^ And yet, being a fascist and being part of the government are not the same thing.
Why the Resistance to Starfleet as a Military?
- Thread starter Vincent Law
- Start date
That's not the same. That's just an internal disciplinary system, something most police organizations have. It's not a separate criminal justice system.
That is true. But that's only when they are "attached" to the military. As far as we can tell, when Federation jurisdiction has been established, members of Starfleet always fall under Starfleet's justice system.
And even when PMCs are court-martialed those courts and the legal rules in question aren't their rules, they're the military's. There's no PMC court, presided by PMC judges, following a Uniformed Code of PMC Justice.
I'll confess my knowledge of Hezbollah isn't good enough to verify your claims. But I was talking about government organizations. Somehow I doubt an internal disciplinary system of a non-state militant group/political party can really be considered a military court system. And if it could be considered as such, then Hezbollah would basically be a state within a state and it's military arm would effectively be a military.
Most gendarmeries that I know are parts of their respective state's military forces. Those that aren't carry the name "gendarmerie" (like the RCMP in French) for traditional reasons but are basically civilian law enforcement organizations and they definitely do not posess all the military traits Starfleet has - they can't hold court-martials, for one.
The attitude it's members have towards the organization has little effect on the legal science definition of a military. And it's not some - it's ONE, on ONE ocassion. Yes, we have those two ocassions in ENT too but it can't be proven conclusively whether it's the same organization at all. OTOH, we have many more cases where they do treat it as a military (Kirk and Nog considering themselves soldiers, all the times we hear court-martial being mentioned, Leyton's coup being described as a military coup, the TWoK quote, etc). Why does that one line take precedence over all these other cases?
Picard's line in "Peak Performance" is just a piece of bad, contradictory writing, just like all the times a scientifically ridiculous term is used by the writers because they don't know better. Now, you may argue scientific definitions have changed in the future or something but it's much, much easier to simply admit they're mistakes, pure and simple. The writer of that line could have easily conveyed his intention by using "agressive organization" instead of "military organization" - and probably would have, had he had any in-depth knowledge and understanding of the military.
Any other reason Starfleet doesn't fit the definition?
But that's the thing - they don't fit. That's why they aren't military. They don't have all the traits of a military that Starfleet has. They don't fight wars, they can't court-martial their own members. Heck, not even Japan's military can do that, they fall under the jurisdiction of civilian courts. Same with German and French militaries, as far as I know. Basically, Starfleet has a solely military trait that not even all militaries have, including some well-known ones!
What's the difference, then? I haven't heard anything about Starfleet having a stockade or operating its own prisons. The ultimate result of a Starfleet courtmartial appears to be demotion or expulsion from the fleet.
OTOH, when Kirk stole and blew up the Enterprise, it was the Federation President that oversaw his tribunal. Not sure what to make of that either way.
Well, again, there is Kirk being brought up on charges by the Federation President. Curiously, "theft of federation property" is included on that list, but somehow isn't a violation of Federation law.
If most defense contractors actually gave a shit about justice, I suspect that would change.
Which is fairly accurate in that its military arm is the de facto military of the Hezbollah sub-state that dominates most (though by no means all) of Lebanon. The thing is, nobody ever talks about the armed wing of Hezbollah as "a military organization." It might just be a pejorative preference to describe them as terrorists, but I happen to think the word "military" implies a LEGAL authorization the sanctioned defense agency of a recognized country can have.[/quote]
Last time I checked, the Japanese Coast Guard and the Canadian Mounted Police DO hold court-martials, but I could be wrong.
So do any other traits in common with military organizations... let's keep those goalposts right where they are.
It doesn't. I merely try to interpret all cases in the context of one another. As it stands, there's more than enough verbal imprecision in "Paradise Lost" to account for use of colloquialisms or exaggerations. For example, I don't think Leyton or any of his cohorts could actually be charged with treason for any of their actions short of ordering Lakota to fire on the Defiant, and even that would probably be a major violation of Starfleet regulations (enough for him to resign over, at least). Even Jaresh Inyo, who describes Leyton's actions as "treason" the first time he hears about it from Sisko, ends that conversation with "If what you say is true, I'll have his resignation."
