Why the Resistance to Starfleet as a Military?

[Vincent Law]

Based on the preponderance of the evidence (all eps and movies), is the PRIMARY mission of starfleet . . .

a. to fight and win the federation's wars (language taken from our US Army mission statement)

or

b. exploration

Remember: "Primary" mission. Which do you think it is? I'm curious.

That depends somewhat on what you mean. If you mean that if a choice has to be made to do one or the other, then I would definitely say that defense is going to be the primary mission, because I doubt a Starfleet ship would just go off and do some random exploration if there was a ship or planet that was under attack. This is how the Enterprise-C was lost, and it wasn't even in defense of a Federation colony, but that of an ally.

 

[Saito S]

Trouble is, we've rarely if ever seen starships ACTUALLY DO this.

"The Die is Cast"

We know they're capable of orbital bombardment, but there must be some in-universe reason why this isn't usually a viable tactic in wartime. I would think that ground based shielding (of the type Soran was using in Generations) would more than suffice to hold off most orbital attacks in the short term, while purpose-built bunkers would suffice over longer seiges. Major cities would have even stronger shields, and either military facilities or population centers would be surrounded by DS9-style weapon emplacements.

Now, the aforementioned orbital bombardment seen in the DS9 ep mentioned above is but ONE instance of planetary bombardment by starships. I pointed it out because you dismissed it as something we've "rarely if ever" seen, then as a counter-point, you assume that something we have seen an equal number of times (once) - Soran's huge-ass forcefield - would be standard fare around the Trek verse. Then you assume that a bunch of things we've NEVER seen (unless I am forgetting something) are also standard fare.

If those things "could" be standard fare and we just never heard about it, there also "could" have been plenty of times that warring powers used starships to attack planetside
armed forces and we just never heard about it.

The Romulans, by the way, were so certain of this that they were willing to risk a war with the Federation to land a few thousand troops on Vulcan. As with law, possession is nine tenths of victory.

This is nothing more than a massive plot hole. "Over 2000" Romulan troops isn't enough to accomplish anything toward the ultimate goal of taking over an entire planet (a core Federation world, no less).

I guess the MACOs don't count, then?

I can't speak for anyone else, but on this point, my concern is with the lack of even a teeny tiny shred of evidence within TOS-VOY and the first ten movies that any Federation (not "Earth") military (or even military-ish) force exists aside from Starfleet. So, no, the MACOs don't count.

As to the question of why the resistance...

Anyone else want to speak to why we resist the thought of StarFleet as military ASIDE from our evidence pro or con from the series/movies?

Nothing comes to mind, other than the general sense that "military" is a gross oversimplification of what Starfleet is.

Perhaps you are grossly oversimplifying what the military is.

This. What reason is there to assume that by "the military", one MUST mean "the body that is concerned only with fighting the wars"? Starfleet fights the Federation's wars when necessary; therefore, they are the military. However, they are also an organization dedicated to the peaceful exploration of the galaxy, to seeking out new life and learning about it, and to advancing Federation science, and still other things too.

One does not preclude the other. Speaking of which:

Based on the preponderance of the evidence (all eps and movies), is the PRIMARY mission of starfleet . . .

a. to fight and win the federation's wars (language taken from our US Army mission statement)

or

b. exploration

Remember: "Primary" mission. Which do you think it is? I'm curious.

That depends somewhat on what you mean. If you mean that if a choice has to be made to do one or the other, then I would definitely say that defense is going to be the primary mission, because I doubt a Starfleet ship would just go off and do some random exploration if there was a ship or planet that was under attack. This is how the Enterprise-C was lost, and it wasn't even in defense of a Federation colony, but that of an ally.

Good example with the Ent-C.

I don't think it can be disputed that Starfleet's ships and personnel drop what they are doing and run to assist if Federation citizens, other Starfleet personnel, or the UFP as a whole, are threatened. newtype, you tried to make a point upthread (in response to asking "Wouldn't Starfleet prioritize a military mission where lives where at stake above an exploratory mission?") with this:

Again, it depends on the nature of the threat. Starfleet will ALWAYS redirect to a different mission when lives are at stake, even if it means putting off a military mission (which they arguably did in Angel One).

