Is Starfleet a military or not?

[JeffinOakland]

A friend of mine, of the conservative-Libertarian persuasion, put it the best way, I think (at least in terms of its humor potential): StarFleet is what the US Navy would look like if it were run by Communists.

How is it that self-described conservatives and libertarians are always such "experts" on far left ideologies?

The same way that far left persuaded people are experts on right wing beliefs and policies. We are all experts of opinions, especially those that are opposite of our own beliefs, right?

In all seriousness, it sometimes is beneficial to be an outsider looking in on an ideology or belief system just to give a different perspective. You might miss some essential details that would assist in clarifying every aspect of the ideology, but you also can see inconsistencies a little bit more easily, and offer questions that insiders might not ask.

Well put and well taken. I was referring sarcastically to people (on the right or left or other) who seek to diminish by using words that don't really apply.

 

[fireproof78]

How is it that self-described conservatives and libertarians are always such "experts" on far left ideologies?

The same way that far left persuaded people are experts on right wing beliefs and policies. We are all experts of opinions, especially those that are opposite of our own beliefs, right?

In all seriousness, it sometimes is beneficial to be an outsider looking in on an ideology or belief system just to give a different perspective. You might miss some essential details that would assist in clarifying every aspect of the ideology, but you also can see inconsistencies a little bit more easily, and offer questions that insiders might not ask.

Well put and well taken. I was referring sarcastically to people (on the right or left or other) who seek to diminish by using words that don't really apply.

This is the case of all human conversation. Words carry power, but the extent of that power varies from individual to individual. Some words mean a very negative thing (i.e "Communist" or "Conservative, or other things that begin with "C").

In terms of this conversation, the idea of Starfleet as a "military" really depends on how the person sees a military. For someone who grew up under the military enforced dictatorship or more abusive situation of power, may find the benign Starfleet less of a military because that association is bad.

Likewise, if someone grew up with the military, or an idealized vision of that life, then they are more likely to see the Starfleet as a military as a positive, with their traditions, ranks, and order being appealing rather than appalling.

Again, the lack of conversational cues in text makes it even more difficult to determine the power people give certain words.

 

[Christopher]

Yes. It's a quasi-military that doesn't function exactly like any Earth military does or did because it isn't an earth military. Its an outer space, multi-species military who's primary stated goals are exploration and ambassadorship. Apples and oranges.

Although, as has been discussed extensively in this thread, everything that Starfleet does has a precedent in real-world militaries of the past and present.

Even a military organization that's reluctant to call itself military has a real-world precedent: the Japan Self-Defense Force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces#Defense_policy

Reflecting a tension concerning the Forces' legal status, the Japanese term gun (軍, pronounced [ɡuɴ]), referring to a military or armed force, and the English terms "military", "army", "navy", and "air force" are never used in official references to the JSDF.[citation needed]

For example, the Japanese name of JSDF is "Jieitai" (自衛隊), but tai (隊, pronounced [tai]) literally means only "party" or "group" or "team" in English, and it does not contain the implication of military. For this reason, JSDF is not considered to be "military" in Japan. In addition, the people in JSDF are officially called Jieitaiin (自衛隊員) in Japanese, and in (員, pronounced [iɴ]) literally means only "members" in English. So they are just "the Self-Defense Group Members", they are not considered to be the "soldiers" in general in Japan.
...
Although they are equipped as a conventional military force, they are, by law, an extension of the police, created solely to ensure national security.

 

[Hypaspist]

I never meant for it to have negative connotations just because it is a military. I think it was seen that way in early TNG, but it was in keeping with the simplistic ideas of most of the episodes. Again it's about the Federation encouraging all of the best traits of humanity and that it why it was so evolved.
The most small-minded thing about early TNG was that it implied a sort of utopia by force in which the world was better because of things that were eliminated, not because we had become better.

 

[JeffinOakland]

Of course Starfleet had real world precedents. GR had been in the military. Where else would he have gotten the framework. Hence my implication that Starfleet is like an Earthling military only in some respects. It does seem to me that we are debating the obvious and niggling over details.

 

[Christopher]

But the point is that it's not so different as that. We've discussed how the British military in the 18th-19th centuries was just as focused on exploration and new contacts as Starfleet is. The point is that "Earthling militaries" are more diverse in their mission profiles than we tend to assume. Everything that Starfleet does is like something that some real military in the past or present has done. The claim that Starfleet is only partly like a real Earth military is defining real militaries too narrowly.

 

[JeffinOakland]

I agree and I think we're arguing the same point from different angles. Starfleet is its own military that, because it is a fictional creation of Earthlings, inevitably displays aspects of various real militaries. I think this thread has conclusively proven Starfleet is a military of some sort.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Did we ever see a single Alien Admiral in TOS? Or any Alien Captains? Hell, aside from Spock I'm hard pressed to remember any Non-Human Starfleet Officers.

