Scotty and his military comment

[OneBuckFilms]

Lets look at these:

1) It is both an armed and uniformed organization
- This is the case.

2) It is established by the the laws of the state
- The Starfleet Charter is definately there, and it is certainly established and maintained by the laws of the state (in this case, the Federation)

3) Its statutory/founding mission is to successfully perpetrate wars and defend against foreign aggression.
- It is implicit, but the fact that it routinely engages in military activities, and certainly in DS9 is the primary defensive organisation in the event of war, that this is part of it's mission from a statutory basis.

Certainly, no other organisation is given the primary responsibilities in item 3. Therefore, your interpretation of this last point, the one you imply Starfleet does not meet, is in error by your definition.

That certainly does not mean it is starfleet's primary mission, but it is certainly part of it's mission profile. Otherwise, Starfleet would not be caled upon for such military activities, and Section 31 would not be part of Starfleet's charter upon founding.

Whether by founding or evolution, it does, on its face, meet all 3 items.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I just think Picard and Scott have idealized visions of what they think Starfleet should be. Jim Kirk obviously doesn't.

I can only say that it makes a lot more sense for someone to have a militaristic interpretation of an idealistic exploration fleet than it is to have an idealized interpretation of a military.

It would not, for example, be all that odd for a bunch of ATF commandos to refer to themselves and to each other as soldiers and discuss their mission in military terms. It would be QUITE unusual for a bunch of Marines to have discussions about how peaceful their mission is and how much respect they have for all intelligent life everywhere.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

I just think Picard and Scott have idealized visions of what they think Starfleet should be. Jim Kirk obviously doesn't.

I can only say that it makes a lot more sense for someone to have a militaristic interpretation of an idealistic exploration fleet than it is to have an idealized interpretation of a military.

It would not, for example, be all that odd for a bunch of ATF commandos to refer to themselves and to each other as soldiers and discuss their mission in military terms. It would be QUITE unusual for a bunch of Marines to have discussions about how peaceful their mission is and how much respect they have for all intelligent life everywhere.

Actually, being the Military for the Federation, as I've always stated in this thread, is BOTH.

It is, as Kirk might put it, "a combined service".

We don't have a full list of directives, or a full Charter document, to say whether it was founded with the role of defense, but it has certainly evolved to take that role.

Having that role, sanctioned by it's controlling Government (Eath government founded it, but by the 23rd Century, the Federation controls it), as evidenced by it being consistently called into that role, in and of itself, makes it the military branch of the Federation.

It is also, at it's founding core, and for a vast percentage of it's mission profile, an exploratory, diplomatic and scientifc organisation.

It is literally the peaceful, scientific organisation you imply it to be, as well as the military organisation you believe it isn't.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

3) Its statutory/founding mission is to successfully perpetrate wars and defend against foreign aggression.
- It is implicit, but the fact that it routinely engages in military activities, and certainly in DS9 is the primary defensive organisation in the event of war, that this is part of it's mission from a statutory basis.

That's not implicit at all. Again, Earth Starfleet was seen conducting these same types of missions despite the fact that they were CLEARLY chartered as a non-military exploratory force. The simple reason they were sent on this mission is because they possessed Earth's only warp-five capable starship.

The only reason statutory mission statement matters is because it is otherwise illegal to dispatch non-military organizations on military missions. Civilians who do this are considered either terrorists or spies, UNLESS they are part of their nation's uniformed service. Federation law does not appear to preserve normal conventions on lawful vs. unlawful combatants, apparently because some of its founding members (the Vulcans in particular) consider the distinction to be illogical.

Certainly, no other organisation is given the primary responsibilities in item 3.

This, again, is the assumption that the Federation even HAS a military. They very well may not; it would just be another in a list of things they inexplicably do not have (the others being money, poverty, corruption, and journalists).

That certainly does not mean it is starfleet's primary mission...

If it isn't their primary mission, they are not a military.

Otherwise, Starfleet would not be caled upon for such military activities, and Section 31 would not be part of Starfleet's charter upon founding.

Strictly speaking, Section 31 was part of the old Starfleet charter in the 22nd century. We don't actually know what the new charter says, but we do know that the old Starfleet from which the modern Section 31 draws its name was not a military organization.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

We don't have a full list of directives, or a full Charter document, to say whether it was founded with the role of defense, but it has certainly evolved to take that role.

It hasn't EVOLVED at all. That was always one of Starfleet's roles. You're simply experiencing massive cognitive dissonance over the fact that non-military organizations can be asked to fill that roll if they are properly equipped; the only thing that stops them at present is 21st century legal conventions that have only been around for the past hundred years and even then are not universally followed.