I don't see how prioritizing a situation where lives are at stake makes them not the military, since many real-world military organizations (including the US) devote sizable amounts of resources to non-combative tasks helping people in danger or need. Very often, some of the more immediate threats to UFP lives or interests ARE military in nature, but there are plenty of natural phenomena and other such threats to be had. Consider this: the issue is that Starfleet places a great deal of importance on exploratory duties compared to real militaries. Exploratory duties. You are using examples of Starfleet saving people from threats NOT caused by hostile armed forced as proof that Starfleet is not military. Yet those examples prove the exact opposite.

Starfleet officers on a Starfleet ship saving a group of civilians from some dangerous stellar phenomena is NOT an example of them carrying out their "exploratory duties." It's more like the real military being used to, say, evacuate a city before a natural disaster strikes. Despite the lack of combat, despite the lack of a hostile force being the threat, it is an example of Starfleet acting as a military. Military officers rescue people in distress, all the time; it's expected of them. Not so with pure explorers.

As to the question raised by plynch, I say both. They are equally important. One is what they WANT to be doing when there is no crises, and what they would generally prefer to be doing (exploration), and the other is something they feel they must do when the need arises, and when said need IS present, it out-prioritizes even the generally preferred exploratory mission. And we have also seen that though Starfleet officers are certainly not overly militaristic or in any way bloodthirsty, they do take pride in doing that sometimes necessary mission - combat - well. (Really, the "third" objective - saving those in distress in non-combat situations - seems to be just as important, as well).

 

[Arpy]

That depends somewhat on what you mean. If you mean that if a choice has to be made to do one or the other, then I would definitely say that defense is going to be the primary mission, because I doubt a Starfleet ship would just go off and do some random exploration if there was a ship or planet that was under attack. This is how the Enterprise-C was lost, and it wasn't even in defense of a Federation colony, but that of an ally.

You can go back and forth on this forever. The Love Boat would carry troops if WWIII broke out and it had to.

Why my resistance? I dunno. But Starfleet not being military has always suggested a better future and I'm curious what that writers/producers think that looks like...a time when society isn't segregated between those who fight and those who don't. For my own part, I see it as a time when we all fight and none fight, no one is left behind, and there is peace for all mankind.

 

[Sci]

Why my resistance? I dunno. But Starfleet not being military has always suggested a better future and I'm curious what that writers/producers think that looks like...a time when society isn't segregated between those who fight and those who don't.

How on Earth is the idea of a future where there are no more innocent civilians and everyone is a legitimate target in times of war a brighter future?

 

[Arpy]

Good question.

...Maybe there'd be fewer wars?

 

[plynch]

Based on the preponderance of the evidence (all eps and movies), is the PRIMARY mission of starfleet . . .

a. to fight and win the federation's wars (language taken from our US Army mission statement)

or

b. exploration

Remember: "Primary" mission. Which do you think it is? I'm curious.

That depends somewhat on what you mean.

clarification: the MAIN reason a "starfleet" was created and exists in the 23rd/24th century; its reason for existing (though as others and I have noted, ships MAY do other things when necessary) - BUT : what is the main reason for there being a starfleet: fighting or exploring?

Thanks for playing, whoever does.

 

[BillJ]

clarification: the MAIN reason a "starfleet" was created and exists in the 23rd/24th century; its reason for existing (though as others and I have noted, ships MAY do other things when necessary) - BUT : what is the main reason for there being a starfleet: fighting or exploring?

Thanks for playing, whoever does.

Defense.

Scientific missions can be dropped during a time of war... defense of the border can't be dropped during a time of peace.

 

[plynch]

clarification: the MAIN reason a "starfleet" was created and exists in the 23rd/24th century; its reason for existing (though as others and I have noted, ships MAY do other things when necessary) - BUT : what is the main reason for there being a starfleet: fighting or exploring?

Thanks for playing, whoever does.

Defense.

Scientific missions can be dropped during a time of war... defense of the border can't be dropped during a time of peace.

clear and concise: nice

 

[Vincent Law]

You can go back and forth on this forever. The Love Boat would carry troops if WWIII broke out and it had to.

