Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
How do you think would go the process that would result in the change of modern military into what we see in most SF? Especially if there are no big conflicts to wipe the militaries to blank state.
We do have typical science - fiction militaries like in Aliens. There are also some more fantastic like Star Wars or Star Trek (although they are some similarities as well). And also some science fiction stories that involves modern military. What I find is not explored much is how today military would evolve into said military. Assuming that theoretical principles for FTL drives (via warping space) and energy generation has been discovered and actual technology is in progresss og being developed, how modern military would change into what we know in typical SF? Exact details of the ending result are also to be discussed.
True. If we haven't destroyed ourselves, society in a few hundred years will be as incomprehensible to us as our current day would be to those who lived a few hundred years ago.
I've never understood looking for "realism" in sci-fi. Science fiction isn't about the future. It's about the time and the people from which it was created.
I think it's mainly the presence of a sizable frontier to explore that would encourage more of a mixed exploration/military organization. Thinking back prior to having our planet mostly explored (at least landmass wise) there were lots of official, government aligned (or government hired) expeditionary forces who were a mix of the 2.
I would imagine returning to at least a semblance of that setup, although modernized to where we're hopefully not going on crusades and the like once we develop propulsion technology capable of getting us to unexplored frontiers more easily.
There's no larger Frontier than Outer Space and the rest of the Universe, the amount of "Space" to cover in terms of Volume is crazy and constantly expanding.
And this is before we even get to any craziness like "Parallel Universes", "Alternate Dimensions", "Alternate Timelines", "Time Travel", etc.
FTL means an advance on Einstein (though the notion of surfing on a FTL wave is promising, promising enough to allow Trek). However Trek and other series have to assume FTL to work.
How do you think would go the process that would result in the change of modern military into what we see in most SF? Especially if there are no big conflicts to wipe the militaries to blank state.
We do have typical science - fiction militaries like in Aliens. There are also some more fantastic like Star Wars or Star Trek (although they are some similarities as well). And also some science fiction stories that involves modern military. What I find is not explored much is how today military would evolve into said military. Assuming that theoretical principles for FTL drives (via warping space) and energy generation has been discovered and actual technology is in progresss og being developed, how modern military would change into what we know in typical SF? Exact details of the ending result are also to be discussed.
I often view the 'evolution' of military forces in Star Trek as actually being a serious regression.
Look at the Federation. There is no navy per se, nor an army. Starfleet officers are trained in a variety of fields, but are often a master of none. Federation ships can certainly fight, but they aren't dedicated warships, they are usually designed for the purposes of exploration.
Things look especially bad from an army point of view. Imagine pitting say, 10,000 Starfleet officers, with phaser rifles, against even a WWII-era army of similar strength. The training of those soldiers, whilst far from perfect, would eclipse what we've seen from Starfleet. Starfleet has no tanks, no gunships, no warplanes. There's no artillery, no combined arms of any meaningful kind. For a military to transform into a Starfleet-style force, there would have to be some seriously flawed thinking.
Star Wars makes a bit more sense. They have aerial support from gunships, fighter craft, and bombers. They have a variety of ground vehicles. They grant their soldiers armour (as ineffective as it often proves to be). Their weapons are better designed. The same goes for their warships, which are dedicated warships, designed to function as a powerful naval force.
The same could be argued, to an extent, with Babylon 5. There are references to assault troops and aerial attack craft. Their ships are built around combat.
What I would expect, given the broad trend of the world's nations to invest in increasingly dangerous weaponry, is a steady progression of militaries. If we ever develop FTL, you can guarantee someone somewhere has already provided a concept of what a space-faring battleship might look like. You can bet that we'd vigorously train pilots for combat in space, and make sure to continue to develop ground vehicles with increasingly sophisticated weapons and defences.
I'm not sure I understand the question. What constitutes a "typical SF" military, and how is it different from what exists today? All I can think of is that SF militaries tend to be global instead of national. Otherwise they seem to work pretty much like present-day militaries. Even Starfleet, which some people mistakenly characterize as "not a military," is really more of a non-combat-oriented military like the US Coast Guard or the Japan Self-Defense Force.
If anything, I think that military science fiction is implausible in its tendency to assume that wars in the future will be waged similarly those of the past. I think events of the past few months have proven that warfare is radically changing, if a few dozen remote-operated drones can destroy a large percentage of a nation's big expensive bombers and tanks and whatnot. I think future warfare is likely to be waged largely by drones and robots -- and hopefully they'll only target the enemy's drones and robots and leave the human beings out of it altogether.
Well, not really, since it was Einstein himself who proposed that spacetime could be treated as a fabric whose topology could change, and FTL theories such as warp drive and wormholes are derived directly from the mathematics of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. The "nothing faster than light" rule comes from the Special Theory, which covers only the limited case of unaccelerated motion in the absence of gravitation. It was never meant to be the final word on the subject. Granted, the General Theory's equations also demonstrate that warping space is prohibitively difficult to achieve, but the basic theory is as much Einstein's legacy as the speed limit it circumvents.
