There could be. Either there's a ground force that's separate from Starfleet (perhaps the MACOS) or within it. (a 'Starfleet Marine Corps'?)
Insights Sought on UFP Ground Forces
- Thread starter Gatekeeper
- Start date
There could be. Either there's a ground force that's separate from Starfleet (perhaps the MACOS) or within it. (a 'Starfleet Marine Corps'?)
Back in the 2160s, we had "Starfleet Command" and "Military Assault Command", which sound very much like parallel blocks in an organizational chart. Would the latter be diminished into a sub-block of the former, even if the role of the latter factually diminished?
Hard to tell since we never see a good canonical organizational chart of Starfleet. Is "Terraform Command" something beneath Starfleet Command in such a chart, or perhaps a parallel, non-Starfleet organizational element? Ground combat forces and terraforming both sound like something that would feature a relatively minor spacegoing element only, and thus might not properly fit under the Starfleet umbrella.
Then again, we never hear of an umbrella organization that would be above Starfleet in the Federation era. Was there one back in the ENT era? Was there perhaps an Earth Defense Force, of which Starfleet and the Military were parallel elements, each considered a Command with subdivisions of their own?
In the Federation era, this type of organization would probably no longer exist, as the Federation would be different from Earth or other single-planet entity: it would need a prominent Starfleet but would have little need for a Military (that is, if we use Military as synonym for Army and Starfleet as synonym for Navy, as I'd like to infer from ENT).
That is, in theory, both UFP Starfleet and UFP Military might exist under the command of a UFP Ministry of Defense or somesuch. But so many people in the Federation seem to insist that Starfleet is not there just for defense that such a setup sounds unlikely. In that sense, I'd indeed favor making the Military just a sub-block of Starfleet, perhaps a Corps even though some other kind of terminology might also be used.
Timo Saloniemi
Hard to tell since we never see a good canonical organizational chart of Starfleet. Is "Terraform Command" something beneath Starfleet Command in such a chart, or perhaps a parallel, non-Starfleet organizational element? Ground combat forces and terraforming both sound like something that would feature a relatively minor spacegoing element only, and thus might not properly fit under the Starfleet umbrella.
Then again, we never hear of an umbrella organization that would be above Starfleet in the Federation era. Was there one back in the ENT era? Was there perhaps an Earth Defense Force, of which Starfleet and the Military were parallel elements, each considered a Command with subdivisions of their own?
In the Federation era, this type of organization would probably no longer exist, as the Federation would be different from Earth or other single-planet entity: it would need a prominent Starfleet but would have little need for a Military (that is, if we use Military as synonym for Army and Starfleet as synonym for Navy, as I'd like to infer from ENT).
That is, in theory, both UFP Starfleet and UFP Military might exist under the command of a UFP Ministry of Defense or somesuch. But so many people in the Federation seem to insist that Starfleet is not there just for defense that such a setup sounds unlikely. In that sense, I'd indeed favor making the Military just a sub-block of Starfleet, perhaps a Corps even though some other kind of terminology might also be used.
Timo Saloniemi
Difference being that these Wal-Mart guys don't have Apaches and F-15s backing them up, they've got a machine that can drop them anywhere anytime on the planet, can tell them exactly where the enemy is to a millimetre, can make those those bad guys disappear and then reappear in deep space, can vapourise any armoured or fortified opposition, can take me if I'm injured straight up to a sick bay more capable than any state of the art facility on Earth. Oh and its floating in space a couple of miles up, sort of out of reach of opposing forces, who will find their own space ship blown to pieces should it approach.
If that was backing me up I'd have no problem standing in front of a column of Ahbrams tanks and laughing at them.
Every problem inherent in 20th century conflicts could be resolved by the use of one starship, I think you seriously underestimate its potential.
i think you overestimate it.
sensors can be jammed, transporters can be jammed, phasers can be dampened and sites can be shielded or even built in areas where a photon torp strike would cause collateral damage.
so, if you're dealing with a situation with all that going on, you need boots on the ground to get in, find the bad guys and engage them, at the least by neutralising the jamming gear.
sensors can be jammed, transporters can be jammed, phasers can be dampened and sites can be shielded or even built in areas where a photon torp strike would cause collateral damage.
so, if you're dealing with a situation with all that going on, you need boots on the ground to get in, find the bad guys and engage them, at the least by neutralising the jamming gear.
Really, if we clung to such ideas, we'd still be using horses in combat - just because they do give us mobility when all technology breaks down.
But in practice, we have little or no use for such mobility in case technology does break down, because if that happens, we have lost already. And it is an antiquated notion anyway that technology would be more prone to breakdowns than horses are; an army with jeeps and a workshop is far more robust than an army with horses and a veterinarian.