It could, after receiving a military commission and being refit for the purpose, just like other civilian liners which were pressed into military service during the previous world wars. Of course now this would be unlikely because the military is much more capable of mass deployments of personnel and equipment using its own aircraft and ships, and there actually tends to be more focus on air transportation these days.

The point is that these civilian ships are not armed. And no, people on the ship carrying small arms does not mean the ship is armed. In order for the ship to be considered armed it would have to be something larger than could be considered small arms, and civilian ships are not armed in this fashion. A few ships were given such armament in the world wars for defense against u-boats and for sneak attacks against other ships, but this was after the ships had been appropriated for military use, so they were no longer civilian. Which is why you don't see the Love Boat going around engaging in military conflicts, which is the job of the military.

Why my resistance? I dunno. But Starfleet not being military has always suggested a better future and I'm curious what that writers/producers think that looks like...a time when society isn't segregated between those who fight and those who don't. For my own part, I see it as a time when we all fight and none fight, no one is left behind, and there is peace for all mankind.

As has been mentioned, a time when every single person is considered a legitimate military target isn't going to be a pleasant time. In truth, this separation of military from civilian helps to make society far more pleasant because it separates us from a time when entire populations would be wiped out.

 

[neozeks]

Bah, we're just going in circles...

I would think that ground based shielding (of the type Soran was using in Generations) would more than suffice to hold off most orbital attacks in the short term, while purpose-built bunkers would suffice over longer seiges. Major cities would have even stronger shields, and either military facilities or population centers would be surrounded by DS9-style weapon emplacements.

We have no proof Soran's shield can actually stop orbital bombardment. All it did was stop Picard. I'd think you'd need some pretty big-ass shield generators to consistently stop starship-size weapons. We're talking city-sized shields here. How are your landing troops going to erect those in a contested landing?

This has evidently never been a problem even in the ABSENCE of starships. Picard's trick of tunneling under Soran's forcefield might be a pretty typical tactic and he only resorted to a pre-existing gap for lack of a shovel.

Might. Or it might not and the defenders are usually smarter than leaving such an obvious hole in their defenses. Not to mention that, while you shovel, death is still raining on you from the sky.

OTOH, the Klingons seem to have developed some rather sneaky ways of penetrating defensive forcefields as of "Heart of Glory. If your shield penetrator has to be in physical contact with the enemy's forcefield in order to burn a hole in it, this would be one of the roles of battlefield sappers.

That was just a small scale shield designed to stop people right? Not starship-grade weapons. And anyway, something like that might be posible - but why are you supposing it would be any easier than just doing some technobabble from orbit with the same results? Like launching a special 'disruptive' torpedo or reversing the shield polarity with verterons or something.

Unless your enemy is simply trying to wipe out your species with some sort of planet-crushing WMD, an armed force entrenched on the ground will always have the advantage over an armed force orbiting above it.

Like the Japanese had on Okinawa? Or if you want a bigger land mass, the Philipines?

I'm not denying you need ground troops to finish a battle/war. But you don't lose your control of interstellar space just because your ground assault failed. You can always bring in more troops, try another landing, blockade them, harras them from orbit with starship fire and small-scale raids. However, if you lose your control of space, your position on the ground massively changes for the worse, you can't ressuply, your exposed to fire from orbit, etc. There's a reason the Allies waited to have near total dominance of the sea and air to land in France. It's just not wise to conduct a massive landing until you can be reasonably sure you'll be able to reinforce them, resupply them, give them fire support.

Which is a really good example, because the marines wound up taking and holding Guadalcanal almost completely cut off from anything resembling consistent naval support.

The Guadalcanal campaign was only won after the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Battle_of_Guadalcanal) gave the US Navy almost total control of the sea around the island, allowing them to bring in massive reinforcements and preventing the Japanese from doing the same. Had the Japanese suceeded in doing the same, the Marines wouldn't stand a chance, just like the Japanese ground troops didn't. Sure, they would put up a bitter fight, but in the end they would be overcome. Control of the sea was key again.

It's not an airforce if that's what you mean. Or at least, last time I checked paratroopers do not consider themselves to be aviators.

But aviators are flying them in. They are not going in under their own power. They depend on someone else (the Navy, the Air Force) clearing the way and bringing them in. Not always, on Earth, because you can have land connections between countries. Always, in space, because you have no such connections between planets.

