Why is there resistance to the idea of Starfleet being military?

See it in the Boy Scouts all the time. Based on the military, but definitely not the military.

 

The key clinching issue here is that Starfleet are the armed forces of the Federation, and is beholden to UCMJ. These are not civilians. They are the Federations space navy. Whether you classify that as military or not is your prerogative. Just remember that they adhere to military law. This is mentioned in all series. There's really no way to skirt around this.

 

The UCMJ governs the modern American military. While Starfleet may have something akin to a UCMJ, it's not the same thing.

 

At least one.

References exist in spoken canon to the Uniform Code of Justice (The Drumhead), the Federation Code of Justice (The Maquis) and Memory Alpha mentions something called the Uniform Code of Interplanetary Justice in connection with Harry Mudd but I can't find the quote.

 

No matter what the Federation calls it, or what acronym they use, it is the same thing; a military court and justice system that separates Starfleet from civilians.

 

Starfleet can use what it wants to use, and yet not call themselves a military.'

It is more interesting to figure out why they are NOT the military, rather than lump Starfleet with everyone one else in science fiction. It makes them more unique, and provides a writing challenge to authors and screenwriters. A challenge several fail at in all honesty.

 

I totally agree, but the problem is that sometimes, depending on the writer that day, Starfleet defines itself as a military or it doesn't. Sometimes it behaves like one, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it embraces military behavior, sometimes it swears up and down it isn't. So as in this thread, people resort to quoting isolated cases which support their side, which is an endless back and forth process.

Personally I've always been on the "it's not a military" side. But after thinking about it some more, I think Starfleet both is and isn't a military -- it really depends on a) the episode, b) the circumstances, c) how the individual defines a military, and d) what the writer/plot wants it to be. I really think it depends. How's that for an answer to this endless discussion? lol

 

It is similar to the debates (also endless) about the Federation economy and the lack of currency based economics mentioned for at least the humans on multiple occasions. Of course it doesn't work or make sense, but that's the writer's challenge. The concept is out there, and therefore established as a fact of the universe. It becomes the challenge to make it work, regardless on if the author or screenwriter can't fathom the idea at all. Certainly economists can't grasp it, but that is also part of the challenge. Figure out how to make that work.

Starfleet not being the military is also the challenge. How does that work. To many it doesn't and they will ignore it. But the statement that Starfleet is not the military is already there and left as a part of creator's intent that survived to be on screen more than once. Therefore it becomes the challenge for the writers to come up with a why or how Starfleet can not be the military of the Federation. Is there a Federation military at all? Can Starfleet be drafted into it during wartime, and then not be the military in peacetime? Such a concept would explain how Kirk could have been a soldier, but was not later on. It could also explain why sometimes Starfleet acts more militaristic, and other times it is adverse to the entire concept of warfare. They are part-timers. An organization that can be drafted into the military on order from the Federation Council, but normally is not in the military. They maintain a military structure due to their origins, and as a precaution in case they get drafted because some daft alien empire decides they want to declare war against the entire Federation.

In that version, most smaller wars would be handled by local planetary forces, with Starfleet sometimes mediating the peace or being drafted by the planetary leadership as part of their alliance/membership in the Federation to assist them militarily. Most Starfleet captains tend to attempt to defuse the problem rather than fight a war for someone else.

 

Well, no, Starfleet not being the military never was Roddenberry's intent, in fact he didn't even start saying it until after Paramount removed him from control over the TOS movies and he began a smear campaign during TWOK's production to discredit Nick Meyer and Harve Bennett. Even so, the very first on-screen reference to Starfleet not being a military comes on TNG after Roddenberry stopped being involved in the day-to-day operations, and after a Roddenberry-written episode does in fact describe Starfleet as a military, and all the other references came a decade or two after Roddenberry died.

An argument can be made that Phase II/TMP made an effort to "de-militarize" Starfleet, and it's possible that had Star Trek continued in this vein, either with Phase II having been produced or the rest of the movies having been like TMP the words "Starfleet isn't military" would still end up being uttered on screen, but this is a reflection that in 1970s America the military just wasn't that popular because of Vietnam, which is reflected in other places as well, the 70s are when the GI Joe toyline saw its worse sales, for example.

The truth of the matter is Roddenberry was okay with Starfleet being military in TOS, and even got after the other writers about how things go in the military when they got it wrong. Even on the modern shows, most writers have admitted they either think of Starfleet as a military anyway or never put any thought on the matter, they just parroted the party line because "it's what Gene said."

One thing Roddenberry definitely intended was that humans of the 24th century no longer had religions, we even had an episode written about the matter, Who Watches the Watchers. The other shows, even later seasons of TNG most certainly ignored that completely. The irony is, it's actually the atheists on Trek's writing staffs who went ahead and established humans do still practice religions, making it odd why this is acceptable, but Starfleet has to remain non-military

 

As Starfleet's defense assests are clearly equal taking on the militaries of hostile rivals then it's not an issue of equipment/resources; Nor - despite the characters implied such - is it their mission parameters as these define Starfleet as a "Branch of the United Federation of Planets assigned to the exploration of space and the resulting scientific, diplomatic and defensive duties" confirming that the role of a defense force/military is part of Starfleet's job and may if needed take primacy in the immediate situation. So if what they have is fully compatible with a military, the explanation must be that they are lacking something that 'in-universe' disqualifies Starfleet as a military:

Organisational psychology and similar have been discussed regularly and are a factor but not IMO a 'dealbreaker' as 'Mildly Military' is found in declared military fiction (the Stargate franchise for instance can be a bit 'off' at times), so that leaves two other factors - an absence of dedicated warships (specifically noted in canon, esp during DS9) and a lack of a standing infantry/armour units (even in Nor the Battle to the Strong and The Siege of AR-558 which were more 'war sci-fi' than usual only really showed security personnel - although the former does allow for colonies like Aijlon Prime to have their own militias (cf State National Guards in the US) as infantry/artillary combat was implied to be taking place even if it was never actually seen).