It's like saying that "the organization that enforces speed limits" is by definition "traffic cops." If in a fictional state this role is being filled by armed mercenaries who turn in speeders for a handsome bounty, there's little call for the question "Then where are the traffic cops?"

 

[OneBuckFilms]

We don't have a full list of directives, or a full Charter document, to say whether it was founded with the role of defense, but it has certainly evolved to take that role.

It hasn't EVOLVED at all. That was always one of Starfleet's roles. You're simply experiencing massive cognitive dissonance over the fact that non-military organizations can be asked to fill that roll if they are properly equipped; the only thing that stops them at present is 21st century legal conventions that have only been around for the past hundred years and even then are not universally followed.

It's like saying that "the organization that enforces speed limits" is by definition "traffic cops." If in a fictional state this role is being filled by armed mercenaries who turn in speeders for a handsome bounty, there's little call for the question "Then where are the traffic cops?"

So if Defense is always one of Starfleet's roles, it is a military organisation. By any reasonable definition, semantic breakdown, it is an officially recognised organisation to defent the Federation and Federation interests in the event of war.

That is, in fact a Military.

Prove my statements in this post incorrect.

Q: Does Starfleet provide a major or primary defensive and/or offensive capability in the event of war?
A: Yes.

Disprove A, or you have no reasonable argument.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

That certainly does not mean it is starfleet's primary mission...

If it isn't their primary mission, they are not a military.

Incorrect assumption. It is A MAJOR part of it's mission. Primary or not, that is a fact.

 

[BillJ]

This, again, is the assumption that the Federation even HAS a military. They very well may not; it would just be another in a list of things they inexplicably do not have (the others being money, poverty, corruption, and journalists).

Problem is that they do have money (mentioned quite a bit), they do have poverty (Tasha Yar's colony), they do have corruption (see Ensign Ro) and they would have to have journalists if there's a Federation News Service.

 

[KGator]

We don't have a full list of directives, or a full Charter document, to say whether it was founded with the role of defense, but it has certainly evolved to take that role.

It hasn't EVOLVED at all. That was always one of Starfleet's roles. You're simply experiencing massive cognitive dissonance over the fact that non-military organizations can be asked to fill that roll if they are properly equipped; the only thing that stops them at present is 21st century legal conventions that have only been around for the past hundred years and even then are not universally followed.

The true cognitive dissonance here is that you fail to comprehend that if an organization is armed it is no longer non-military and by current and historic legal definition it is most decidedly a MILITARY FORCE!

International convention:

Many military manuals specify that the armed forces of a party to the conflict consist of all organized armed groups which are under a command responsible to that party for the conduct of its subordinates.[3] This definition is supported by official statements and reported practice.[4] Practice includes that of States not, or not at the time, party to Additional Protocol I.[5]
In essence, this definition of armed forces covers all persons who fight on behalf of a party to a conflict and who subordinate themselves to its command. As a result, a combatant is any person who, under responsible command, engages in hostile acts in an armed conflict on behalf of a party to the conflict. The conditions imposed on armed forces vest in the group as such. The members of such armed forces are liable to attack.
This definition of armed forces builds upon earlier definitions contained in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention which sought to determine who are combatants entitled to prisoner-of-war status. Article 1 of the Hague Regulations provides that the laws, rights and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling four conditions:

Starfleet personnel are conclusively shown to:
1) Have a distinct chain of command
2) Have distinctive uniforms and insignia
3) Carry weapons individually and mounted on vehicles, aerial platforms and starships.
4) Conduct combat operations on behalf of the Federation from minor skirmishes to total all out intergalactic war.

Now compare that to the Geneva Convention definition for armed forces:
1) To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2) To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
3) To carry arms openly; and
4) To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

If you don't recognize Starfleet as a military than in your mind there must be, in fact, no militaries in existence on planet earth either because no organization in existence better fits the aforementioned criteria than Starfleet in the fictional Trek universe.

And as we have previously established by multiple dictionaries a military is defined as "armed forces".

 

[KGator]

I wonder how this discussion might be dealt with in the 24th Century.

Captain Picard ~ "Now Crazy Eddie, don't be alarmed. I am going to describe to you an animal and I want you to tell me what you think it is." *clears throat* "This animal looks like a duck . . . . it WALKS like a duck . . . . and it also quacks like a duck. . . . Now Crazy Eddie, can you tell me what you think this animal is?"

Crazy Eddie ~ "Its a parrot!!!"