You're again making the false space/ocean analogy. We've seen from the Trekiverse that MOST borders between governments are quite porous and poorly--if at all--defended.

I'm not sure how that is different from sea/ocean borders?

Even in time of war, a perimeter designed to deny access to a region of space around a contested planet would be impossible to maintain even if you knew exactly when the enemy would be arriving and what his strength was.

Why? The Dominion managed to stop all but one Starfleet ship from reaching the wormhole. It took the Klingons to breach their lines and even then only one ship got through at first.

A troop convoy meant to establish a garrison on a hostile planet wouldn't need an entire fleet for an escort. It would really only need... well, an escort. A couple of Defiant class ships would probably suffice for that, even if the enemy knew exactly what was coming and was in perfect position to repel the invasion.

A small escort is enough if your protecting against a small scale pirate or raider attack. But what if your convoys run into a 200 hundred ship strong fleet? How are you gonna protect your transports with a couple of Defiants?

As an ulterior political motive, it makes sense.

It does, of course. It's just that you were the one "accusing" me of subscribing such ulterior motives to Starfleet a few posts back.

 

[CoveTom]

Really, this 30 pages of discussion is kinda overdoing the original topic.

Why is their a "resistance" to Starfleet as a military? Largely because many who produced the show, including Roddenberry himself despite his military service, and many fans -- some of whom are active in this thread -- view any form of military as inherently evil and feel that any society which has a military can't be particularly evolved.

That's why there was a resistance to calling Starfleet a military despite its obvious defense role.

 

[BillJ]

Why is their a "resistance" to Starfleet as a military? Largely because many who produced the show, including Roddenberry himself despite his military service, and many fans -- some of whom are active in this thread -- view any form of military as inherently evil and feel that any society which has a military can't be particularly evolved.

The question is: which Roddenberry are we talking about? Because Star Trek in the 1960's seemed to have no issue with considering Starfleet the military.

 

[plynch]

many fans -- some of whom are active in this thread -- view any form of military as inherently evil and feel that any society which has a military can't be particularly evolved.

That seems overbroad and a bit extreme to me. Like many, I view it as, yes, evi,l but necessary. (Christianity tempered with pragmatism. Reinhold Niebuhr is a big influence on me, if you know his stuff.) Like the Just War theory. There are never times when it is a "good," but certain conditions and modes when one is justified in limited warring.

A society can evolve and move on, but must keep a force on hand to "speak the language" of those who haven't.

YIKES I'm sounding arrogant as Picard. Maybe I am.

But though war and a military are necessary, militarism is not. The general ethos of the two flagship series is not war and militarism. Thus my enjoyment of them.

Live long and prosper.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Why is their a "resistance" to Starfleet as a military? Largely because many who produced the show, including Roddenberry himself despite his military service, and many fans -- some of whom are active in this thread -- view any form of military as inherently evil and feel that any society which has a military can't be particularly evolved.

The question is: which Roddenberry are we talking about? Because Star Trek in the 1960's seemed to have no issue with considering Starfleet the military.

We're probably talking about the Roddenberry who'd be surprised today that people are stressing over the issue...

 

[BillJ]

Why is their a "resistance" to Starfleet as a military? Largely because many who produced the show, including Roddenberry himself despite his military service, and many fans -- some of whom are active in this thread -- view any form of military as inherently evil and feel that any society which has a military can't be particularly evolved.

The question is: which Roddenberry are we talking about? Because Star Trek in the 1960's seemed to have no issue with considering Starfleet the military.

We're probably talking about the Roddenberry who'd be surprised today that people are stressing over the issue...

 

[Anwar]

Look, personally I DO think of Starfleet as the military from my POV as a 20th Century human. But then I have to remind myself that the folks in Trek are from a time where they've co-existed with alien lifeforms for centuries, and don't suffer from the various social problems we have today.

So it's not so hard for me to think "Well, when they say they aren't the military and they are a combined service they're speaking from a society that ISN'T 100% like mine so I can accept their views AND mine together."

