Why the Resistance to Starfleet as a Military?

[Vincent Law]

Starfleet was an organized mercenary group

Starfleet as Jerry Pournelle's Falkenberg's Legion, or Gordon R. Dickson's Dorsai? Both depicting a professionally run mercenary force on the interstellar stage.

An interesting idea, and would explain how the organization "gets away" with some of it's actions and obvious transgressions. Would also get around Starfleet not being a state run military, because they wouldn't be one. They'd be a large non-government private contractor, with their own set of internal rules. The Federation could tell them what to do, only so far as being their contractual employer.

The Dorsai had an military academy if I'm not mistaken, and in Glen Cook's Shadowline, the mercenary force of Gneaus Storm had their own fleet of Starships.

Except that this isn't quite compatible with everything else Starfleet has been seen to do, which includes its scientific and exploratory roles. We've also seen that Starfleet is directly answerable to the Federation government and the Federation President in particular.

 

[scotpens]

There was an attempt to compare Starfleet to NASA with the original references to the "UESPA." . . . Enterprise made several direct and indirect comparisons in the first and second seasons. Starfleet probably has more in common with Roskosmos and NASA than it ever did -- or will -- with any existing military organization.

Actually, no, it doesn't It has the most in common with British and American navies.

Incorrect, since:
1) The navy does not operate space craft; Starfleet operates only spacecraft.

As originally conceived, Starfleet was analogous to the navies of the 18th and 19th centuries. Horatio Hornblower in space, remember? Just substitute "the known portion of the galaxy" for "the seas."

From TMOST:

When you consider it, the Enterprise is doing the same kind of job naval vessels used to do several hundred years ago. In those days, ships of the major powers were assigned to patrol specific areas of the world’s oceans. They represented their governments in those areas and protected the national interests of their respective countries. Out of contact with the admiralty office back home for long periods of time, the captains of those ships had very broad discretionary powers. These included regulating trade, fighting bush wars, putting down slave traders, lending aid to scientific expeditions, conducting exploration on a broad scale, engaging in diplomatic exchanges and affairs, and even becoming involved in such minor matters as searching for lost explorers or helping down-and-out travelers return to their homes.

(I'm repeating this quote from post #17 for the benefit of those who haven't taken the time to read the entire thread.)

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Except for the fact that Earth Starfleet is explicitly identified as being a non-military entity immediately before and after conducting what would otherwise be a military operation.

Except that this can be ignored

I don't think that it can, and :"for the love of the military" is not a compelling reason to do so.

And you managed to miss the entire point. Instead of looking at organizations and admitting to all the similarities, you have instead focused on trite arguments amounting to "the navy doesn't do this now (to which you are technically partially incorrect anyway), so Starfleet can't be a military."

Actually, I said that Starfleet is not "most like" the U.S. and British Navy. And it isn't, for the reasons I cited, not least of which because Starfleet isn't a Navy and the Navy isn't a Starfleet. It would be like you saying that the Enterprise is most similar to a submarine because it is armed with torpedoes.

Hauling things into orbit for the military doesn't in any way compare to Stafleet.

Absolutely it does, since the things being hauled into orbit are weapon systems and weapon support systems. None of those systems are THEMSELVES armed, so to the extent that military hardware can even exist in space, NASA spacecraft routinely fill that role.

And yet NASA is not a military organization.

And most of them are already military pilots and actually hold rank within the USAF or the USN.

And yet NASA is not a military organization.

No, small arms crew members carry for self defense on the off chance they land in hostile territory do not equate with armed capital ships which regularly engage in military conflict and border patrols. This comparison can't be more apples and oranges.

And what does Riker tell Krola when he shoots at an IV stand with his phaser? "It's only for self defense." Starfleet vessels are similarly equipped for precisely the same reason; we learn in ENT that starships were ALWAYS armed, even by the explicitly non-military Earth Starfleet, even at a time when no one had any reason to believe that starships would regularly encounter hostile forces in space.

So, defensive weapons carried on board the ship on the off chance that it should suddenly find itself in hostile territory... that's Starfleet in a nutshell.

That's because of treaties which forbid the militarization of space, which was a very real fear during the cold war. It's also a big reason for NASA'a start and growth.

The space shuttle had been flying for half a decade before those treaties were even conceived. If anything, they're a reason for NASA's steady decline.