In this case, I don't think it is. It has alot less to do with Picard's line (at least for me) than it has to do with the fact that Starfleet tends to behave sufficiently ineptly and inconsistently in combat situations that after all these years I am just about convinced that "combat" is just a moonlighting gig for them. Admittedly, if we were just talking about the TMP movies by themselves it would be a bit different, and the case is even more different when it comes to STXI. But the depiction of Starfleet through TNG, Voyager and much of DS9 has been that of an exploration agency with a sometimes-practiced, never-specialized paramilitary role. If nothing else, the fact that Picard and Archer have the same blasé attitude about tactical readiness tells me more than anything else about the kinds of people Starfleet allows into positions of high authority.
That's an accusation you evidently like to toss around alot, but considering this is the same guy who wrote "The Enemy" I think you'd have a hell of a time making that accusation stick.
The EXPANDED definition including "traits of commonality"? Already covered: plenty of non-military organizations can and do have those traits as well. As for the suddenly-narrowed definition in which you exclude the attitudes and beliefs of its members? As you said, we don't low Federation legal statute, so it's a non-issue.
Which, in the end, means a court-martial isn't a defining or even particularly relevant trait for military organizations, since not all militaries practice them, and not all who practice them are militaries.
More broadly, alot of the "common traits" you mentioned are not even universal to all militaries, nor are they UNIQUE to militaries. If you START with Starfleet's characteristics you will inevitably find commonalities with most militaries; if, on the other hand, you start with the characteristics of most militaries (as I have, a number of times) you begin to find a disconnect with the characteristics of Starfleet. The most obvious--and not by a longshot the ONLY one--is the fact that Starfleet officers do not salute their superiors. I am not aware of a MILITARY organization anywhere on Earth that does not maintain this practice. Their reluctance to build and maintain pure combat vessels is major deal breaker for me as well; no self-respecting military organization would have waited until the Borg threat to build the Defiant, and they sure as hell wouldn't have canceled it if the borg threat became "less urgent." And for the love of all things holy they would NOT have accepted a blanket ban on cloaking devices just to appease the fucking Romulans. These are not things that military organizations would ever do in a sane universe.
Last edited:
I have to hand it to you, newtype, your persistance is amazing. That, or you have too much free time to kill, like me. 
Hmm, how about the Starfleet prison where McCoy was held in TSFS after being arested for trying to get passage to Genesis? (Though it's interesting he was actually arrested by Federation Security in that case.) Or the place Eddington was imprisoned (imprisoned, not just demoted or thrown out). Or Jaros II (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Jaros_II) where Ro was imprisoned.
True. But that seems to be a rather special case. And the Federation President is the C-in-C, after all.
Even then, they simply wouldn't have the authority to form their own courts.
Nope. I'm almost 100 percent sure they don't (and probably never have).
I disagree. Coart-martials, combatant status, organization, defined missions and similar are very much legal stuff. Internal attitudes and beliefs are not.
But again (leaving aside the simple out-of-universe reasons for the ineptness and inconsistency) that doesn't change that they do have combat as one of their missions. An inept military or a military that doesn't focus on combat a la USCG is still a military.
Ok, I admit I was maybe too harsh. But even RDM, who served in the military IIRC, made plenty of blunders when it came to military and Starfleet. Doesn't mean he wouldn't have avoided them had he been more careful and knew he was in the wrong (I think he said it himself in regard to O'Brien attending the Academy)
That's not a reason why Starfleet doesn't fit the definition, that's a reason why some other organizations that are not military can also fit part of the definition. And I don't think you gave me an example of an non-military organization that fits all the military-like traits that Starfleet has. Well, an example that isn't a nongovernmental militant group whose legal status is very much in limbo, from a disfunctional country - hardly comparable to Starfleet.
Why suddenly narrowed? Like I said, what do attitudes and beliefs have to do with legal status? Court martials, designated missions, combatant status etc. do have much do with it, and that's why they are part of the definition.
Perhaps it isn't defining, but it's certainly relevant. You're wrong, NOBODY except a military practices court-martials. That is UNIQUE. At least that I know.
Perhaps they don't use salutes as part of it, but they certainly do practice military courtesy (standing at attention, proper forms of adress, ceremonies).