Captain Picard ~ "Hmmmm. Counselor Troi, Riker, Worf, any comments?"

Counselor Troi ~ "Clearly he's delusional Captain."
Riker ~ "Captain, why are we wasting our time with this man?"
Worf ~ " Sir, I suggest we beam him into a rock."

 

[nightwind1]

That certainly does not mean it is starfleet's primary mission...

If it isn't their primary mission, they are not a military.

Incorrect assumption. It is A MAJOR part of it's mission. Primary or not, that is a fact.

He's got it wrong, anyway.

Take the US Coast Guard for example. It's primary mission is not combat, but it most definitely is military.


nightwind1, PO3, USCG 1988-1993

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I wonder how this discussion might be dealt with in the 24th Century.

Captain Picard ~ "Now Crazy Eddie, don't be alarmed. I am going to describe to you an animal and I want you to tell me what you think it is." *clears throat* "This animal looks like a duck . . . . it WALKS like a duck . . . . and it also quacks like a duck. . . . Now Crazy Eddie, can you tell me what you think this animal is?"

Crazy Eddie ~ "Its a parrot!!!"

Captain Picard ~ "Hmmmm. Counselor Troi, Riker, Worf, any comments?"

Counselor Troi ~ "Clearly he's delusional Captain."
Riker ~ "Captain, why are we wasting our time with this man?"
Worf ~ " Sir, I suggest we beam him into a rock."

Let's lay off the personal comments from now on, please.

 

[Kruezerman]

I wonder how this discussion might be dealt with in the 24th Century.

Captain Picard ~ "Now Crazy Eddie, don't be alarmed. I am going to describe to you an animal and I want you to tell me what you think it is." *clears throat* "This animal looks like a duck . . . . it WALKS like a duck . . . . and it also quacks like a duck. . . . Now Crazy Eddie, can you tell me what you think this animal is?"

Crazy Eddie ~ "Its a parrot!!!"

Captain Picard ~ "Hmmmm. Counselor Troi, Riker, Worf, any comments?"

Counselor Troi ~ "Clearly he's delusional Captain."
Riker ~ "Captain, why are we wasting our time with this man?"
Worf ~ " Sir, I suggest we beam him into a rock."

 

[Crazy Eddie]

We don't have a full list of directives, or a full Charter document, to say whether it was founded with the role of defense, but it has certainly evolved to take that role.

It hasn't EVOLVED at all. That was always one of Starfleet's roles. You're simply experiencing massive cognitive dissonance over the fact that non-military organizations can be asked to fill that roll if they are properly equipped; the only thing that stops them at present is 21st century legal conventions that have only been around for the past hundred years and even then are not universally followed.

It's like saying that "the organization that enforces speed limits" is by definition "traffic cops." If in a fictional state this role is being filled by armed mercenaries who turn in speeders for a handsome bounty, there's little call for the question "Then where are the traffic cops?"

So if Defense is always one of Starfleet's roles, it is a military organisation.

No, it's an exploration fleet with a defense role. As it was in the 22nd century and has been ever since.

It would be a military if defense was its primary role.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That certainly does not mean it is starfleet's primary mission...

If it isn't their primary mission, they are not a military.

Incorrect assumption. It is A MAJOR part of it's mission...

According to William Riker, it is actually "a minor province in the make-up of a starship captain."

Secondary, AND minor.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

This, again, is the assumption that the Federation even HAS a military. They very well may not; it would just be another in a list of things they inexplicably do not have (the others being money, poverty, corruption, and journalists).

Problem is that they do have money (mentioned quite a bit), they do have poverty (Tasha Yar's colony), they do have corruption (see Ensign Ro) and they would have to have journalists if there's a Federation News Service.

Partially true:

They have "credits" as an avatar for money, though they continue to claim "money doesn't exist."
They have places like Turkana IV and the DMZ colonies that remain poor because they have intentionally isolated themselves from the rest of the Federation.
They have various officers with their own secret agendas and schemes (also The Pegasus, the Omega Glory, Too Short a Season).
They have the Federation News Service which lacks either journalists or a mass media outreach to Federation citizens and has a low enough profile that nobody but Jake Sisko ever mentions them; it might as well be a glorified blog.

IOW, all the things they lack, they have "kinda-but-not-really" substitutes for them. As they do with Starfleet, which lacks the legal mandate and defense priorities of a military but is nevertheless required to act as one in an emergency.

Make of that what you will; maybe the definition was purely mandated by the Federation charter which calls for the creation of a society in which its citizens can say with a straight face "We don't use money, none of us live in poverty, and we have no military."

 

[Opus]

Starfleet a military organization?