You're talking about manned spy satellites which were operated by the Soviet military.

No, they were operated by the Soviet Space Program, PART of which was under military control. Under the Russian Federation, that program is now all-civilian, and yet the military hardware developed under it remains under their control.

And yet Roskosmos is not a military organization.

You keep ignoring obvious things that Starfleet has been seen to be doing which are equivalent to functions performed by modern militaries

And you keep ignoring obvious things that NASA has been seen to be doing which are equivalent to functions performed by modern militaries. And yet NASA is not a military organization.

And why is NASA a non-military entity? Because the law says so. NASA could do exactly what it does now in exactly the same way and still be a military entity if statutory law defined it as such. But it doesn't, so it isn't.

Starfleet officers claim Starfleet isn't a military organization because, LEGALLY, it isn't. Only they know why, but only YOU know why you find it distasteful to take their word for it.

If the stigma against the militarization of space ever went away, Earth was united and thought of as a nation-state, and the system was thought of as territory that had to be protected, it's fairly obvious that a military organization would be formed to perform the function of defending this territory

Defending it from WHOM? If Earth was united under a giant nation-state, military organizations would be immediately demobilized; without the threat of international conflict, then their reason to exist in the first place has suddenly vanished. They would cling to existence in secondary/humanitarian/S.A.R. roles and would be reduced to mostly ceremonial importance; their role in actually defending their respective nation states would come to a permanent end.

Earth Starfleet WAS founded as an exploration agency as a modern successor to Roskosmos/NASA/ESA like programs. For whatever reason, no one in United Earth really believed that they had any NEED for a space defense agency, probably on the basis that in 8000 years of recorded history Earth had never been invaded by aliens and thus the need for planetary defense was virtually non-existent. They did not begin to encounter alien threats until they began to venture into space in the first place, and if exploration is the very thing that draws negative attention to Earth, who better to deal with that attention than the exploration agency itself?

 

[scotpens]

That's because of treaties which forbid the militarization of space, which was a very real fear during the cold war. It's also a big reason for NASA'a start and growth.

The space shuttle had been flying for half a decade before those treaties were even conceived. If anything, they're a reason for NASA's steady decline.

Exqueeze me? The militarization of space was forbidden by the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. The first space shuttle mission was in 1981.

 

[Vincent Law]

I don't think that it can, and :"for the love of the military" is not a compelling reason to do so.

Actually, I said that Starfleet is not "most like" the U.S. and British Navy. And it isn't, for the reasons I cited, not least of which because Starfleet isn't a Navy and the Navy isn't a Starfleet. It would be like you saying that the Enterprise is most similar to a submarine because it is armed with torpedoes.

And once again, you are simply ignoring what is inconvenient for your assertions while blowing a few lines of dialog into special importance while also treating things you yourself have made up as fact. You can make all the mis-comparisons you want, that won't change the fact that the ones I've made are based on fact from the real world end of things and on what's actually been seen on screen when it comes to Starfleet.

Absolutely it does, since the things being hauled into orbit are weapon systems and weapon support systems. None of those systems are THEMSELVES armed, so to the extent that military hardware can even exist in space, NASA spacecraft routinely fill that role.

We're talking about satellites here, not weapons. And nothing you've said here changes the fact that you've made an entirely invalid comparison. Starfleet has far more in common with the Navy than it does with NASA.

And what does Riker tell Krola when he shoots at an IV stand with his phaser? "It's only for self defense." Starfleet vessels are similarly equipped for precisely the same reason; we learn in ENT that starships were ALWAYS armed, even by the explicitly non-military Earth Starfleet, even at a time when no one had any reason to believe that starships would regularly encounter hostile forces in space.

Yes, Starfleet ships act in self defense of themselves as well as acting in the defense of the Federation and its interests, the same as any military organization.

So, defensive weapons carried on board the ship on the off chance that it should suddenly find itself in hostile territory... that's Starfleet in a nutshell.

No, it isn't, because you're completely ignoring the obvious defense role Starfleet is shown to have.

The space shuttle had been flying for half a decade before those treaties were even conceived. If anything, they're a reason for NASA's steady decline.

You don't know history very well, do you?

No, they were operated by the Soviet Space Program, PART of which was under military control. Under the Russian Federation, that program is now all-civilian, and yet the military hardware developed under it remains under their control.

