This is why having StarFleet as the only division within the UFP doesn't make sense.
No one organization should take on this many roles / domains.
No one organization should take on this many roles / domains.
But it does. Starfleet is the shape of water.This is why having StarFleet as the only division within the UFP doesn't make sense.
No one organization should take on this many roles / domains.
I don't think the lack of distinction between "officers" and "enlisted men" was necessarily there - maybe just in the way everyone ate at the same mess? - but I could be missing something.
Star Trek: Enterprise had the MACO's (Military Assault Command Operations)But it does. Starfleet is the shape of water.
The MACOs were pre-Federation.Star Trek: Enterprise had the MACO's (Military Assault Command Operations)
Star Trek: Discovery had Section 31 as it's own independent intelligence agency.
So there is precendent for more than one Federal Branch of services and not have everything dog piled under the "StarFleet" branding.
Given that the Royal Navy does take the lead in the war-fighting mission, I'm not sure what the US Navy would add to the mix whereas the Coast Guard adds general law enforcement duties and a possible explanation why some Starfleeters think they "aren't the military" (a reporting line through a government department other than Defence), but perhaps that's splitting hairs so YMMV.
And that is why you can't compare StarFleet to modern day USCG or USN.If the question is one of "military deniability," the USCG would seem to have a much stronger case than Starfleet. Starfleet has the equivalent of the carriers and air wings, nuclear submarines, guided missiles and so on, and is organized for and tasked with using them. The Coast Guard doesn't really seem comparable in that respect.
I would agree that the Royal Navy, particularly the Age of Sail/Exploration era force, is a significant influence on Starfleet,
Star Trek: Enterprise had the MACO's (Military Assault Command Operations)
Star Trek: Discovery had Section 31 as it's own independent intelligence agency.
So there is precendent for more than one Federal Branch of services and not have everything dog piled under the "StarFleet" branding.
Was Riker playing Lord Flashheart?They really leaned into the Royal Navy in Generations:
![]()
Not even close. The folks of the 23rd/24th century are noticeably smarter/better educated (children are learning Calculus and astrophysics, for starters)
and Captains seem far more willing to let their ships take a hit or two during first encounters before finally defending themselves (i.e., they are less aggressive).
By the way, have you ever noticed in these debates that there's an implication that "A military man can also be x.", but it's rarely or never framed the other way around? Why the assumption that one profession/vocation always overrides the other?
Then it is clear that the law differs centuries from now.
What modern day military takes families on their mobile "base" into uncharted territory
Edit: I'm fairly certain that, in order to represent/negotiate on behalf of a nation/federation as a diplomat, one requires training, experience and authorization. There's clearly some legal machinery chugging away in the background.
It is. They're a multi-faceted organization.
I don't like this idea of folding many other details into a military to the point where its umbrella continues to expand; we've seen what happens when a military-industrial complex has justification for growing.
A major difference, though, is that the Coast Guard is not given primary responsibility for national defense, they don't plan for that mission and they don't have all the tools required for that mission. In actual war-fighting, they become an adjunct of a larger organization which does have that responsibility.
It's closer to the Royal Navy during the ages of Sail & Exploration with Horatio HornBlower w/ elements of modern US Navy inserted.
2) Be that as it may, the United States Coast Guard is still a military organization by law. Legal status is not dictated by operational ethos.
Of course!Was Riker playing Lord Flashheart?
I believe @Sci has summarized everything we've discussed here beautifully and therefore Wins The Thread.Sure. And that's the sort of thing that can result from a change in operational ethos. Being a military does not require aggression -- an ethos based upon a genuine desire for peaceful resolution of conflicts can encourage a military vessel to avoid being overly-aggressive. In fact, the TNG novel The Buried Age by Christopher L. Bennett establishes that in courts-martial, Starfleet captains can be charged with the use of excessive force in combat in a court-martial.