Look at the Federation. There is no navy per se, nor an army. Starfleet officers are trained in a variety of fields, but are often a master of none. Federation ships can certainly fight, but they aren't dedicated warships, they are usually designed for the purposes of exploration.
Starfleet would be explicitly the Navy. And one of its ships (in the mid 23rd century) can take out a planet.
Many of our main characters have been shown to be outstanding contributors in their fields of choice. Montgomery Scott, for example.
The TOS Enterprise was a multi-purpose vessel. But when Klingons took it on (with vessels that were certainly warships) Our Girl always had to be outnumbered or sabotaged. We saw one Klingon ship go head to head with the Enterprise and it was... brief.
We've never seen an army because we've almost never seen ground combat. Even DS9 didn't show us an up front ground war. I bet if your on a planetary defense / invasion force you get lots of things to go with it.
It is clear, at least as of Lower Decks, that Starfleet is not the only military force in the Federation. At least some member worlds have their own militaries and they may include army division.
If anything, I think that military science fiction is implausible in its tendency to assume that wars in the future will be waged similarly those of the past. I think events of the past few months have proven that warfare is radically changing, if a few dozen remote-operated drones can destroy a large percentage of a nation's big expensive bombers and tanks and whatnot. I think future warfare is likely to be waged largely by drones and robots -- and hopefully they'll only target the enemy's drones and robots and leave the human beings out of it altogether.
Well, yes, obviously any new weapon will result in new defenses. That doesn't mean the arms race will stop there. There will be counters for the counters, and so on. (For instance, while I was talking about realistic futurism rather than Star Trek fantasy, I would point out that phasers can be defended against by deflector shields, so the next logical countermove would be to shield the drones.)
I mean, the hole in your argument is that if there's an effective defense against small drones, it would also be an effective defense against much bigger and more expensive crewed aircraft, which would be larger and easier targets. So there's no reason to think its existence would somehow bring back conventional bombers or fighters or whatever. It seems more likely that the trend will continue to be toward drones and small, efficient, targeted attacks, including cyber attacks on infrastructure. So writing space wars centuries from now as if they use exactly the same tactics as the Battle of Midway seems disingenuous.
Well, yes, obviously any new weapon will result in new defenses. That doesn't mean the arms race will stop there. There will be counters for the counters, and so on. (For instance, while I was talking about realistic futurism rather than Star Trek fantasy, I would point out that phasers can be defended against by deflector shields, so the next logical countermove would be to shield the drones.)
Shields take space on a tiny drone with Shield Emitters & all the necessary components, space that is at a premium.
The larger you make your drones, the more durable you make them, the harder it will be to mass produce them and operate them in the large swarms.
Then you've defeated the point of the "Cheap Massive Swarms" used to Zerg Rush the enemies.
I mean, the hole in your argument is that if there's an effective defense against small drones, it would also be an effective defense against much bigger and more expensive crewed aircraft, which would be larger and easier targets. So there's no reason to think its existence would somehow bring back conventional bombers or fighters or whatever.
Depends on what your Long Term "Strategic Objectives" are as a Nation State with a large Federal Military.
The Conventional Bombers exist to implement Policy Objectives of the Government when a worst case scenario comes and Force is the only resolution.
In Star Trek's Case, StarShips, Shuttles, Space Fighters can all do the same job of delivering ordinance & Torpedoes.
It seems more likely that the trend will continue to be toward drones and small, efficient, targeted attacks, including cyber attacks on infrastructure. So writing space wars centuries from now as if they use exactly the same tactics as the Battle of Midway seems disingenuous.
I think it'll be a hybrid of Drones, Fighters, Remote Weaponry like Gundam's Bits/Funnels.
Future Warfare will be closer to modern warfare, but far more varied in terms of how combat will be.
The mass "Furballs" like the Battle of Midway is not likely to happen since close range combat won't really be much of a thing.
Most combat will be BVR and firing at each other well into BVR ranges and Ships / StarFighters / Drones / Remote Weaponry dodging around in local space.
Be it using STL Propulsion or Micro Warp Jumps or other forms of FTL drives to manuever locally or at long ranges.
It'll definitely be closer to Anime levels of Insanity where it's a combination of Manuever, Volume, and Sheer Volume of Fire Power.
This level of insane fighting would be IMO, pretty normal for what future Combat would look like.
Main Machine + Remote Weapons + Massive amounts of targets all firing back at each other at very long ranges with lots of auto dodging & auto targeting.
Enemy Forces could easily be measured in the 100's of Thousands to Millions w/o issue and they could easily "Zerg Rush" your forces.