The armed manned spy satellites were operated by the military. They haven't exactly been really open about this area of their space program, since the Soviet Union did kind of sign those treaties after all, even if technically the weapons they have up there aren't expressly banned, since they do kind of go against the spirit of them. If the US has anything similar, you can bet they won't exactly be anxious to draw attention to it for the same reason.

And you keep ignoring obvious things that NASA has been seen to be doing which are equivalent to functions performed by modern militaries. And yet NASA is not a military organization.

That's because it's missing that important defense role that defines militaries as what they are, something Starfleet has consistently been shown to have.

And why is NASA a non-military entity? Because the law says so. NASA could do exactly what it does now in exactly the same way and still be a military entity if statutory law defined it as such. But it doesn't, so it isn't.

Your argument seems to be folding back in on itself now.

Starfleet officers claim Starfleet isn't a military organization because, LEGALLY, it isn't. Only they know why, but only YOU know why you find it distasteful to take their word for it.

Only a few have said that and they've never quoted any kind of defining law. Then there are all the Starfleet personnel who have said that they are soldier or have otherwise defined Starfleet as having a military role. So say we ignore even that. What we're left with are Starfleet's actions and the relationship that can be seen between Starfleet and the Federation government. The closest to law we've seen on the matter is when a Starfleet Admiral attempted a coup of the Federation government, part of which involved declaring martial law. Shortly after this declaration, Starfleet personnel could then be seen beaming down to locations within civilian districts of a city, armed with small arms to enforce this martial law. We also have seen that, legally speaking, Starfleet personnel are subject to courts martial, which is something that military personnel are subject to. This has already been pointed out in far greater detail by other posters.

Defending it from WHOM?

Any potential threats to Earth and its interests, like what we've seen constantly in the series and movies.

 

[J.T.B.]

Actually, I said that Starfleet is not "most like" the U.S. and British Navy. And it isn't, for the reasons I cited, not least of which because Starfleet isn't a Navy and the Navy isn't a Starfleet. It would be like you saying that the Enterprise is most similar to a submarine because it is armed with torpedoes.

Come now, that's analogical literalism. If an analogy can be made between the fictional organization of Starfleet and a real world organization for the sake of discussion, certainly the 18th-19th century British Royal Navy is one of the most -- if not the most -- apt comparisons. Because the vessels, technology etc. are inherently different does not mean that their roles and missions can't be comparable.

--Justin

 

[Kezersoze]

Wow, this is still going on. I thought this was settled? Starfleet is NASA with guns, that's why Starfleet security sucks. Close Thread.

 

[scotpens]

Starfleet is the British Royal Navy circa 1800 — without the flogging.

(Of course, what Starfleet personnel do in their off-duty time is their own business.)

 

[T'Girl]

Defending it from WHOM? If Earth was united under a giant nation-state, military organizations would be immediately demobilized

Earth formed a United Earth subsequent to contact with aliens (FC), and as far as demobilizing the military, ENT makes clear that the British still (in that time period) possesses a Royal Navy, after Britain is part of United Earth, per a story by Malcolm Reed.

In addition, the MACO were a existing force prior to the Xindi attack, not brought into existence because of it.

Exqueeze me? The militarization of space was forbidden by the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.

You're wrong, the treaty sighted by you only prohibits nuclear and other WMD's, not conventional weapons in space. Efforts to expand the treaty to include those weapons have had no results. While there is language restricting military activities on bodies beyond Earth, no language in the treaty even attempt to prevent the "militarization" of space itself.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And once again, you are simply ignoring what is inconvenient for your assertions

Actually I have patiently taken every chunk of "evidence" you have presented here (most of it is just circumstantial hair-splitting, analogies and hypotheticals) and sought to interpret it in the context of that dialog you choose to ignore. I have ignored nothing, in fact the difference between you and me boils down to what I have chosen not to ignore.

For example:

No, it isn't, because you're completely ignoring the obvious defense role Starfleet is shown to have.

I have said time and again that having a defensive role and being a military are not the same thing. This is the case in the real world by definition: because "military" is defined by law, not by roles. This is also true in Trekiverse by historical precedent: because Starfleet has always had a defensive role whether it was a military organization or not.

