• 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!

Is sci fi like Babylon 5 or BSG good for military officers?

CmdrShep2183

Ensign
Red Shirt
Obviously real life generals like Mattis and Eisenhower should be the role models real military officers should aspire to but can a TV show character be a good inspiration or role model to future or currently active military officers? I once knew an person who served as an Army paratrooper who loved sci fi stuff like Starship Troopers, Babylon 5, and Battlestar Galactica.

Are people like Captain John Sheridan or Admiral Adama good leaders? Should ROTC cadets in college watch shows like Babylon 5 or Battlestar Galactica?
 
I think there are probably lessons in leadership (positively or negatively) that can be learned from some episodes of these shows and be useful to someone in the military profession. I understand that Starship Troopers (the book, NOT that abomination of a movie) has been used in some military training environments.
 
Last edited:
It may depend upon whether the shows/episodes are written by people with military experience. A military story written by someone with no military experience may have limited application to reality.
 
I think there are probably lessons in leadership (positively or negatively) that can be learned from some episodes of these shows and be useful to someone in the military profession. I understand that Starship Troopers (the book, NOT that abomination of a movie) has been used in some military training environments.

Really? The book? That’s weird to me.

At least the movie realized what a fascist piece of shit the book is.
 
Are people like Captain John Sheridan or Admiral Adama good leaders? Should ROTC cadets in college watch shows like Babylon 5 or Battlestar Galactica?
How many officers, portrayed as heroic, are regularly shown to ignore orders / do their own thing / just plain commit mutiny? At the very least they engage in behavior that'd disqualify them from promotion in the "real" military.
 
Not even close.

We learn relatively little about the governing system in the book. Nothing about the government being centralized, authoritarian, leaders having dictatorial power.

What the hell are you referring to?

How great the movie is! It’s fantastic satire.

Have you actually tried to read the book?

Heinlein was not a fascist - and the book doesn't play up any advantages to that system. It's often misinterpreted that way though...

Of course I’ve read the book—I thought it was pretty childish, but then it is in his juvenile series.

I prefer the movie.
 
No, it wasn't.

Just a quick glance at the Wiki Bibliography would prove that wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein_bibliography

From the wiki article about Heinlein's Juvenile series...

Starship Troopers was written as a juvenile for Scribner's but the publisher rejected it,[5] ending Heinlein's association with Scribner's.[6] He wrote, "I am tired of being known as a 'leading writer of children's books', and nothing else."[7] Putnam published the novel in 1960.

Emphasis mine.
 
SInce I never answered the original question, I'm going to go back to it for a moment. I don't see either BSG or B5 as being that concerned with realistically portraying a military, so I don't see them being that influential for real military officers. I've never been in the military so I can't judge from experience, but at least from an a civilian perspective, the Stargates seemed to at least make an effort to more realistically portray the USAF.
 
The other thing we have to consider is that both B5 and BSG have their militaries either in the distant future or another world, while STARGATE shows have them in real current time. I think some leeway should be granted to B5 and BSG given that we have no idea how the military may differ hundreds of years from now.
 
I rather think B5's most valuable aspect in this regard in is the Earth Civil War arc, since it poses moral and ethical questions like "I was following orders" NOT being a justification for war crimes, and the concept that it's the duty of the military to serve the people, NOT the individuals currently in positions of power and authority.

BSG covers some similar territory, though more bent towards questions like "in time of war, at what point do military concerns override civilian concerns and visa-versa".

In a nutshell, this is what I think about arguments that Heinlein was fascist.

And in addition to all that: How could someone who is supposedly fascist also write For Us, The Living? ;)

Heinlein was...complicated (and later in life oddly fixated on the idea of f*cking one's relatives.) Calling him fascist is I think too specific and overly simplifying what his outlook at the time of writing was (that last part is important because his views seems to rather drastically reorient at various points in his life.)
He kind of exists in a weird venn diagram between militaristic authoritarianism, libertarianism and the sexual revolution. I think part of the reason Heinlein feels so weirdly inconsistent has to do with a fundamental lack of self awareness on his part and an inability to conceive of any perspective but his own being valid. Short version: he never though to check his own privilege.

As for 'Starship Troopers' itself: speaking as someone that grew up around the military, the book smacks of martial idolatry of a type typically possessed by those that *really* want to be military but can't because: A) physically or psychologically unsuited, or: B) the reality of it would shatter the fantasy; Think Frank Burns or Arnold J. Rimmer. Yes they're fictional characters, but people like that really do exist; I've met several.
Some do in fact serve, though typically in auxiliary positions and will talk anyone's ear off about it at the slightest pretence. Rule of thumb: the more someone likes to talk about the military, the less they actually *did* in the military and the ones that saw the real nasty shit, don't talk about it at all.
 
Last edited:
Starship Troopers was written as a juvenile for Scribner's but the publisher rejected it,[5] ending Heinlein's association with Scribner's.[6] He wrote, "I am tired of being known as a 'leading writer of children's books', and nothing else."[7] Putnam published the novel in 1960.

Emphasis mine.
The novel was rejected because it wasn't written as a juvenile. It certainly doesn't meet the usual definition of such, for one the protagonist (Johnny Rico) is a young man, not a mid-teen.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top