We've seen that in Star Trek at least 2x with the antagonist having massive Swarm Forces like in "Star Trek: Beyond" & in "Star Trek: Discovery".
That level of threat will become more & more commoon along with ways of dealing with it.
Heck we saw a middle ground of the Massive Swarm pattern with the Jem'Hadar & their Massive Amounts of Jem'Hadar Fighters which are more equivalent to the US PT Boats of WW2.
This isn't even counting "Ground Warfare" where you thought the B1 Droid Army was something, imagine if the average Battle Droid was closer to Data/Lore level of competency and mass produced in bulk to work along-side the Humans commanding them spread across a planet in multiple Cities with fighting everywhere in CQB / CQC & Urban Warfare. All with Combined Arms Support from Land / Air / Sea / Space / UnderGround.
Shields take space on a tiny drone with Shield Emitters & all the necessary components, space that is at a premium.
The larger you make your drones, the more durable you make them, the harder it will be to mass produce them and operate them in the large swarms.
Then you've defeated the point of the "Cheap Massive Swarms" used to Zerg Rush the enemies.
We've seen small shielded drones on occasion in Trek, for instance, the Echo Papa drones in TNG: "The Arsenal of Freedom." And Nomad, if you count him as a drone of sorts. (And Borg drones, but that's a different kind of drone.)
It's pointless to debate the capabilities of fantasy technologies that work whatever way the writers say they do. In TAS, they had personal forcefield belts that not only provided life support in vacuum but were phaserproof, but that was ignored in later productions. It's all arbitrary, so if you choose to assert a limitation, that's equally arbitrary.
Depends on what your Long Term "Strategic Objectives" are as a Nation State with a large Federal Military.
The Conventional Bombers exist to implement Policy Objectives of the Government when a worst case scenario comes and Force is the only resolution.
But there's more than one way to wield force. Ukraine just proved that they didn't need bombers to cripple Russia's bomber fleet. The game is changing, becoming more efficient and precise.
It's pointless to cite the fictional postulates of Star Trek when my entire point is that the assumptions made by the writers of Star Trek and a lot of other SF are unimaginative in assuming that present and past military practice can be projected onto the future without change.
And space fighters have always been a nonsensical idea, one that Star Trek has rarely depicted, to its credit. They're a textbook example of the intellectual laziness of projecting present or historical combat techniques onto a future environment where things could be drastically different.
We've seen small shielded drones on occasion in Trek, for instance, the Echo Papa drones in TNG: "The Arsenal of Freedom." And Nomad, if you count him as a drone of sorts. (And Borg drones, but that's a different kind of drone.)
It's pointless to debate the capabilities of fantasy technologies that work whatever way the writers say they do. In TAS, they had personal forcefield belts that not only provided life support in vacuum but were phaserproof, but that was ignored in later productions. It's all arbitrary, so if you choose to assert a limitation, that's equally arbitrary.
But there's more than one way to wield force. Ukraine just proved that they didn't need bombers to cripple Russia's bomber fleet. The game is changing, becoming more efficient and precise.
Ukaine is also right next door to Russia, we're MUCH further away.
They also happen to speak the same native tongue and managed to attack their critical assets through subterfuge.
And I wouldn't call their attack "Crippling", it definitely lowers their total volume of Strategic Bombers though, especially the ones that can't be replaced due to being old & out of production.
It's pointless to cite the fictional postulates of Star Trek when my entire point is that the assumptions made by the writers of Star Trek and a lot of other SF are unimaginative in assuming that present and past military practice can be projected onto the future without change.
But they did in DS9, VOY, and TNG thanks to the Maquis.
And given the vastness of space, especially patrolling vast swaths of territory, having many fighters in your fleet makes a lot of sense on top of drones.
I'm basing my decision making on what I see IRL innovations are going towards, which is a Hybrid Setup.
They're a textbook example of the intellectual laziness of projecting present or historical combat techniques onto a future environment where things could be drastically different.
The more things change, the more things stay the same.
I never thought we'd see "Trench Warfare" and Tanks crossing massive Trenches in the 21st Century, yet here we are.
Ukraine proved Trenches are back and here to stay.
Starfleet would be explicitly the Navy. And one of its ships (in the mid 23rd century) can take out a planet.
Many of our main characters have been shown to be outstanding contributors in their fields of choice. Montgomery Scott, for example.
The TOS Enterprise was a multi-purpose vessel. But when Klingons took it on (with vessels that were certainly warships) Our Girl always had to be outnumbered or sabotaged. We saw one Klingon ship go head to head with the Enterprise and it was... brief.
We've never seen an army because we've almost never seen ground combat. Even DS9 didn't show us an up front ground war. I bet if your on a planetary defense / invasion force you get lots of things to go with it.
Starfleet, maybe not. (Navy.) The Federation? Says who?