That's because it's missing that important defense role that defines militaries as what they are

No, it's because the National Space Act defines NASA as "a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States". If you were to change that single word in Section 102 paragraph B from "civilian" to "military," without changing anything else in the entire Space Act, then NASA would be a military organization. Indeed, even if you struck the rest of the paragraph that begins "except that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States" and made defense programs for space weaponry part of NASA's responsibility, it would STILL not be a military organization unless that single word were changed from "civilian" to "military."

I have said it before, and it bears repeating: the military is defined by the law, not by its actions.

What we're left with are Starfleet's actions...

...which are irrelevant, because the military is defined by the law, not by its actions.

Defending it from WHOM?

Any potential threats to Earth and its interests, like what we've seen constantly in the series and movies.

Again: like WHOM? Earth had no contact with any alien races OTHER than the Vulcans. They'd never even heard of the Klingons until one of them landed in a cornfield near Broken Bow. Unless you're suggesting they were expecting to be invaded by the Vulcans, there's no logical reason for them to have a militarized space service of any kind; until Enterprise conducted its maiden voyage, Starfleet was apparently unaware that hostile intentions even existed among aliens.

 

[Kezersoze]

Again Interesting thread. Like I've said about a thousand times if Starfleet is a military it is certainly one of the most unusual. What military has seeking out new life and exploring as the CENTRAL tenet of their philosophy? lol Modern militaries can do research and explore but that is not by any stretch of the imagination the main reason that they exist. The origin of the U.S. Navy, and really most navies, is to combat piracy. The purposes of the Army and Marines is rather clear as well. Throughout every show, even DS9 with the threat of the Dominion, research and exploration were seen as the Defining element of what makes Starfleet, Starfleet.

Its like, the NX-01 can go into the expanse and fight the Xindi if they absolutely have to, but that is not what they enlisted to do or prefer to do as a whole.

 

[BillJ]

Its like, the NX-01 can go into the expanse and fight the Xindi if they absolutely have to, but that is not what they enlisted to do or prefer to do as a whole.

I sure all the kids who enlisted during peace time would much rather be posted in non-war zones rather than Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[Vincent Law]

History is irrelevantModern definitions are irrelevantActions are irrelevantOnly my own definitions are relevantI reject your reality and substitute my own

Given than this is the tone the thread has taken on, I think it is safe to say that it has outlived its usefulness, or at the very least that I have finally tired of repeating the same argument over and over in response to the same faulty arguments being repeated over and over.

 

[neozeks]

Oh, noez, this thread again... And I'm the one continuing it...

I have said it before, and it bears repeating: the military is defined by the law, not by its actions.

In fact, IIRC, it was Sci in one of the previous similar threads that used that argument against your position...
The basic gist of that is true, but you are interpreting it too narrowly. I'm pretty sure it isn't enough to just change a single word in the founding act to make an organization a true military. Okay, maybe that would make it 'a military' in some abstract, legalistic, empty sense (posibly the same way Earth Starfleet was 'civilian'). But to make it fit the scientific, legal definition of military NASA would also need to be empowered to do combat, it would need to be organized hierarchicaly, with ranks, it would need to be able to use force against it's own members and subject them to court-martials, etc. - it would need to have the defining characteristics of a military.

Basically, this whole discussion is going the wrong way. When I ask "is Starfleet a military?" I don't strictly mean "is it defined as military in UFP law?" We simply can not know that, we don't have those laws. What I mean is "does it seem to fit the accepted legal science definition of a military (current definition, since we're talking what Starfleet means to us and since one could speculate either way about how the definition might change in the future)?" And, aside from the "defined in legislation" part, which we cannot determine either way, it most certainly does. Are you contesting that, newtype_alpha? And if you do, in what way doesn't it fit the definition? (and just to preempt some arguments, for the n-th time, remember, the US Coast Guard is a military organization).

Like I've said about a thousand times if Starfleet is a military it is certainly one of the most unusual.

Well, if it's a civilian organization it is certainly one of the most unusual, too. I mean, what civilian government organization has 'fighting wars' as one of it's primary missions (and in fact seems to be the only government organization that does that)?

Its like, the NX-01 can go into the expanse and fight the Xindi if they absolutely have to, but that is not what they enlisted to do or prefer to do as a whole.