Starfleet Captain Garth of Izar wasn't human

GARTH: I am Lord Garth, formerly of Izar, and I lead the future masters of the universe.
KIRK: I'm sorry, Lord Garth.
GARTH: You Earth people are a stiff necked lot, aren't you?

MARTA: Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? Thou art more lovely and more temperate. Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May, and summer's lease hath all too soon
GARTH: You wrote that?
MARTA: Yesterday, as a matter of fact.
GARTH: It was written by an Earth man named Shakespeare a long time ago!
MARTA: Which does not alter the fact that I wrote it again yesterday! I think it's one of my best poems, don't you?

And of course the unseen Captain of the Intrepid was a Vulcan.

Many of the aliens we meet in TOS look like humans. They probably out number the ones that don't. We also never saw enough Captains and Admirals in TOS to even get a good sampling.

Star Trek is a TV show. One that was evolving as it was made. In the beginning the Enterprise was an Earth ship working for the UESPA and Spock was a Vulcanian from the planet Vulcanis who had a human ancestor. One stray piece of dialog proves very little.

Which again, takes the side that the Federation was a Human Empire and Starfleet simply a bland generic space Navy.

Nope, it proves that the ideas behind Star Trek were constantly evolving. They dumped the idea that Kirk worked for a Federation of Human settled planets and went for a Federation of alien worlds.

 

[BigJake]

The evolved idea seemed to be a mixture of the two. Garth's not being from Earth certainly doesn't mean he's an alien; he could just as easily be a human born on one of the many human colony worlds we see in the series, there's no way to tell.

And Starfleet a "bland generic space Navy"? Hogwash. Starfleet was a fabulous space Navy.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

But the point is that it's not so different as that. We've discussed how the British military in the 18th-19th centuries was just as focused on exploration and new contacts as Starfleet is. The point is that "Earthling militaries" are more diverse in their mission profiles than we tend to assume. Everything that Starfleet does is like something that some real military in the past or present has done. The claim that Starfleet is only partly like a real Earth military is defining real militaries too narrowly.

Case in point Stargate SG-1 was about United States Air Force personal exploring the galaxy and doing typical Starfleet officer stuff just without the starship, and then they got starships.

 

[Christopher]

Starfleet Captain Garth of Izar wasn't human

GARTH: I am Lord Garth, formerly of Izar, and I lead the future masters of the universe.
KIRK: I'm sorry, Lord Garth.
GARTH: You Earth people are a stiff necked lot, aren't you?

Not all humans are Earth people. After all, by the 23rd century, humans have colonized many other planets. In the novels, Izar is assumed to be a human colony world.

Then again, the episode also had Garth describing the Orion Marta as a human sacrifice, so I think the episode was kind of vague about what was or wasn't human.

Nope, it proves that the ideas behind Star Trek were constantly evolving. They dumped the idea that Kirk worked for a Federation of Human settled planets and went for a Federation of alien worlds.

Well, they didn't even mention the Federation until fairly late in the first season ("Arena"); initially the Enterprise was just an Earth ship. "A Taste of Armageddon" four episodes later established "United Federation of Planets," and Vulcan was established as a member of the Federation in "Errand of Mercy" four episodes after that.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Starfleet Captain Garth of Izar wasn't human

GARTH: I am Lord Garth, formerly of Izar, and I lead the future masters of the universe.
KIRK: I'm sorry, Lord Garth.
GARTH: You Earth people are a stiff necked lot, aren't you?

Not all humans are Earth people. After all, by the 23rd century, humans have colonized many other planets. In the novels, Izar is assumed to be a human colony world.

Then again, the episode also had Garth describing the Orion Marta as a human sacrifice, so I think the episode was kind of vague about what was or wasn't human.

As I said, its hard to separate humans from human looking aliens in TOS. I think Garth's attitude is that of a non human towards humans. YMMV.

Nope, it proves that the ideas behind Star Trek were constantly evolving. They dumped the idea that Kirk worked for a Federation of Human settled planets and went for a Federation of alien worlds.

Well, they didn't even mention the Federation until fairly late in the first season ("Arena"); initially the Enterprise was just an Earth ship. "A Taste of Armageddon" four episodes later established "United Federation of Planets," and Vulcan was established as a member of the Federation in "Errand of Mercy" four episodes after that.[/QUOTE] Exactly.

 

[sojourner]

I think it's safe to say that "Lord" Garth was just a bit bat-shit insane and anything he said should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Christopher]

Well, they didn't even mention the Federation until fairly late in the first season ("Arena"); initially the Enterprise was just an Earth ship. "A Taste of Armageddon" four episodes later established "United Federation of Planets," and Vulcan was established as a member of the Federation in "Errand of Mercy" four episodes after that.

Exactly.