Well, leaving aside some displays of firepower across the franchise that are also very weak, if the objective is to wipe out an enemy, sure, blow them up, nuke 'em etc, but if the aim is to take and hold territory, modern armies would fare a lot better than anything we've seen from Star Trek.
I'll grant that displays of outright ground warfare have been limited, but where we have seen them, it's been Starfleet officers deployed. These naval officers have ended up being ground troops as well. Take The Siege of AR-558. It was Starfleet officers that had been defending that comm array. It was Starfleet officers that landed to defend it at the end of the episode. They had phaser rifles and... that's it.
If a modern army were defending an installation like that, you could expect a variety of firearms, grenades, perhaps mortars, and possibly fixed gun emplacements to defend any chokepoints. There might even be the possibility of armoured vehicles, depending on the size of the transport (and many Federation ships could easily fit several tanks or mechanised infantry into their cargo holds, if such things existed). This army would wipe the floor with the on-rushing Jem'Hadar attackers, even if the Jem'Hadar hadn't been thinned out by the mines.
This brings me to Homefront/Paradise Lost. The Jem'Hadar were stated by Sisko to be the best troops he had fought. They rarely display anything resembling robust tactics either, yet they represent the pinnacle to seasoned Starfleet officers. Speaking of those episodes, marshall law is declared, and Starfleet officers are beamed onto street corners to keep the peace. Again, they are acting as what, the National Guard, army personnel? Nor do they deploy with any vehicles, or any sign of aerial support.
The overall point I am making here is that powerful ships or not, it's good that the Federation doesn't represent a realistic vision of what a future military might look like. They'd be slaughtered against most modern militaries, with the only exception being orbital strikes, but those would likely destroy whatever territory was being captured/defended.
Wow, you really need to watch those episodes again.
And the point remains that fictional devices work however the writers want them to. I'm trying to have a conversation about how the writers of science fiction, including Star Trek, tend to make implausible and unrealistic assumptions. Just restating how Trek depicted things does not work as a counterargument for a discussion of whether those depictions were believable.
Well, leaving aside some displays of firepower across the franchise that are also very weak, if the objective is to wipe out an enemy, sure, blow them up, nuke 'em etc, but if the aim is to take and hold territory, modern armies would fare a lot better than anything we've seen from Star Trek.
But why do we assume modern armies would still be modern centuries from now? We're not far from having viable humanoid robots. If it becomes practical to mass-produce "battle droids," drones that can achieve most of the same ends as human soldiers, would populations still stand for governments sending their sons and daughters to be cannon fodder on battlefields? From what I gather, we're already seeing a transition away from piloted fighters toward remote-operated drones, the human military personnel directing the machines from safety rather than being flung into the line of fire. Once robots become capable of replacing ground troops, at least for the most dangerous or elementary tasks, would it be reasonable to expect future militaries to keep sending humans into combat the same way we do today, or did in the past? Even aside from ethical questions, it might be more economical to mass-produce drones that could be stored in low-power mode and deployed as needed than to train, feed, clothe, and house large numbers of living soldiers on a continuing basis. We might end up with a system where all the "grunt" work is done by robots and the human personnel are all essentially officers, strategists, administrators, etc.
This is my point. Too much SF just takes present-day or historical military methods and transposes them to space or alien planets, rather than actually imagining how such things might plausibly change in the future.
But why do we assume modern armies would still be modern centuries from now? We're not far from having viable humanoid robots. If it becomes practical to mass-produce "battle droids," drones that can achieve most of the same ends as human soldiers, would populations still stand for governments sending their sons and daughters to be cannon fodder on battlefields? From what I gather, we're already seeing a transition away from piloted fighters toward remote-operated drones, the human military personnel directing the machines from safety rather than being flung into the line of fire. Once robots become capable of replacing ground troops, at least for the most dangerous or elementary tasks, would it be reasonable to expect future militaries to keep sending humans into combat the same way we do today, or did in the past? Even aside from ethical questions, it might be more economical to mass-produce drones that could be stored in low-power mode and deployed as needed than to train, feed, clothe, and house large numbers of living soldiers on a continuing basis. We might end up with a system where all the "grunt" work is done by robots and the human personnel are all essentially officers, strategists, administrators, etc.
This is my point. Too much SF just takes present-day or historical military methods and transposes them to space or alien planets, rather than actually imagining how such things might plausibly change in the future.
Maybe we'll end up with robot armies ala the Clone Wars, or maybe not. Any drones, machines and automations we send into battle will need someone on hand for maintenance, to handle possible sabotage, and tackle jamming and ECM. To win over hearts and minds of non-combatants, the odds are there will still need to be a human presence.
There may also be some worry over what could happen if a robot army reaches an advanced enough point that it decides it is not a pawn in someone else's game, and lord knows what happens if such a military gets hacked. I can certainly understand why it may be desirable from many perspectives, but there's a lot of pitfalls too.