Aren't you doing the same thing by ignoring the on-screen dialog?History is irrelevant
Don't get me wrong - I agree that Starfleet is indeed the military arm of the Federation, but when we're arguing about real world comparisons with fictional organizations, there just isn't going to be an answer that suits all parties.
I've been staying out of this thread (though I've continued to read most of the posts, because I still find the discussion interesting for some reason... ok, so lately, it's been "skimmed" in some cases instead of "read", since we are seeing quite a few repeat arguments), because I don't feel I have anything new to contribute; I made my position quite clear, and the simple fact is that I do see newtype's reasoning, but it doesn't make sense to me. I can't begin to comprehend how the evidence (contradictory and often muddy though it may be) favors the "Starfleet is not a military" position; I'm sure he would say the same about my position.Aren't you doing the same thing by ignoring the on-screen dialog?
Don't get me wrong - I agree that Starfleet is indeed the military arm of the Federation, but when we're arguing about real world comparisons with fictional organizations, there just isn't going to be an answer that suits all parties.
However, I thought this was worth commenting on. There certainly isn't (and likely never will be) an answer that suits all parties; the length of this discussion is clear evidence of that. But when it comes to the dialog specifically, I don't think Vincent was doing the same thing that he accused newtype of doing (and I have to admit, I liked the paragraph with all the Borg smileys; made me chuckle).
The only dialog that I am aware of that indicates that the Federation Starfleet is NOT a military is Picard's single line in "Peak Performance." Now, if someone is going to ignore a line of spoken dialog, they need a good reason, and in my opinion, there exists a VERY good reason in this case. That entire scene is full of nonsense. The attitudes displayed by both Picard and Riker regarding the importance of tactical skills - and their desire (or lack thereof) to hone them - is contradicted not only by other parts of TNG, but by the latter half of the very same ep.
It's essentially the same as when you encounter an "effects vs. dialog" problem: when they contradict each other, which is "true"? There is no general, always applicable answer to this, so it ends up being case-by-case. Someone else might look at "Peak Performance" and choose to treat the events of the wargame, not the earlier dialog, as the section that should be tossed out, in which case they would arrive at the opposite conclusion from me. Which is fine; since there IS no "standard", each of us is free to interpret contradictory evidence in whatever way makes the most sense to us. But the point I'm making is that dismissing Picard's line there isn't "ignoring evidence", because there is a good reason to ignore it.
Last edited:
^^Excellent point (and post).
Then you never watched "Ensign Ro," nor Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, nor "Doctor Bashir, I Presume?," nor "Caretaker, Part I."
Starfleet has its own system of prisons and courts-martial. 'Cos it's a military.
Bullshit. He's on trial in a court-martial; of course it was a violation of Federation law. Specifically, of Federation Starfleet law.
Bullshit. Starfleet is consistently referred as a military in "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost" by everyone, on both sides of Leyton's coup attempt. Because it's a military.
Meanwhile, the people who actually own Star Trek disagree with you, since they authorized Pocket Books to publish a novel, Hollow Men, in which Leyton is in a Starfleet prison because of his coup attempt.
uh..
yeah starfleet is NOT a military... picard i think specifically said so, if it was a military spock, uhura, chekov, sulu, worf, data, riker, la forge et al would not have spent their entire careers doing the same thing the same rank (practically) on the same ship
its an exploration organization with a secondary defensive/peace keeping/humanitarian role
and some military if the defiant was its first warship
if anything starfleet is the NOAA with photon torpedoes
To be more accurate they'd be NOAA with a nuclear arsenal at their disposal. They are the military arm of the Federation.
"Starfleet is not a military organization. Its purpose is exploration." - Picard, "Peak Performance" yeah I think he would know considering he at that time had been a starfleet captain for like 30 years
like i said some military if defiant was its first warship, 200 years after the creation of starfleet. hmm i wish i could bring my girlfriend and family when the navy reserve deploys me to go maintain f-18s so they can bomb iraqis... oops.... i mean go explore the Indian ocean and seek out new life, thank God they designed carrier battle groups with that explicit mission.. yeah starfleet is some military
Okay. We've went round and round on this and I don't think one side is going to change the others mind.