Because the question is not, "Is Starfleet an X?," but, rather, "Is Starfleet a military?" If someone were to make a post asserting, "Starfleet can't be the primary exploratory service of the Federation because it's clearly used to fight the Federation's wars!," then the response would be, "An exploratory service can also be a military."
Starfleet's role as a military does not "override" its role as the Federation's exploratory service, nor its role as a scientific research agency, nor its role in providing colony support services, nor its role in regulating space traffic, nor its role in providing some diplomatic services. But, it is also a military, and those other roles do not negate that, just like its military role does not negate those other roles.
No it doesn't. In fact, Starfleet seems to follow contemporary military law quite closely. Starfleet has its own legal system and possesses the authority to compel its officers and crew to obey its orders on pain of being charged with violation of Starfleet law, tried in a Starfleet court, and imprisoned in a Starfleet stockade. This is something only a military can do.
Again: It is literally called a court-martial. It's not a court-martial if you're not a military.
It is true that this is a departure from modern military practices, but nothing about the definition of a military precludes this practice. Also, while modern navies do not allow families aboard their ships, families do often live on or near military bases throughout the world, including bases where they might be in danger if hostilities were to break out.
Of course!
Sure, but having other facets is not precluded by the legal definition of a military.
I sympathize with this hesitation, but that ship sailed in TOS Season One, where officers were court-martialed ("Court-Marital"), Starfleet was ordered to fight a war with the Klingons ("Errand of Mercy"), and the entire setup was modeled after Horatio Hornblower. Like it or not, Star Trek has always been a fantasy about a morally righteous version of space colonialism, complete with an outer space version of the Royal Navy.
1) But Starfleet is given primary responsibility for Federation defense. They plan for that mission and have all the tools required for that mission. In actual war-fighting, Starfleet does not become an adjunct of a larger organization.
2) Be that as it may, the United States Coast Guard is still a military organization by law. Legal status is not dictated by operational ethos.
@1001001 told me that all of our no longer discussed topics went to live on a farm upstate where they could run and jump and play with all the other closed threads.Drat, and I thought this topic had quietly fallen asleep.
That's so wrong. The Romans understood the concept of buying weapons for their military very well. Government price fixing is believed by Luttwak to be one of the reasons why, one-to-one, Roman weapons were often inferior to their enemies' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_ancient_Rome#Equipment].I feel like these discussions amount to two Romans, having magically gotten a glimpse of the 21st century, arguing over whether Lockheed Martin is part of Caesar’s army. Well, you see, it’s complicated. Technically no, but “Caesar” did pay it 1.7 Trillion Dollars to create his new Air Force. Lockheed is not Lockheed without its military/governmental connection.
Okay, thanks. Let’s go further back to understand the point I’m making so as not to get stuck on the minutia.That's so wrong. The Romans understood the concept of buying weapons for their military very well. Government price fixing is believed by Luttwak to be one of the reasons why, one-to-one, Roman weapons were often inferior to their enemies' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_ancient_Rome#Equipment].
Yep. It's a tv show, so it tries to have it all, depending on the needs of the plot. "No, we're not a military, we're about peaceful exploration." AND "We need some drama, so we need enemies. And maybe a war to shake things up." So here we fans sit, trying to make a dodecahedron fit in a square hole.There is no war among humanity. Really think about that. And space is mostly empty. Same thing. In such a world, Starfleet is future NASA having to retool time to time to do defense. There’s no real use of a military among a peaceful people in a mostly empty universe. That’s the real world anyway. Trek tries to have it both ways. Families colonizing the universe, and yet another Klingon/Romulan/Cardassian/Talarian/Gorn/Breen/Tholian/Tzenkethi/Jaradan/Kzinti/Xindi/Sheliak/Orion/Dominion/Borg/Kelvan/Vaadwaar/Hirogen/etc threat whenever a writer decides an episode needs a cheap fix of space-threat! Heck, if space is that dangerous, it’s wonder we don’t reorganize the Federation into the First Terran Empire!
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.