To quote Rodney Dangerfield - "They ain't the Boy Scouts!"

Except for Jim Kirk. Despite what Carol said, he was an overgrown Boy Scout.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The true cognitive dissonance here is that you fail to comprehend that if an organization is armed it is no longer non-military and by current and historic legal definition it is most decidedly a MILITARY FORCE!

The Hagannah was sufficiently well-armed to fight successful wars against the British, Jordanian, Egyptian and Syrian militaries in 1947 and 48. They did not become a military force, however, until the State of Israel incorporated them into the IDF.

This is also true of most of the major combatants of the Indian Wars from the 1790s through the 1880s; with the possible exception of the Iroquois Confederacy, none of the tribal nations actually bothered to create a combat organization and simply called up everyone who could carry a weapon and organized them into war parties.

International convention...

Would identify Starfleet under the umbrella definition of "armed forces." Significantly, "armed forces" and "military" are not interchangeable terms.

Basically, you bolded the wrong portion:

In essence, this definition of armed forces covers all persons who fight on behalf of a party to a conflict and who subordinate themselves to its command. As a result, a combatant is any person who, under responsible command, engages in hostile acts in an armed conflict on behalf of a party to the conflict. The conditions imposed on armed forces vest in the group as such. The members of such armed forces are liable to attack.
This definition of armed forces builds upon earlier definitions contained in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention which sought to determine who are combatants entitled to prisoner-of-war status. Article 1 of the Hague Regulations provides that the laws, rights and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling four conditions:

Meaning one does not need to be a member of one's military to be considered a combatant and therefore subject to POW protections of the Geneva Conventions. Which is why "the rights and duties" also apply to non-military organizations that choose to take part in war as combatants.

If you don't recognize Starfleet as a military...

... it's because

1) "Armed forces" and "military" are not interchangeable terms and
2) The Federation is not known to be a signatory of the Geneva Conventions.

 

[KGator]

The Hagannah was sufficiently well-armed to fight successful wars against the British, Jordanian, Egyptian and Syrian militaries in 1947 and 48. They did not become a military force, however, until the State of Israel incorporated them into the IDF.

That's a fascinating story, however, nowhere in the definition of armed forces does it declare that said armed force needs to be established or maintained by a sovereign state. All it needs is 1) uniforms, 2) chain of command, 3) be armed and 4) fight. You and 5 of your best friends could dress up in Starfleet uniforms (or Klingon, whatever) and form your own military. Make one of you in charge and arm yourselves and prepare for battle. I doubt you would gain much (besides derision and laughter from your neighbors) but that's all you need. Its very simple despite your refusal to accept it. The whole "original charter needs to state that its a military" or "it needs to be established as a military by the state", etc, ideas are just fictional traits you made up in your head and only applicable in your own imaginary world. They are not part of real world.

This is also true of most of the major combatants of the Indian Wars from the 1790s through the 1880s; with the possible exception of the Iroquois Confederacy, none of the tribal nations actually bothered to create a combat organization and simply called up everyone who could carry a weapon and organized them into war parties

And if they were organized into war parties and armed . . . you have provided a fine example of a native american military . . . . . sooooooo . . . . what's your point again? Apparently you are surprised to learn that for most of human history the armed forces were not full time soldiers but only organized in time of conflict. Remember, we are discussing actual history and conventions and not simply the personalized definitions you would implement in "Crazy-Eddietopia".

International convention...

Would identify Starfleet under the umbrella definition of "armed forces." Significantly, "armed forces" and "military" are not interchangeable terms.

Basically, you bolded the wrong portion:

In essence, this definition of armed forces covers all persons who fight on behalf of a party to a conflict and who subordinate themselves to its command. As a result, a combatant is any person who, under responsible command, engages in hostile acts in an armed conflict on behalf of a party to the conflict. The conditions imposed on armed forces vest in the group as such. The members of such armed forces are liable to attack.

This definition of armed forces builds upon earlier definitions contained in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention which sought to determine who are combatants entitled to prisoner-of-war status. Article 1 of the Hague Regulations provides that the laws, rights and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling four conditions:

Meaning one does not need to be a member of one's military to be considered a combatant and therefore subject to POW protections of the Geneva Conventions. Which is why "the rights and duties" also apply to non-military organizations that choose to take part in war as combatants.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, reading comprehension aside, that passage is a generic compilation of ideas from multiple sources (various field manuals, treaties, et al) and only REFERS to the Hague Convention's criteria. I previously listed the traits of an armed force (which you conveniently ignore each time) which Starfleet met gloriously. I do however find it puzzling that you would suggest that unarmed organizations are taking part in wars as combatants. Like who? The Culinary Union of Ohio Local 138? What are they doing? Flinging pancakes as invading troops pass by? If they are armed and organized . . . they are a military.

