Is Starfleet a military or not?

[Push The Button]

Yes, it is.

Even organizations like your local police department and fire department are paramilitary in nature, with a rank structure and clearly defined chain of command, so something like Starfleet certainly is.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

During times of war it becomes a full-blown military force, but during normal operations it is more of a peacekeeping organisation.

 

[Hypaspist]

During times of war it becomes a full-blown military force, but during normal operations it is more of a peacekeeping organisation.

What's the difference?

 

[SPCTRE]

Starfleet is a military ideologically compelled to pretend it isn't one. Kinda like Japan's Self Defence Forces.

And the German Bundeswehr.

 

[Maurice]

Here's the 64 dollar question: Is Starfleet an arm of the Federation government? Is it the formal armed forces of the Federation? If yes, it's military (like the Navy), if no, it's paramilitary (like state defense forces in the US).

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Here's the 64 dollar question: Is Starfleet an arm of the Federation government? Is it the formal armed forces of the Federation?

No and yes.

 

[The Wormhole]

Yes, Starfleet is a military, and was originally envisioned as one and depicted as one in TOS. The other series began the whole "Starfleet isn't a military thing" primarily through Roddenberry's weird hippy high when he was working on TNG and the ignorance of other writers as to what a military actually is.

It is strange though, so many of Roddenberry's other ideas have been abandoned. We never saw anything done with the nudist parks where families take their pet tigers, no "love instructors," Betazoids didn't have four breasts or whatever, and despite claims in TNG that humans no longer believe in religions, we do get references in the other shows to various forms of religion and spirituality still existing. Yet the "Starfleet isn't military" line still exists, even now in the Abramsverse, what with there being multiple references in STID about Starfleet not being a military and Admiral Marcus's master plan being to "militarize Starfleet." Why must everyone cling the belief that Starfleet isn't a military because "it's what Roddenberry decreed" when practically everything else he thought up has already been thrown out the window?

 

[137th Gebirg]

"Excuse me, gentlemen. I'm a soldier, not a diplomat. I can only tell you the truth."
-J.T. Kirk - "Errand of Mercy"

Yes. Starfleet is military, complete with its regulations, ranks, titles and heraldry, from start to finish. All indicators of a martial existence, despite Roddenberry's autumn-years retconning.

 

[Hypaspist]

Here's the 64 dollar question: Is Starfleet an arm of the Federation government? Is it the formal armed forces of the Federation? If yes, it's military (like the Navy), if no, it's paramilitary (like state defense forces in the US).

I'd take it that Starfleet's regulations stem from a very open and liberty based society. What was the ideal future has changed from time to time, and I think it's safe to say that early TNG missed the point entirely.
The things about the Federation that have never changed are that: There is no want. Mankind has evolved and its base desires are not the driving force behind what everyone does. There is no internal conflict. The world gets along and works together.
Now to some writers, that means that we have abolished religion, money, and all of the other things that they see as negative and corruptive. Whatever Gene decided in his later days, that's not really what makes sense to me because it sounds too much like current ideas for utopia. I think the general optimism of TOS was in line with the original idea of what the UN was supposed to be combined with the notion that scientific advances and exploration give us a new common goal.

Starfleet exists to achieve that common goal and therefore it is one of the most important things in the Federation. Presumably, with no want or hunger in the world, there is nothing to stop you from adding nothing to the world except your own presence, but being more evolved and advanced means that everyone benefits from the best and brightest. I don't think it was originally supposed to be the idea that economics alone created a kind of "new Soviet man" or anything like that. When early TNG started making those kinds of assumptions is where it went wrong, because it kind of takes away from the whole idea of actually having evolved sensibilities and a greater purpose in life. I think it is actually contrary to being a better species to actually impose that superiority by force (like Khan was trying to do).

Kirk is the one who is supposed to represent the best of humanity, and he doesn't show the kind of disdain for the past that beardless Riker did. In fact it's kind of the opposite, especially when you look at the decorations in his apartment. He is very interested in the past and probably sees himself as carrying on in the tradition of soldiers and explorers. It's the same way that today you might admire the courage and devotion of B-17 pilots, but that doesn't mean that you endorse terror bombing or the social prejudices of the 1940s.

 

[Christopher]

During times of war it becomes a full-blown military force, but during normal operations it is more of a peacekeeping organisation.

What's the difference?

Exactly. Peacekeeping is one of the main missions of a military organization, at least for a non-conquering nation or for something like the UN's peacekeeping forces. It's a fallacy that a military somehow ceases to be a military when it's not actively at war.

Yes, Starfleet is a military, and was originally envisioned as one and depicted as one in TOS. The other series began the whole "Starfleet isn't a military thing" primarily through Roddenberry's weird hippy high when he was working on TNG and the ignorance of other writers as to what a military actually is.