And a US Coast Guard cutter can (and does) go into the Persian Gulf and fight pirates and terrorists but I'm sure the USCG and it's crew would much prefer if it was doing law enforcement, search and rescue and disaster response back in the US.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Oh, noez, this thread again... And I'm the one continuing it...

I have said it before, and it bears repeating: the military is defined by the law, not by its actions.

In fact, IIRC, it was Sci in one of the previous similar threads that used that argument against your position...
The basic gist of that is true, but you are interpreting it too narrowly. I'm pretty sure it isn't enough to just change a single word in the founding act to make an organization a true military. Okay, maybe that would make it 'a military' in some abstract, legalistic, empty sense (posibly the same way Earth Starfleet was 'civilian'). But to make it fit the scientific, legal definition of military NASA would also need to be empowered to do combat, it would need to be organized hierarchicaly, with ranks, it would need to be able to use force against it's own members and subject them to court-martials, etc. - it would need to have the defining characteristics of a military.

I disagree, as most of the traits you mention are COMMON traits, but not DEFINING in any real sense. A disorganized military with the state's legal empowerment is still a military, because the state recognizes it as a lawful combatant in the event of a declared war.

Many of the characteristics you mentioned--hierarchical rank structure, empowerment to do combat, use of force against its own members--are characteristics shared by police departments, paramilitary organizations, non-military coast guards, gendarmeries, and even NASA personnel are authorized to use deadly force in defense of NASA hardware and facilities. Private military contractors possess ALL of the above traits, and are even authorized to engage in combat... but PMCs are not military organizations, because they are not defined as such by law.

Basically, this whole discussion is going the wrong way. When I ask "is Starfleet a military?" I don't strictly mean "is it defined as military in UFP law?" We simply can not know that, we don't have those laws. What I mean is "does it seem to fit the accepted legal science definition of a military (current definition, since we're talking what Starfleet means to us and since one could speculate either way about how the definition might change in the future)?" And, aside from the "defined in legislation" part, which we cannot determine either way, it most certainly does. Are you contesting that, newtype_alpha?

I am, because for reasons I've already gone into in exhausting detail, I believe Starfleet is a paramilitary organization. It has a military role, to be sure, but that clearly isn't its PRIMARY role, in fact it doesn't even seem to be the role for which it was originally created.

and just to preempt some arguments, for the n-th time, remember, the US Coast Guard is a military organization.

The Chinese, French, Russian, Japanese and British coast guards are not.

And on that particular note:

And a US Coast Guard cutter can (and does) go into the Persian Gulf and fight pirates and terrorists

Just as Japanese coast guard cutters can (and do) go into the Malacaa Straits to take on Malaysian pirates. I'm sure they would much rather be chaperoning whaling vessels in the Antarctic Sea.

 

[J.T.B.]

I disagree, as most of the traits you mention are COMMON traits, but not DEFINING in any real sense. A disorganized military with the state's legal empowerment is still a military, because the state recognizes it as a lawful combatant in the event of a declared war.

Many of the characteristics you mentioned--hierarchical rank structure, empowerment to do combat, use of force against its own members--are characteristics shared by police departments, paramilitary organizations, non-military coast guards, gendarmeries, and even NASA personnel are authorized to use deadly force in defense of NASA hardware and facilities. Private military contractors possess ALL of the above traits, and are even authorized to engage in combat... but PMCs are not military organizations, because they are not defined as such by law.

A big difference: Police officers, private miitary contractor personnel etc. are not covered by a separate legal system, they would be tried in civil courts rather than a court-martial. As for the legal status of combatants, Starfleet personnel's status as prisoners of war in event of capture is confirmed in TNG "Chain of Command" and "The Defector."

--Justin

 

[neozeks]

Many of the characteristics you mentioned--hierarchical rank structure, empowerment to do combat, use of force against its own members--are characteristics shared by police departments, paramilitary organizations, non-military coast guards, gendarmeries, and even NASA personnel are authorized to use deadly force in defense of NASA hardware and facilities. Private military contractors possess ALL of the above traits, and are even authorized to engage in combat... but PMCs are not military organizations, because they are not defined as such by law.

Ok, a common trait would be a better word. I'm not contesting definition by law is a defining ingredient of a military. I'm just saying that in the absence of any information regarding that, looking for other common traits militaries generally have is the best way to determine if something is a military or not.