So to us, they are the military; to them they see themselves as more than a military. Easily reconciled.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Anyone else want to speak to why we resist the thought of StarFleet as military ASIDE from our evidence pro or con from the series/movies?

Nothing comes to mind, other than the general sense that "military" is a gross oversimplification of what Starfleet is.

Perhaps you are grossly oversimplifying what the military is.

THE military? I don't think so. Not all military organizations are the same, nor do all of them have the same history, the same duties, the same traditions.

There's a limited number of things they all must have in order to be classified as militaries, however. You keep trying to drive this same tired point "But militaries can do that too," but it doesn't change the fact that the primary function of a military organization is to engage in combat against the nation's enemies. You keep saying "It does other things too!" as if those "other things" are as fundamental to the military mission as national defense. But they're not, not by a longshot, and that is NOT an oversimplification.

Now, the aforementioned orbital bombardment seen in the DS9 ep mentioned above is but ONE instance of planetary bombardment by starships. I pointed it out because you dismissed it as something we've "rarely if ever" seen

Indeed, a single instance in all of DS9 qualifies pretty well as "rarely if ever," and in "The Die Is Cast" the objective was to annihilate the Founders altogether, NOT to capture the planet.

The only other case of orbital bombardment we've ever seen that would really fit the bill would be Enterprise' phasers stunning several Iotian gangsters in "A Piece of the Action." Over in Trek Tech we've been trying to figure out for many years why no one bothers to do anything like that in TNG (although the Borg did it in first contact, which is incredibly weird since beaming down to the surface and ASSIMILATING Zephram Cochrane would have been much more efficient than trying to blow up his ship).

If those things "could" be standard fare and we just never heard about it, there also "could" have been plenty of times that warring powers used starships to attack planetside
armed forces and we just never heard about it.

True as that is, there are reasons to believe otherwise based on WHAT WE HAVE SEEN. Planetary bombardment is not particularly effective against anyone higher than a 21st century tech level; for some reason, attacks against modern targets require relatively close passes by specially outfitted vessels (i.e. strafing attacks by bird of prey or armed shuttlecraft). It may be a limitation of accuracy, or the fact that any decent fortifications would require several direct his in order to penetrate them.

Personally I think the reason is half in-universe and half production problem: Trek weapons don't seem to have as much range OR power as is sometimes implied, and the way they're used in combat, a starship phaser may not be that much more effective than a conventional battleship gun (just alot more effective against shielding and modern armor materials).

This is nothing more than a massive plot hole. "Over 2000" Romulan troops isn't enough to accomplish anything toward the ultimate goal of taking over an entire planet (a core Federation world, no less).

If you assume (as I do) that these were to be the elite vanguard of a larger force that would have arrived shortly thereafter via regular troop transports, 2000 may be all you need. They'd only need to take a handful of key strategic locations--the capital and the major command and control centers for local defense forces--and wait for reinforcements a few hours later.

I can't speak for anyone else, but on this point, my concern is with the lack of even a teeny tiny shred of evidence within TOS-VOY and the first ten movies that any Federation (not "Earth") military (or even military-ish) force exists aside from Starfleet.

Me too. Almost to the point that I wonder if the Federation even bothers to maintain a standing military and instead leaves it up to member worlds to provide for their own defense. They might not need one, considering how rarely Federation member worlds are ever directly threatened.

What reason is there to assume that by "the military", one MUST mean "the body that is concerned only with fighting the wars"?

None at all. The point of contention here is the "only" that you inserted into that sentence. There's a big gap between "only fighting wars" and "in addition to peaceful exploration, diplomatic contact and humanitarian service, fighting wars."

More to the point "The only thing the military does is fight wars" is just as simplistic as "Only the military can fight wars."

That depends somewhat on what you mean. If you mean that if a choice has to be made to do one or the other, then I would definitely say that defense is going to be the primary mission, because I doubt a Starfleet ship would just go off and do some random exploration if there was a ship or planet that was under attack. This is how the Enterprise-C was lost, and it wasn't even in defense of a Federation colony, but that of an ally.

The Klingons were NOT allies of the Federation when the Enterprise-C was lost. Castille tells Tasha "We were negotiating a peace treaty when we left." Politically speaking, it would be no different from the Enterprise-A exposing the Romulan part in the conspiracy to assassinate Azetbur, except Captain Garret didn't have any personal stake in the outcome (that we know of).