But I have one question: if Starfleet isn't the Federation military, who is? We have 700+ hours of Trek so I'm sure so I'm sure someone can answer it.
I always thought that was a standard police station, judging by the uniforms of the guys who were guarding him. As for Eddington and Ro, I'm not really sure since we never saw them or knew much about how they were managed. Nor can I remember whether or not Ro was actually incarcerated or just detained awaiting trial or something odd like that (I would be SHOCKED if 24th century courts moved faster than ours).
Not as such, but they WOULD have the authority to see to their own discipline and bylaws in a type of pseudo-justice system (via board of inquiry or other similar procedure). Whether or not these things would transform into "courts" really depends on their corporate culture and the kinds of people who put those inquiries together. Some might prefer to mimic an actual courtroom to a certain degree, just because the justice system works better than any ad-hoc corporate system. This is, it seems to me, exactly what happened in "The Measure of a Man."
But don't have much to do with the legal science definition of a military, other than combatant status.
True as that is, the only reason we know the U.S. Coast Guard is a military organization is because Federal Law says so. The only reason we know the Japanese Coast Guard is NOT a military is because Japanese law says so. It gets even weirder when we consider that we all know the JSDF is Japan's military, and THEY know it too, despite the fact that Japanese law says it isn't.
From where I'm sitting, Starfleet is ALOT more similar to the Coast Guard than it is to the Japanese Navy, so much so that the only way we could know for sure that it was a military organization is if we had a look at Federation law to see what they say about it. It could say it is, it could say it isn't, we don't know; WITHOUT knowing that, the only thing I could conclude from the evidence is that it's a paramilitary organization: a scientific/exploration fleet with a secondary military role. This is assuming (as I currently do) that you don't like the idea that "Starfleet" may very well be a term with a very specific legal definition that fits the situation much better than "military," in which case Picard's line in peak performance would be similar to a Naval officer saying "The Navy isn't a space program, so our pilots don't normally undergo astronaut training."
Because functional countries no longer maintain armed forces that AREN'T militaries, and haven't done so for a very long time. It's sort of like asking me to identify a major economy that isn't based on fiat currency. Nobody does that anymore, but that doesn't mean they won't do so in the future (in the 24th century, most people use latinum).
Basically, fighting forces are normally part of the military under modern trends for the past three or four hundred years; private organizations or multi-function jack-of-all-trades organizations COULD serve this purpose as well. Stable nations don't do this anymore, but that doesn't mean they won't do so in the future.
And then we have "Chain of Command" where we find out that most of these protocols are actually OPTIONAL and appear to be enforced entirely at the discretion of a ship's CO.
I mean, maybe this is just the perspective of a little kid watching Star Trek not exactly closely, but I honestly didn't realize Counselor Troi even had an actual rank until Captain Jellico made her start wearing a uniform (I'm not even sure I knew she was an officer).
I touched on this a little with my last post, but wanted to expand it here.
Nearly everyone in this thread has ignored this idea, but I do believe the only ACCURATE term for what Starfleet is would be "Starfleet." By the way it's used and the way it occurs it seems to be both a general and specific term with a well-defined legal and organizational meaning. There is some reason that Picard doesn't think that "Military" doesn't fit that definition, and I feel it's this: Starfleet's role goes far beyond that which a military possesses, and excludes some others.
So I've interpretted this line as, say, the Captain of CVN-65 going to Cape Canaveral to have his attack squadron pilots trained to use space capsules and space suits in reaction to the recent crash of an alien warship. The Captain says "The Navy is not a space program, our main purpose is national defense." He's not saying that the Navy doesn't have space operations, they very well might. He isn't saying that "space program" is by definition not a naval one; a military space program could easily be run by the navy, or the air force, or be a separate branch, or whatever. What he's trying to say is that space training is not a specialty for most of his people because operating in space isn't their primary mission.
Picard, therefore, is implying--and in fact flat out SAYING--that combat is not Starfleet's primary mission. Now by the same token that navy pilots and engineers already have most of the training they would need to operate space vehicles, Starfleet officers have most of the training they would need to engage in combat.