Sure, some of those are present with non-military organizations too. But not ALL of them - police departments, civilian coast-guards and NASA personell aren't empowered by the state to fight wars against foreign powers, NASA and non-police civilian coast guards can't use force against their own personnel, I doubt PMCs really have true ranks, use of force by PMCs is much more restricted than by military personnel etc. (gendarmeries are military organizations BTW, as far as I know). And NONE of them have a separate legal system different from the civilian one and a separate court system different from civilian courts. But Starfleet does have all of those traits. And I think the presence of those characteristics and in that combination indicate it's a military by our definitions.

Find me one real world non-military organization that has all those traits and I'll rethink that position.

I am, because for reasons I've already gone into in exhausting detail, I believe Starfleet is a paramilitary organization. It has a military role, to be sure, but that clearly isn't its PRIMARY role, in fact it doesn't even seem to be the role for which it was originally created.

Yeah. That's exactly why I mentioned the USCG, though it seems my preemptive "strike" has failed. It's primary mission, as you use that term in regard to Starfleet, also isn't combat. It also wasn't originally created to do that role either. (Accepting for the moment those claims about Starfleet, which have already been contested anyway, but let's not go there again). Yet that doesn't make it paramilitary. So in what way doesn't Starfleet fit the definition of a military? What makes it paramilitary instead of just military?

The Chinese, French, Russian, Japanese and British coast guards are not.

The French one is (the Maritime Gendarmerie). But anyway, that's beside the point.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I disagree, as most of the traits you mention are COMMON traits, but not DEFINING in any real sense. A disorganized military with the state's legal empowerment is still a military, because the state recognizes it as a lawful combatant in the event of a declared war.

Many of the characteristics you mentioned--hierarchical rank structure, empowerment to do combat, use of force against its own members--are characteristics shared by police departments, paramilitary organizations, non-military coast guards, gendarmeries, and even NASA personnel are authorized to use deadly force in defense of NASA hardware and facilities. Private military contractors possess ALL of the above traits, and are even authorized to engage in combat... but PMCs are not military organizations, because they are not defined as such by law.

A big difference: Police officers, private miitary contractor personnel etc. are not covered by a separate legal system

They are in some cases. IIRC the inspectors general of Japanese police departments preside over trials and disciplinary hearings of officers charged with serious misconduct. And private military contractors are sometimes charged in military tribunals, especially if they're being charged with war crimes.

As for the legal status of combatants, Starfleet personnel's status as prisoners of war in event of capture is confirmed in TNG "Chain of Command" and "The Defector."

Which is interesting, because Starfleet wasn't at war with the Cardassians OR the Romulans in those cases. Then again, in TUC Admiral Cartwright described Kirk and McCoy as "hostages," and both of them were tried in what appeared to be a Klingon civilian court (to the extent that Klingons actually HAVE a civilian court).

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Find me one real world non-military organization that has all those traits and I'll rethink that position.

Hezbollah, for one: all the characteristics of a standing military organization--even a separate military justice system--and yet the ONLY thing it lacks is legal sanction by any recognized state. Of course, given what we know about Hezbollah, that's as good an explanation as any for why these kinds of organizations are rarely allowed to exist: a military is a very powerful thing not to have on a short political leash.

You and I will probably disagree, but the same is also true of many gendarmeries, which AFAIK are not always military and are usually better described as paramilitary. The Canadian Mounted Police, for example, is another organization with all of the traits of a military organization except for legal authorization to fight Canada's wars, despite the fact that they can (and do) participate in Canada's oh-so-infrequent wars.

So in what way doesn't Starfleet fit the definition of a military? What makes it paramilitary instead of just military?

The fact that some of its senior commanders do not describe it--or even TREAT it--like a military organization. THAT is something that I am only too aware cannot be said of the U.S. Coast Guard.

The French one is (the Maritime Gendarmerie). But anyway, that's beside the point.

How? The Japanese Coast Guard is another one of those organizations that fits all the common definitions of a military organization and yet ISN'T one. Same with the Chinese, same with the British.

Or are we only allowed to use American organizations as analogies?

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

This thread is rediculous. Starfleet is a military.

Ideological differences don't make it any less of a military than a modern-day one, much in the same way that fascism and democracy are both defined as governments, despite huge gaps in ideology.