be protecting Betazed..."

But here's a question you might want to consider: how often does Starfleet fight wars in defense of the Federation?

Every time a full-scale war breaks out or a hostile power threatens the UFP as a whole. The implications have ALWAYS been that anything on the level of the Dominion War would be fought by Starfleet. The reason no other wars occurred during the televised run of Trek isn't because Starfleet is not a military, it's because the creators didn't want there to be any other wars. It's a TV show. So Starfleet kept the UFP in peace for large chunks of time; that doesn't mean they are not a military.

And certainly, if you look at conflicts - large or small - that the US has been involved in via its military in, say, the last thirty years or so, not even close to every one of them have been a full-scale war with a formal declaration by any involved party.

In TOS, it was war with the Klingons. Not in the defense of the Federation, but over control of a handful of disputed systems in the Arcanis sector.

That hair is split so thin that it's not even a hair anymore. "In defense of the Federation" would logically include "in defense of Federation interests." Real-life militaries don't engage in the type of smaller-scale defense missions you are talking about here?

It TNG, it was the Cardassians; not in defense of the Federation but--once again--over control of a handful of disputed systems along what become the demilitarized zone. Even either case you could say they were acting in defense of Federation citizens, but not in defense of anything that could be legitimately called Federation worlds.

What, exactly, constitutes a "Federation World"? Must that mean ONLY a species homeworld? Why is the defense of Setlik III by Starfleet assets not considered to be "Starfleet defending a Federation world" by you?

Besides, to your overall point here: If a single United States cruise liner - not operated by the government, but by a US based tour company and carrying US citizens - is out in the Atlantic and runs into some kind of serious, life-threatening trouble, and US military forces respond, then those particular military forces are not, at that moment, "defending the US". So I fail to see what that distinction proves.

The only role the military HAS to fill is that of national defense, and the only thing that defines the military for that role is legal precedent.

Starfleet assumes the role of national defense, when situations requiring such come up. No one else has ever been seen to take that role. Starfleet also clearly has the legal and moral backing to do so from the UFP government and citizenry.