Well, what I'm saying is that they never actually specified "a Federation of human-settled planets." First it was just an Earth ship, then they started mentioning the Federation without any specifics about its composition one way or the other, and then they established it was multispecies. The first few mentions of the Federation didn't explicitly say it was multispecies, but they didn't say it wasn't.

 

[Anwar]

And the Federation was also called "The Earth Federation" in "Friday's Child".

 

[Nerys Myk]

Well, they didn't even mention the Federation until fairly late in the first season ("Arena"); initially the Enterprise was just an Earth ship. "A Taste of Armageddon" four episodes later established "United Federation of Planets," and Vulcan was established as a member of the Federation in "Errand of Mercy" four episodes after that.

Exactly.

Well, what I'm saying is that they never actually specified "a Federation of human-settled planets." First it was just an Earth ship, then they started mentioning the Federation without any specifics about its composition one way or the other, and then they established it was multispecies. The first few mentions of the Federation didn't explicitly say it was multispecies, but they didn't say it wasn't.

Its an idea that evolved, as I said ,

And the Federation was also called "The Earth Federation" in "Friday's Child".

Which means?

 

[Praxius]

Late to the party, but my position is that Starfleet is a military force, much like NATO (Usually defensive in nature, made from multiple countries/planets)

.... But with a side of "Scientific Research When Not Blowing Things Up."

 

[datalal624]

Gene "the god of all things Star Trek" Roddenberry insisted Starfleet wasn't a military organization but it obviously is. Go figure.

Starfleet's fuzzy military-ish "but we're not military, we're scientists and discoverers" schtick is one part of the problem of Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek as a whole. The Federation is a placid utopia - just as long as the aliens don't start raining photon torpedoes on its idealized charade.

For example, the whole idea of the Enterprise D as a passenger-carrying ship (with the crew's families included) made perfect emotional sense when I watched the show as a child. But good god, when you consider all the hair-raising nearly-ship-rending situations the Enterprise D gets into, the notion that their families or general passengers should be on board at all seems ridiculous and insane! You wouldn't put families and kids and general passengers on an army vessel - and even if the Enterprise D can safely say it somehow ISN'T part of a military organization (Starfleet, emphasis on FLEET), why would you even want all those passengers being on a ship of exploration or scientific discovery? It's still ludicrous.

Anyway, the silliness of the Enterprise D as military vessel / cruise ship aside, yes of course Starfleet is a military organization. Even if they're not fighting wars, they're still using naval nomenclature. And when Earth needs defending, who's defending it from attack? STARFLEET, aka The Space Navy.

 

[Hypaspist]

^ I rationalize the families on board thing this way: These missions take the ships away from their homes for years at a time. It would be hell on marriages if they had no idea when they'd see each other again, and even more so if they were lost without knowing. They do make a point of dropping off families and non-essential personnel, and in the alternate timeline, the "Battleship Enterprise" doesn't carry civilians and it doesn't even have the same comfortable interior design.
So basically by the beginning of TNG, the Federation has known peace for a long time and has adjusted accordingly.

Late to the party, but my position is that Starfleet is a military force, much like NATO (Usually defensive in nature, made from multiple countries/planets)

.... But with a side of "Scientific Research When Not Blowing Things Up."

Succinct, but it makes sense!

The more you watch it, the more Trek is really about interstellar politics. That means defensive maneuverings, sometimes outright war, and a lot of force projection. I like the original ideal of the show - humanity working together on a mission of discovery, but it's still a rough world out there. Even in the great age of discovery, there was the threat of the Turkish navy and the pirates of the Barbary Coast. Now wouldn't that make for an interesting show!

 

[Christopher]

^ I rationalize the families on board thing this way: These missions take the ships away from their homes for years at a time. It would be hell on marriages if they had no idea when they'd see each other again, and even more so if they were lost without knowing.

Exactly. The original intention of TNG's creators was that the Enterprise would be on a long-term exploration mission into deep uncharted space, away from any Federation port for as much as 15 years at a time. It was meant to be a self-sustaining community, practically a small colony in its own right, as it would have to be in order to function on its own for that long.

Unfortunately, this idea was abandoned almost immediately after the pilot, since the next few episodes revolved around delivering aid to Federation ships or planets. So the ship never got to fulfill the purpose it was supposed to be designed for, hence the perception that having families aboard was out of place.

Still, I don't buy the argument that all the danger the ship got into proved there shouldn't be families aboard. It got into constant danger because it was the setting of an action-adventure TV series. An action series set in New York or Boston or a small town in the middle of nowhere is going to have its characters placed in mortal danger just as often. (Look at the murder rate in Cabot Cove in Murder, She Wrote.) So even if you set a Star Trek series in San Francisco, the city would be under constant threat from alien attacks, technological disasters, strange mutated diseases, and so forth, because that's just the nature of an adventure series. But I don't think we'd hear fans saying that it was a bad idea for people living in cities to have families.