I don't see how prioritizing a situation where lives are at stake makes them not the military

I never said it did. I said that saving lives will always take a higher priority to exploration, no matter what the nature of the thread. Alien invaders, plagues, rockslides, mining accidents, ravenous flesh-eating pizza creatures, they ALL climb a little higher on Starfleet's to-do list when the lives of Federation citizens--or anyone else, for that matter--are placed in jeopardy.

The military role is just one of MANY facets of Starfleet's mission, and yet Starfleet doesn't become a military just by inclusion of this single aspect. Anymore than it becomes a limousine service just because it sometimes has to transport Federation dignitaries; that is just another aspect of their duty to the Federation.

many real-world military organizations (including the US) devote sizable amounts of resources to non-combative tasks helping people in danger or need.

But never more--or even AS MUCH--as they do for defense, unlike Starfleet.

 

[plynch]

I'm out.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Based on the preponderance of the evidence (all eps and movies), is the PRIMARY mission of starfleet . . .

a. to fight and win the federation's wars (language taken from our US Army mission statement)

or

b. exploration

Remember: "Primary" mission. Which do you think it is? I'm curious.

That depends somewhat on what you mean.

clarification: the MAIN reason a "starfleet" was created and exists in the 23rd/24th century; its reason for existing (though as others and I have noted, ships MAY do other things when necessary) - BUT : what is the main reason for there being a starfleet: fighting or exploring?

Exploring. Fighting is just one of its many ADDITIONAL roles, one they perform on a strictly "as needed" basis.

Why my resistance? I dunno. But Starfleet not being military has always suggested a better future and I'm curious what that writers/producers think that looks like...a time when society isn't segregated between those who fight and those who don't.

How on Earth is the idea of a future where there are no more innocent civilians and everyone is a legitimate target in times of war a brighter future?

I don't know about brighter, but it would be a bit more honest. ANY time you engage in a war with enemies a certain amount of civilian casualties are inevitable; better to own up to those casualties and include them in your strategic planning from the get go than try to brush it off saying "Too bad, so sad... like they say, war is hell."

If you want to keep the moral high ground that means you never have the right to initiate hostilities with an enemy state, even if you think you can win, because any involvement in a war BY DEFINITION means involvement in the willful destruction of sentient life who may or may not have anything to do with the things you're fighting over. At the same time, both combatants are left with the understanding that war is not some glorious adventure that you can pay lipservice to every memorial day. The enemy has declared war on YOU, and you're as responsible for the outcome as you are for your electoral choices.

Lots of people disagreed with him for this, but I happen to agree with Heinlein's take in "Starship Troopers," though for slightly difference reasons. Heinlein's confederation was openly militaristic to the point that basic citizenship--voting rights and so on--are only earned through a minimum term of military service. I think the Trek Federation, though not militaristic, has a similar understanding: everyone gets the basic rights of citizenship, which means EVERYONE is responsible for defending those rights if they're ever threatened militarily.

 

[Saito S]

There's a limited number of things they all must have in order to be classified as militaries, however. You keep trying to drive this same tired point "But militaries can do that too," but it doesn't change the fact that the primary function of a military organization is to engage in combat against the nation's enemies. You keep saying "It does other things too!" as if those "other things" are as fundamental to the military mission as national defense. But they're not, not by a longshot, and that is NOT an oversimplification.

It seems to me that the divide here is (at least in part) whether one believes that the fact that those other things being considered just as important to Starfleet is enough to make them "not the military". I (and others) don't, but clearly you do. I believe that the rank structure, armaments, discipline, adherence to the UCMJ and use of courts-martial, and (most importantly) the fact that they are the ONE AND ONLY organization that is officially, legally empowered and expected to fight the UFPs wars makes it a military. I believe that the importance it places on those other tasks - and the fact that in peace time, they devote sizable resources to space exploration - does not change this.