To take "we need boots on the ground" as an axiom is not a very good idea when so much about the technological and doctrinal nature of war has changed by the Trek 24th century. However, it may be a good axiom when we think in terms of this being a 20th-21st century television show... And indeed we see some "ground pounding" action remniscent of the past century on screen when it's dramatically desirable. We just shouldn't extrapolate beyond what is seen by relying on axioms, because a science fiction show will try to sneak in sciffy concepts exactly when we aren't looking. And IMHO we should let that happen.
Timo Saloniemi
But in practice, we have little or no use for such mobility in case technology does break down, because if that happens, we have lost already. And it is an antiquated notion anyway that technology would be more prone to breakdowns than horses are; an army with jeeps and a workshop is far more robust than an army with horses and a veterinarian.
To take "we need boots on the ground" as an axiom is not a very good idea when so much about the technological and doctrinal nature of war has changed by the Trek 24th century. However, it may be a good axiom when we think in terms of this being a 20th-21st century television show... And indeed we see some "ground pounding" action remniscent of the past century on screen when it's dramatically desirable. We just shouldn't extrapolate beyond what is seen by relying on axioms, because a science fiction show will try to sneak in sciffy concepts exactly when we aren't looking. And IMHO we should let that happen.
Timo Saloniemi
As Timo said, we have technology to override sensors and armour in the current day and age, but we don't have troops on horses equipped with swords other than for ceremonial uses. When a weapons race starts, you don't back down, you keep researching ahead of the other guy.
One other big advantage that a starship brings is the ability to send down much needed relief, having bombed the planet a bit, you can easily send them food, tools, shelter etc.
yes, and if people do jam radar we destroy the jammer. either by knowing where it is and bombing it/shooting it down or by sending in commandoes to find and destroy it. if someone's got a concrete reinforced bunker, sure you can use a penetrator bomb to destroy it. but if there's an enemy command bunker sitting under a school building close to houses and jamming radar and radio, you're not going to drop a bomb on the place and hope for the best. you send in an infantry team and try to neutralise the place that way.
it's not a case of thinking just cuz my M1-A2 Abrams might snap a track or the bearings go out of alignment on the cannon i need to give up my MBT for a horse. it's a case of thinking i've got my tank, mebbe i should have a Humvee or a group of foot-sloggers to back me up.
it's not a case of thinking just cuz my M1-A2 Abrams might snap a track or the bearings go out of alignment on the cannon i need to give up my MBT for a horse. it's a case of thinking i've got my tank, mebbe i should have a Humvee or a group of foot-sloggers to back me up.
Surely the individual worlds would have their own defense forces. The Security forces on Star Ships would only need to be relatively small in size. Only used for on board Security ot the odd away mission. The actual UFP forces could be more like the UN forces. When real numbers are required then the individual worlds wopul dhave to contribute?
Your comparison to horses doesn't work. Just because starfleet has advanced technology doesn't mean that the enemy wouldnt have advanced technology as well. The one truth about military tech is that there is always some way to counter the enemies abilities. If overpowering technology was the key to victory, we would have won the war in Iraq a long time ago. It helps, but the enemy WILL find a way to negate your advantage given enough time. Also, you are also making the assumption that using ground forces is a low tech solution to a problem. Again, this doesn't make sense since if you want to hold a piece of territory you will need to have ground forces. Without those ground forces you will never be sure that you got all the enemy and you run the risk that the enemy will rebuild its strength in a region
The UFP is a federation tho, federal republics on Earth today all have one national army
I don't quite get this objection. How would ground troops be better against a low-tech opponent than starships are, when the only known way to resist starships is by countermanding their high technology with even higher technology such as jamming?
I seriously hope so. If it were high tech, and as suicidal and ineffective as it is, why should anybody in Trek bother? At least by saying it's the poor man's choice, one can justify its continued use in certain situations.
But starships could well be a much, much more efficient occupation force than infantry.
Starships wouldn't be targets for retaliation. They would still see everything that goes on, and could suppress all enemy activity. If the enemy tried to hold something hostage, at least it wouldn't be UFP ground troops. The starship in turn could hold anybody and everybody hostage: entire cities, all the left-handed redheads in the city, the toilets and other necessities of the city, whatever.
Today's standoff assets can't do that because they have insufficient sensors, insufficient weapons and virtually no endurance. A starship would have all of those in decisive amounts.
Since infantry combat does persist in Star Trek, there obviously are some shortcomings to that approach. But starship combat seems to be more decisive than infantry combat, in no way reflecting today's balance between air power and ground power.
Timo Saloniemi
I'm not sure how reliable the Draka timeline is as an AH. Part of the problem with the chronology is that a lot of the early conquests by the Draka were conducted when it was still a territory of Great Britain and subject to the crown. It's not yet an independent state, but acts like one. And the other major powers show a complete unwillingness to ever challenge the rising power of the Draka and their expansionism, which isn't realistic.