Thoughts? Any better explanations?

 

Of course they fail because most of them didn't even know the challenge existed. Star Trek's Enterprise was patterned after a 19th century naval ship in the mid-1960s and nobody in a position to change that setting, in the writing and production staffs, cared enough to really change it since. There were a couple of lines to the contrary here and there, but they didn't really change the stories to actually show it, not to any significant degree. They had them in war games, in courts-martial, in naval blockades, fighting invasions, and fighting a war. That's why there is so much ammunition to keep these arguments going on for ever. Stories with a different kind of clearly non-martial Starfleet could have been told, but nobody cared to.

 

That may be true, & by your remark, I assume you might consider it's because those who serve, or have served, have a closer relationship to the military, ergo they might be better apt to make the distinction.

However, I'd attest that the people who are best apt to make the distinction of what is or isn't a military, aren't necessarily the people who serve in one, but rather the people who wouldn't be ruled by one. They are the people who are going to be much more discerning about that prospect imho. At the very least, the polarity of either's perspective might be equally biased. I'll admit my own. If it even remotely smells like a military, I'm going to call it that, precisely because I never wanted to be a part of one, which means I'm on the lookout for the signs, more than most.

That's the reason my people have a civilian office lead our military. An outside perspective is the way to go for objectivity.

 

But it's also the creators (TPTB, the director/writers) intent that
Starfleet have heavily armed starships
carries out major war fighting
engage in armed confrontations of other civilization's warships
authorized to threaten foreign civilizations with extinction level violence

they have courts-martials
they have a JAG corp
their internal legal proceeding can result in the death penalty
their internal legal proceeding can result in time in a stockade

 

As I said, it is more of a challenge to figure out why Starfleet is not a military, rather than taking the easy way and giving up to say they are one.

 

What can Starfleeters do that military members can't? They can have relationships with each other, they don't have to be overly-formal with their superiors, they can come and go as they please, they don't serve on dedicated warships...

Maybe they don't have to fight, either. If they're non-military explorers, working for Starfleet, Inc., maybe they don't have to engage in wartime operations. Maybe they have the option to (as Dr. Crusher pursued the option to command), but it's not required at sign-up? Would that make it sufficiently distinct a hybrid organization to warrant the unusual classification?

 

I think the key problem with having this discussion is that we are looking at this topic from a 21st century lens. Clearly, when setting up Starfleet's role, the Federation can define its mission. We know that between Kirk's era and Picard's era, something changed (though, in truth, you could say that both TOS' and TNG's direction were defined by the times those shows were produced in) with Starfleet. Heck, even Janeway stated that the role and scope of Starfleet changed to the point that Kirk and his generation would not have been tolerated by 24th century standards (VOY episode "Flashback"). But, in my opinion, Starfleet was military during TOS' era, while Starfleet was paramilitary during TNG's era, based on the needs of the Federation. And there is nothing wrong with having a military structure, so long as the civilian government define that military's mission parameters.

 

So in other words, you have a general idea of what a military is and you've seen pictures, so whatever looks like that is a military, and somehow that discernment has more weight than the opinion of someone who is serving, or who had served, such as myself, that my own personal observation and experience has
little to no bearing in determining what is and isn't a military.

I'm not ready to call a pomegranate an apple, just yet. Both are red, and about the same size, but very different fruit.

 

Similarly, I spent much of my formative years around the military. Both of my parents were in the military - My mother was a nurse in the Spanish Army, while my father served 28 years as a bomber pilot and later base commander in the United States Air Force, retiring with the rank of Colonel. While I have not personally served in the military, much of my life both past and present is informed by being around those who are serving, be it in the U.S. or in Spain.

And through that lens of experience, Starfleet is not the military. It just isn't. I have enormous respect for the military and those that serve, and consider it a privilege to have grown up in a military family. But in terms of what Starfleet is and how it conducts itself as an organization, it bears only a superficial resemblance to a military organization. The creators of Star Trek knew this, and my own personal life experience has only confirmed this to be the case.

 

I'd think that knowing history might give one more than just a general picture of it, & I didn't suggest that a vet's perspective carries less weight, only that there too may be a bias there from lack of objectivity, which could conceivably nullify it as the superior point of view, but that certainly needn't be the case.

That's why I finished by saying that each perspective might carry an equal amount of bias, or validity, such that neither should carry more weight. I was countering your post by saying a vet's perspective needn't be a more informed nor qualified testimonial IMHO, simply from being one.

Not to get too political, but it's the same distinction that people have over passing judgement on the actions of police, whereby some folks think anyone who isn't police have no right to question, which is by & large a worrisome way to look at it. Experience doesn't trump intelligence, & both of us can have equally valid & intelligent perspectives regardless of background.

For example, I wouldn't already need to have been a father in order to be a good one in the future