Honestly, if Roddenberry had wanted to move away from the military aspects in the TNG era, he should've just dropped the whole business of ranks and uniforms and made the new Enterprise a civilian research craft. Personally I would've been happy to see a Trek-universe series told from a civilian perspective. There's nothing weird or hippyish about acknowledging that the majority of a nation's citizens are civilians. The only weird thing was trying to have it both ways with Starfleet.

Yet the "Starfleet isn't military" line still exists, even now in the Abramsverse, what with there being multiple references in STID about Starfleet not being a military and Admiral Marcus's master plan being to "militarize Starfleet."

The problem is that laypeople are confusing two different uses of the word "military." In lay usage, it often does mean "pertaining to war." But as a noun, in formal usage, it simply means an armed force consisting of soldiers. The Latin root of the word, miles, means "soldier." So people get mixed up because of the different uses of the word; it's hard for them to understand how something can be a military (in the sense of an armed force) even when it isn't engaged in military (in the sense of war-oriented) operations. And since Trek is written for laypeople, it tends to favor the more informal, clearer usage and equate "military" with aggression and combat.

 

[The Wormhole]

The problem is that laypeople are confusing two different uses of the word "military." In lay usage, it often does mean "pertaining to war." But as a noun, in formal usage, it simply means an armed force consisting of soldiers. The Latin root of the word, miles, means "soldier." So people get mixed up because of the different uses of the word; it's hard for them to understand how something can be a military (in the sense of an armed force) even when it isn't engaged in military (in the sense of war-oriented) operations. And since Trek is written for laypeople, it tends to favor the more informal, clearer usage and equate "military" with aggression and combat.

But even today, we have plenty of examples of militaries around the world engaged in things like humanitarian relief work, or scientific research of some sort, or even diplomatic affairs, and other things not directly related war. And indeed, in the past when the world was unknown and unexplored, it was the military which did the exploring. So most people can accept these things being done by a contemporary military or military of the past, yet whenever Starfleet is shown doing one of these things it ends up getting used as an example of how they "clearly aren't military" in these debates.

 

[T'Girl]

Star Fleet is a military. Captain Pike's line in ST09 is a good description of what Star Fleet is; "A peace keeping and humanitarian Armada".

Captain Pike actually said that the Federation was "A peace keeping and humanitarian Armada," not Starfleet.

Is Starfleet an arm of the Federation government? Is it the formal armed forces of the Federation?

No to the first, yes to the second.

you might admire the courage and devotion of B-17 pilots

That would be Gene Roddenberry.

I've always seen it being a military as its secondary purpose, like a role it steps into when the necessity arises.

The opposite more likely. A starship would drop a science mission in a heartbeat to engage in a defensive mission.

The other way around?

 

[The Wormhole]

Star Fleet is a military. Captain Pike's line in ST09 is a good description of what Star Fleet is; "A peace keeping and humanitarian Armada".

Captain Pike actually said that the Federation was "A peace keeping and humanitarian Armada," not Starfleet.

But then, Trek writers have always been mixing up Federation and Starfleet, using the two words interchangeably as though they're the same thing.

Admittedly, Trek XI was very sloppy in that regard, with Pike asking Kirk if he's ever heard of the Federation. That's the same as asking someone in an American bar today if they've ever heard of the United States, or someone in a British Pub if they've ever heard of the United Kingdom.

 

[Timo]

We're discussing semantics here - and semantics are a matter of agreement. It would appear hugely important for several parties in the Trek universe whether Starfleet is "military" or not, so naturally they would define such words in a way that best suited them and their worldviews and political aims.

In the 22nd or 24th centuries, there might be an all-new definition of "military" that exactly meets the criteria of the two canonical statements (which, unlike Pike's phrase where the UFP and Starfleet get confused, probably were not misspoken). However, the statements would also hold true in the 19th century sense of the word.

That is, until very recently, "military" has been the opposite of "navy". "Military" is the bunch that does drills on parade fields and then marches on to do land battle, while "navy" is the bunch that sails on the seas. It's obvious why Picard would want to distance himself from the former: unlike navies, militaries (in the above sense) have historically not had diverse or alternate missions that would detract from the usual bloodshed. And mindless drilling is exactly what "Peak Performance" is all about. It's also fitting that Admiral Forrest in "The Expanse" would be concerned about classic interservices rivalry at this key junction of joint operations, not realizing Archer is bigger than that.

...Pike asking Kirk if he's ever heard of the Federation.

Well, not really. The question goes "You understand what the Federation is, don't you?".

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Christopher]

But then, Trek writers have always been mixing up Federation and Starfleet, using the two words interchangeably as though they're the same thing.