You also misread the part you bolded. Its stating that a militia and army volunteer corps is to be treated with all the rights and protections of a POW even though they are not part of the professional army. (fail)

You also seem to be struggling in processing the key difference between armed and unarmed forces. Armed forces have weapons, unarmed forces don't. Forces that don't have weapons (thus unarmed) are NOT armed forces (which kind of makes sense even on the surface right? I mean . . . think about it . . . "armed forces"???). If you don't have weapons you can't met the criteria of being a military. That's not a problem for Starfleet who is armed to the teeth in almost every episode.

If you don't recognize Starfleet as a military...

... it's because

1) "Armed forces" and "military" are not interchangeable terms and[/QUOTE]

Ummmm . . . another fail.

Go check your dictionaries because you obviously have not researched the 5 dictionaries I quoted previously in this thread that all included definitions of a military as an armed force. We established that definition before proving that Starfleet met the criteria for an armed force based on modern convention and legal precedence.

Here are some additional links for you to continue to ignore.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/military

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/military

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/military

2) The Federation is not known to be a signatory of the Geneva Conventions.

Hmmmm, why do you think that is? Is it because the Federation feels that the Geneva Convention unfairly restricts its ability to engage in what could be considered "war crimes"? Or maybe is it because the Federation is NOT REAL!?!? This is a striking statement from you which seems to strengthen the idea that you have trouble separating the real world you live in and a fantasy world you probably would prefer to live in.

But because Star Trek is fictional when we have discussions comparing and contrasting them to current society and modern conventions we use these conventions and lifestyle standards as the benchmarks to measure against and not the other way around.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I previously listed the traits of an armed force

And you continue to use "armed force" and "military" interchangeably. As I've already pointed out, militias, terrorists, insurgents and police departments -- none of which are militaries -- are also defined as "armed forces" when they participate in combat.

You also misread the part you bolded. Its stating that a militia and army volunteer corps is to be treated with all the rights and protections of a POW even though they are not part of the professional army.

Exactly: one does not need to be part of the military to still be treated as a combatant.

This is because "armed forces" is not identical to "the military." The military is an armed force, but not all armed forces are part of the military.

Go check your dictionaries because you obviously have not researched the 5 dictionaries I quoted previously in this thread that all included definitions of a military as an armed force.

Go check the definition of armed force as a military:

In broad usage, the terms "armed forces" and "military" are often treated synonymously, although in technical usage a distinction is sometimes made in which a country's armed forces may include both its military and other paramilitary forces.

[...]

In most countries the basis of the armed forces is the military, divided into basic military branches. However, armed forces can include other paramilitary structures.

From the same page you quoted earlier:

Specific practice was found concerning the incorporation of paramilitary or armed law enforcement agencies, such as police forces, gendarmerie and constabulary, into armed forces.[10] Examples of such paramilitary agencies incorporated into the armed forces of a State include the Special Auxiliary Force attached to Bishop Muzorewa’s United African National Congress in Zimbabwe, which was integrated into the national army after the Bishop became Prime Minister, and India’s Border Security Force in Assam.[11] Examples of armed law enforcement agencies being incorporated into the armed forces include the Philippine Constabulary and Spain’s Guardia Civil.[12]

Incorporation of paramilitary or armed law enforcement agencies into armed forces is usually carried out through a formal act, for example, an act of parliament. In the absence of formal incorporation, the status of such groups will be judged on the facts and in the light of the criteria for defining armed forces. When these units take part in hostilities and fulfil the criteria of armed forces, they are considered combatants.

In practice, "armed forces" and "military" are equivalent only insofar as most countries do not use non-military organizations for combat purposes. Some do, however, and historically this has been a problem for people who wish to avoid possible war crimes by targeting armed organizations that are not actually participating in combat.

2) The Federation is not known to be a signatory of the Geneva Conventions.

Hmmmm, why do you think that is? Is it because the Federation feels that the Geneva Convention unfairly restricts its ability to engage in what could be considered "war crimes"?

More likely, it's because Geneva and its conventions evaporated into a nuclear fireball during World War III and the international laws that succeeded it were written after First Contact. As such, they undoubtedly include some influence from the Vulcans, who similarly do not have a distinct military organization and prefer to keep their armed/unarmed/scientific/military assets under the amorphous umbrella of the Vulcan High Command.