Another divide is the issue of defense being Starfleet's "primary" mission. I don't think they have ONE primary mission, but multiple ones, as I explained in my previous post.
Re: orbital bombardment, armored ground bunkers, etc... I actually don't think there is enough evidence to come to any kind of definitive conclusion on that overall point; I was mainly playing devil's advocate by pointing out that there are no (or at least very few) more instances of the things you supposed might be widely used than there were instances of starships attacking a planet's surface from orbit. Regardless, it's a tangent that doesn't have much to do with the fundamental questions in this thread anyway.

If you assume (as I do) that these were to be the elite vanguard of a larger force that would have arrived shortly thereafter via regular troop transports, 2000 may be all you need. They'd only need to take a handful of key strategic locations--the capital and the major command and control centers for local defense forces--and wait for reinforcements a few hours later.

This too is a tangent, really, but just to clarify my position: 2000+ troops wouldn't be enough to even take over ANY of those "key strategic locations", let alone a handful of them. In the context of a planetary invasion, they are worthless.

Me too. Almost to the point that I wonder if the Federation even bothers to maintain a standing military and instead leaves it up to member worlds to provide for their own defense. They might not need one, considering how rarely Federation member worlds are ever directly threatened.

Another divide identified here, I think. I do believe that some member worlds maintain their own local defense forces, though some rely on Starfleet entirely, and some are sort of a hybrid between the two (a semi-autonomous defense force that coordinates heavily with Starfleet). However, it's pretty clear that in a larger sense, Starfleet fights the UFPs wars. They ARE the "standing military" for the UFP as a whole.

I never said it did. I said that saving lives will always take a higher priority to exploration, no matter what the nature of the thread. Alien invaders, plagues, rockslides, mining accidents, ravenous flesh-eating pizza creatures, they ALL climb a little higher on Starfleet's to-do list when the lives of Federation citizens--or anyone else, for that matter--are placed in jeopardy.

And the point I was making here is that "saving lives" - regardless of the danger those lives are in or the manner Starfleet tries to use to save them - falls more under the "defense" mission than the "exploration" mission. Thus, that they prioritize saving lives over everything else (and are the first organization their government calls on to do so) is itself support for them being a military, to me, since a pure research/exploratory organization wouldn't operate that way.

The military role is just one of MANY facets of Starfleet's mission, and yet Starfleet doesn't become a military just by inclusion of this single aspect. Anymore than it becomes a limousine service just because it sometimes has to transport Federation dignitaries; that is just another aspect of their duty to the Federation.

No, they are a military because of that single aspect among many others, and because they are clearly the only organization tasked with acting on behalf of the UFP in a military manner.

Lots of people disagreed with him for this, but I happen to agree with Heinlein's take in "Starship Troopers," though for slightly difference reasons. Heinlein's confederation was openly militaristic to the point that basic citizenship--voting rights and so on--are only earned through a minimum term of military service. I think the Trek Federation, though not militaristic, has a similar understanding: everyone gets the basic rights of citizenship, which means EVERYONE is responsible for defending those rights if they're ever threatened militarily.

Not really. Trek shows make pretty clear distinctions between those expected to put themselves in harm's way and fight enemy forces (Starfleet) and those that are kept out of harm's way as much as possible (basically everyone else, when it comes to UFP citizens anyway). If you are talking about a situation like the Cardassian occupation of Bajor, then sure; as Kira said in "Accession", they "all became soldiers." If any kind of planetside resistance movement cropped up on Betazed while the Dominion occupied it, there would surely have been plenty of instances of Betazoid citizens fighting Jem'Hadar soldiers.

But under normal circumstances? The distinction that the UFP makes between "legal combatant" and "civilian" is pretty clear.

Overall, though, I think neozeks is right: we're starting to go in circles here. I find these kinds of debates interesting, but I think this one is starting to dry up.

The question is: which Roddenberry are we talking about? Because Star Trek in the 1960's seemed to have no issue with considering Starfleet the military.

We're probably talking about the Roddenberry who'd be surprised today that people are stressing over the issue...

Ha! Very likely true.

But yeah, the "Starfleet is not a military" seemed to be almost entirely an "early TNG" thing. Certainly, TOS didn't try and push that angle, and obviously DS9 didn't, but even later TNG - while it maintained a certain "we are enlightened" attitude in terms of the writing style - never tried to claim that Starfleet wasn't the military (not that I recall, anyway).