Starfleet Marine Corps
- Thread starter Danlav05
- Start date
This reason being? That it has been so in the past is not a reason. It makes no practical difference what the various ranks are called.
This whole discussion seems to boil down to some peaople's fixation on nomenclature; Starfleet security personnel cannot do ground combat because they're not called 'marines' and have naval ranks.
Yeah, I always thought that was odd as well. Probably because they didn't want to come up with the uniform which would most likely never be used again. (The exactly one Marine officer who ever appeared in that show was wearing civilian clothes at the time!)
^ It's not meaningless. As I said, separate rank systems exist for a reason. When's the last time you saw a Navy which had ranks like Major or Colonel or General (well, outside of Babylon 5 of course) or a Marine Corps or Army with commanders and admirals?
For a while, Canada's military used the same ranks in all its branches. Yes, that means Canada's Navy used Army ranks. Colonels commanded boats, Generals commanded fleets.
This is no longer the way, the Canadian Navy is using tradition naval ranks these days, although some of the enlisted men still use army ranks. I know a guy in the Canadian Navy who hold the rank Corporal. My point is that there are real world precedents for army ranks to be used in the navy.
Last edited:
But what is the reason, aside from evolving separately over a long period? There is no essential requirement for a certain set of titles over another. The US Navy's Seabees are organized into a Naval Construction Division commanded by a rear admiral, regiments commanded by captains ("commodores"), battalions commanded by commanders and companies commanded by lieutenants. Everyone understands and it has worked well for 70 years.
Justin
If they own the lake they can do that. If they own the dock, but not the lake, then that boat owner could have gotten that lien removed without paying them. Of course, he'd have paid a lawyer a lot more, but sometimes it's worth it.
I always saw the UFP as a federal gov't, and the alliance talk as a sop, much as we allow Texans to think we'd ever let them exercise that secession clause in their state constitution.Darkwing, it has to do with control. If the Federation isn't a state, but it's allied members can exercise control over a area of interstellar space, then they are in fact in control of that space.
If the Federation can't exercise control, then it doesn't make any different if they're a state or a alliance, they don't control it.
At one time, all services used the same ranks: Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant, and enlisted man. This is why navy captains are equal to army colonels. Over time, each service developed their structures to suit themselves. Yes, some folks revise that and use one structure. And it works. But it does have a flaw. A ground-pounder with a naval rank feels slighted ("I'm a soldier, dammit, not a squid!"). Sailors with army rank feel less esprit de corps than squids who are actually called by naval rank. I know I'd be pretty ticked if someone told me that I had to be a sergeant now instead of a petty officer!
But by the same analogy, the Canadian Forces' brief use of the same rank system in all of its commands didn't last very long, did it? They went back to the old systems fairly quickly after unification. Who's to say the same thing didn't happen in Starfleet? They could have a single, unified military command, like Canada, and yet have unique rank systems.
That's what happened pretty much overnight for the Royal Naval Air Service when the RAF was established in WW1. Everybody got through it all right.
Yes, but the Canadian example was a service which had strong predecessor traditions and would be working closely with services of other nations who still used those traditional conventions. Creating a new service, integrating different traditions, languages and cultures, would make it much easier to go with a "clean slate" system of ranks. Again, what is inherent in "ground" operations that requires a certain system of titles?
Justin
^ It's inherent in the very meaning of the words: From wikipedia:
Both Vulcan and Betazed have their own defenses, implying that Federation members in general have their own fleets and planetary defenses.
Or, Vulcan and Betazed are the exceptions.
The point about the HOA was that they could establish a speed limit within the area where they had authority, without being a "sovereign state." Sovereignty isn't a requirement for a body to exercise a degree authority, control is.
The Council could restrict access and speed in a limited area for members of the alliance, but their authority didn't extend to imposing those same restriction upon others in the same area. This was point out by the Enterprise officers in the episode.
And it wasn't a "nation-wide speed limit," it was only select areas (where subspace rifts are likely to form) within the single sector that held the Hekaras Corridor. Not throughout the Federation.
And Worf's comment that " The Klingons will observe these restrictions, but the Romulans will not," might suggest that the affected sector isn't even within Federation territory. Why would the Romulans have access to a Federation sector?
We're contending that the Royal Navy is not "The Kingdom's Navy," it's the UK's navy. When was Starfleet ever specifically called the "United Federation Starfleet?" Reading is fundamental.
You mean terrestrial alliances don't?
We've (of course) have never been a part of a interstellar multi-species alliance, so our previous alliances wouldn't be a restriction on possibilities.
Should the alliance membership wish to draw up a charter that include guarantees on civil rights, something like the UDHR* (but better thought-out), they could. The different members then could either ratify all of it, portions of it, or none of it, as they saw fit.
Just as they could form a interstellar court, if they choice to.
Just as the members could build defense ships of a similar design and even paint them in a similar color scheme.
* The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Drago-Kazov
Fleet Captain
They are Space Marines.
Marine means ocean/sea. Its the whole reason we call them Marines.
"Defenses" could just mean an orbital defense network. It was due to inaction on Starfleet's part that Betazed fell to the Dominion.
Drago-Kazov
Fleet Captain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Marines_(Warhammer_40,000)
The concept showed up in other franchises too, so why not?
Because it is Star Trek and the nature of ground combat seen is more in line with SEALs Space Air Land commandos doing their thing then a USMC MAU storming the beaches of Tarawa
Edit to add are not SEALS lead by Naval officers with tradition navel rank structures. There seems to be a famous Master Chief in another game franchise.
Astrines just doesn't have the same ring to it.
What concept? We're talking about the origin (etymology) of the term "Marine".
It is when the speed limit is being imposed on areas that are not private property.
False.
"Until we can find a way to counteract the warp field effect, the Council feels our best course is to slow the damage as much as possible. Therefore, areas of space found susceptible to warp fields will be restricted to essential travel only, and effective immediately, all Federation vessels will be limited to a speed of – Warp 5? – except in cases of extreme emergency."
You were right about one thing, though -- this wasn't just a Federation-wide speed limit. It apparently extends to all Federation vessels operating outside of Federation territory as well.
Worf was referring to traffic within their own territory, not to traffic within the Hekaris sector.
Is a treaty subject to sovereign state ratification, not a Constitution.
Meaning at this point you're just making shit up.
But let's play this game -- "the Federation is an alliance." An alliance that has been given and which exercises all of the powers you describe, is an alliance that has become a sovereign state in all but name. It has clearly replaced its members as the actual center of power.
And that's assuming the Federation is just an alliance. Which it obviously isn't, because it has been shown to possess and exercise all of the powers and authorities of a sovereign state.
Similar threads