Admittedly, Trek XI was very sloppy in that regard, with Pike asking Kirk if he's ever heard of the Federation. That's the same as asking someone in an American bar today if they've ever heard of the United States, or someone in a British Pub if they've ever heard of the United Kingdom.

Actually he asked "You understand what the Federation is, don't you?" Which implies that it was a rhetorical question, that he assumed Kirk did understand what it was about and was just reminding him.

The thing is, that "armada" line wasn't in the script or in the early publicity clips of the Kirk-Pike barroom scene -- and you'll note that the line is delivered while Pike is off-camera so we don't actually see him saying it. It's pretty clear to me that they dubbed in the line late in post-production when someone realized that the film hadn't adequately defined the Federation's importance for the new viewers they were trying to reach. Which probably explains the sloppy and stilted nature of the line. And I wouldn't be surprised if the "armada" line was originally written to refer to Starfleet, but something got lost in the last-minute editing.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I've always seen it being a military as its secondary purpose, like a role it steps into when the necessity arises.

The opposite more likely. A starship would drop a science mission in a heartbeat to engage in a defensive mission.

The other way around?

They venture out for scientific and diplomatic purposes, then if the need arises to engage in defense, it will engage in defense. So I suppose it depends whether you see the diplomatic missions as a military function.

But what I don't see Starfleet doing when not defending against attack is defending 'Interests'. Other than Section 31 we see Starfleet morally opposed to interfering in foreign politics for its own gain. Starfleet behaves as a military only when there is a direct threat against the safety and freedom of its citizens.

 

[Christopher]

So I suppose it depends whether you see the diplomatic missions as a military function.

As I said above, though, there's a difference between a "military function" (a war/combat-oriented mission) and a military organization (an armed force operating as a branch of a government). A military organization is always a military organization even when it's involved in missions like peacekeeping, diplomacy, exploration, engineering, and the like -- all of which, I must once again stress, are things that the United States military and other militaries around the world actually do in real life.

As for defending interests, it's a mistake to assume that firing weapons is the only way to do that. Keeping the peace through diplomacy and outreach, enforcing international laws and treaties, promoting security and stability, and the like -- attempts to prevent violence and war -- are essential to defending a nation's interests, and thus are a major part of a modern military's responsibilities.

 

[TheSubCommander]

I think Starfleet is a paramilitary organizati on, or military-like, both in structure and function, but is akin to the 23rd-24th century version of the Corps of Discovery. In times of war, it is a military/defense force, but in times of peace, its primary function is discovery, exploration and first contact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corps_of_Discovery

 

[T'Girl]

...Pike asking Kirk if he's ever heard of the Federation.

Well, not really. The question goes "You understand what the Federation is, don't you?"

Then Pike challanged Kirk to enlist in Starfleet.

Kirk choose to become a officer instead, way to rise to a challange Kirk.

 

[137th Gebirg]

There has always been quite a muddy line about the difference between "enlisted" personnel and "officers" in Starfleet.

IIRC, in TOS, everyone had officer ranks. Sure, they had "Transporter Chief" or "Security Chief" or "Yeoman", but those seemed to be more titles than ranks or grades. Everyone seemed to be out of Starfleet Academy.

The movies were a little more enlisted and non-com friendly. They had the red/white jumpsuits and there was a clear line between them and the officers, who wore the full red/black tunics. No real understanding of the difference in the process leading them to this career path, however.

Then we kind of went back to officers only in TNG and beyond, with the one apparent exception of O'Brien, who was a Chief Petty Officer (although he had Lieutenant rank devices in TNG when he was on the bridge or operated the transporter), who later got his own formal Chief's rank device in DS9 - and the ONLY one that I can recall, and completely different from anything any other officer has ever worn. But I think he also went through the Academy.

Other odd-man-out rank devices included Kosinski in "Where No One Has Gone Before", who wore the uniform, but seemed to operate in the role as a civilian consultant who lorded it over the other senior officers in engineering, and Director Sloan (Section 31) who had Starfleet Captains' pips with a solid bar underneath and jurisdiction over Sisko on his own station, yet was not referred to as "Captain", "Fleet Captain" or "Commodore", as the device might have implied.

So what does "enlistment" vs. "commission" mean in the Starfleet world? Don't know with absolute certainty. It's never been adequately explained as far as I know. Maybe just "enlisting" into Starfleet without going to the Academy gets you put in as a baseline crewman; 2 years in the Academy gets you to a non-commissioned officer, starting at Petty Officer; an extra year on top of that for specialist training to get a Warrant Officer grade (Kosinski, perhaps?) and a full 4 years gets you a commission as Ensign, or possibly Lt.JG (Junior Grade), depending on your performance.