I try to reconcile them when possible; sometimes you can, sometimes you can't. The thing is, when you get around to things like weapons ranges and relative distances, sometimes you have to come down more heavily on one side or another in order to be consistent. If you're going by the visuals, a starship's normal weapons range is a few dozen to a few hundred kilometers at most; if you're going by dialog, the Enterprise is plinking at targets several light seconds away. The very few points of contradiction could be explained away with a little thought, it really just depends on which side you favor.
This is something that's been bugging me. You keep assuming that the wargame is self-evident of Starfleet's entirely military nature, and that's something I'm not seeing either. To begin with, the wargame is setup in the first place to pit a hand-picked skeleton crew on a derelict, barely-operable starship against the most powerful vessel in the entire fleet. There isn't any particular reason to have the deck so heavily stacked except as an character-building exercise for Riker, like a type of Kobyashi Maru scenario where the point is to challenge Riker and evaluate his reaction to almost certain defeat. It's almost useless as a TRAINING exercise, especially when you consider that the whole reason for the wargame in the first place was extra combat readiness against the Borg.
More importantly: ACTUAL MILITARIES conduct wargames using their own active-duty ships and equipment as aggressor squadrons. They do this because they're not simply modeling engagements (as in fighter tournaments or training drills which you can do just about anywhere) but because they're modeling WARS. That would involve, say, the Enterprise and a small task force going up against the Venture and a similar task force in a simulated campaign for control of a particular planet.
If nuclear weapons had a nonlethal stun setting, I don't think many people would have a problem with that.
Why do we assume the Federation even HAS a military? Would not the local space/ground/air/sea forces of its individual members suffice for that?
After all, a Federation spread across thousands of light years is not COLLECTIVELY under a threat of invasion, and member worlds who have never been threatened and never expect to be so in the future might take issue with having to contribute to the defense of worlds that do. Considering the Federation seems not to have experienced anything more intense than an occasional border skirmish in the past century or so, a well-armed exploration service might be the closest thing they have or need to a collective force while more elite local militias would exist in more heavily contested regions.
who says they need one?
on a "federal" level (considering the federation is a federation) i'd say they dont have one, and starfleet fulfills defensive requirements as a secondary mission - its first being exploration
To be sure, the combined forces of Starfleet, the Klingon Empire, the Romulan Empire, and--in the end--even the Cardassians all had to be united under one banner to defeat the Dominion. I kind of think that would qualify as "special circumstances."
Disclosure: a few days ago I emailed the one and only person I know who has ever served in the Japanese navy and asked him if the JMSDF has court martials. His response was, basically, "What's a court martial?"
I am now waiting for clarification, but it could be a while.
guess how many US government agencies have their own internal "court" system? a lot. board of inquires blah blah blah - they dont house federal agents in regular prisons you know
likewise if something wrong is done by employees it is usually handled and reviewed and punishments - paid leave, termination - given by human resources... dose that make Apple or IBM a military?
and starfleet, a future space agency, also has their own system of internal review, big surprise big offenses are given what are called "court martials" since starfleet takes a fancy to using 19th/20th/21st century nautical terms for themselves
"Starfleet is not a military organization. Its purpose is exploration." - Picard
likewise if something wrong is done by employees it is usually handled and reviewed and punishments - paid leave, termination - given by human resources... dose that make Apple or IBM a military?
and starfleet, a future space agency, also has their own system of internal review, big surprise big offenses are given what are called "court martials" since starfleet takes a fancy to using 19th/20th/21st century nautical terms for themselves
"Starfleet is not a military organization. Its purpose is exploration." - Picard
When my parent (both US Air Force) were sent from one base to another around the world, they brought their five children along, I was born in cold war West Germany on a USAF base, people want to have their family close to them
Why would it be any different with a "flying starbase" like the Enterprise Dee. The outpost destroyed on Cestus Three (Arena) had families . When the Borg first entered Federation territory (The Neutral Zone), their first attacks were against outposts near the RNZ, maybe with families. Starfleet families posted to a ship are seemingly no more in danger, or safer, than those stationed at a non-ship facility.
In the Star Trek's universe, colonies (with families) are often attacked, not being aboard a Starship seemingly didn't protect them.
Similar threads
