He was clearly referring to Kirk's tennis game. That's the court Stone was referring to. Kirk was so upset he took the wrong court.
Is Starfleet a military organization?
- Thread starter Commander Troi
- Start date
i always considered that part of - to say it in an american way - the war on tobacco
you may want to read up on the royal navy's scientific voyages - hms beagle* may be a ship to start with
---
* of course her crew (that includes dudes who just hitched a ride) never acchieved anything important
... /sarcasm
actually, if you read what i wrote, it was predicted
True: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy#Exploration (careful, Wiki will speak)
There were no scientific organizations back then that had ships of that kind that were suitable for such expeditions.
Today, we have research vessels, research space probes, research Mars rovers. How many of those come from the military? SF came from united space agencies. Are NASA, ESA, JAXA, CSA, Roskosmos military organizations?
Last edited:
There are plenty of astronauts and even directors of NASA who are active duty military officers. NASA itself may not be a military organization, but the military is very much involved in modern space exploration.
Indeed, the military is still involved in modern exploration, period. The wreck of the Titanic was found during a military funded expedition, after all. The idea many have in these discussions that military and exploration are mutually exclusive concepts is a flawed idea and only seems to exist in the minds of Star Trek writers and fans. The military is not exclusively about war and destruction. In the past and even today, militaries are involved in exploration, humanitarian aid, search and rescue, cleanup after serious storms and even road construction and all sorts of tasks not related to warfare at all. This is all well known and documented, and accepted by the general population. Yet, for some reason, whenever Star Trek fans see Starfleet engaging in any of these activities, it's considered proof that they aren't military, or somehow "more than military" "other than military" or all the other buzzwords always applied in these discussions as a fancy way of not admitting Starfleet is military.
People somehow managed to accept the Stargate franchise showing personnel from the US Air Force armed with assault rifles and submachine guns dressed in modern combat gear could be peaceful explorers, why is it so hard to accept Starfleet can be both military and peaceful explorers?
Last edited:
No.
But they also not armed, which is one of the main legal differences between military/law enforcement agencies and civilian agencies.
Which is why Starfleet cannot be a civilian agency as modern space agencies are.
No-one is denying that Starfleet's primary purpose is space exploration and scientific research. It's clear that given the choice Starfleet as an organisation and most if not all of its personnel would rather be doing that.
However, neither of these things require a legal mandate.
Starfleet's other duties do.
Defense of the Federation and it's allies and protectorates requires a legal mandate.
Enforcing Federation and interstellar law requires a legal mandate.
Acting as diplomatic representatives of the Federation requires a legal mandate.
Therefore, the legal status of Starfleet is that of an armed, militarized law enforcement and diplomatic organisation.
However, it's entirely possible that it is not "the military" in the sense that it doesn't report to the "Federation Department of Defense" most of the time, but rather something like the Department of Homeland Security (USCG), the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (JAXA) or the Department of Industry (CSA). Given the overt sentiments expressed by most Starfleet officers, it seems likely that the de facto reporting line for Starfleet runs through the Federation Department of Science, with Starfleet asserts being seconded to Defense, Military Intelligence or Diplomatic Affairs/External Affairs/Exterior et al as needed.
I'd suggest that most fans that hate at Starfleet being military, probably discount at the idea of the SGC as peaceful explorers by the same definition, but I could be wrong about that.
show me one in trek - when they need a ship civilian authorities always use one belonging to the military aka starfleet
Possibly, though that just reminds me of the Star Trek-Doctor Who crossover former DW showrunner Russell T Davies wanted to do, which would have involved the Doctor on board a Starfleet ship and not trusting what he considered a "very obviously military outfit claiming to be peaceful explorers." Hell, even today we have The Orville which is written by Star Trek fans and even former Trek writers depicting an organization which is near identical to Starfleet aside from the fact they actually admit to being a military. Add onto that, the writers of the official Star Trek tie-in novels always insert references in the novels making it clear Starfleet is a military and the characters on the shows who claim otherwise are just propagandists, and it seems nearly everyone sees Starfleet is really a military except canon literalists or Gene loyalists.
There is a civilian exploration agency in TNG, those guys you see wearing the gray jumpsuits in episodes like Who Watches the Watchers. True, the one time we see them with their own ship (Realm of Fear) it was an Oberth class, which is generally considered a Starfleet ship, though we know it can be given to civilians as well, like in Hero Worship. Seven of Nine's parents were also civilians with their own research vessel, though even they had to coordinate with Starfleet.
jacques costeau's calypso started her career as a byms-class minesweeper during world war II - handing out obsolete or surplus military vessels to people or organisations has some sort of tradition, hasn't it?
you were saying?
As others have noted, militaries have historically also engaged in exploration and scientific research missions.
Furthermore, nothing about the definition of a military precludes it from having other primary missions that are co-equal with the defense of the state.
So if a military is the agency of the state that is legally charged with defending the state in times of war or violent conflict, may have other missions that are co-equal with state defense, and operates a system of courts-martial for its members; and Starfleet is the agency of the state that is legally charged with defending the state in times of war or violent conflict, and has other missions that are co-equal with that mission, and operates a system of courts-martial for its members -- then Starfleet is a military.
I can't speak to JAXA, the ESA, or the CSA. But:
Re: NASA. Not officially, but that distinction is not entirely relevant in real life. A large percentage of NASA's astronaut corps consist of military officers, especially Navy and Air Force pilots, and many of them retain their commissions even while serving in NASA. NASA also shares many launch facilities with what used to be the Air Force's space division and is now the (*snicker snicker*) United States Space Force. So the division between NASA and the military is somewhat more academic rather than practical.
Roscosmos is a state corporation, but it is descended from the Soviet space program that was literally a military program.
* * *
Meanwhile, I say again: How can Starfleet not be a military when it has courts-martial?
Last edited:
Makes sense. With both NASA and Roscosmos, the distinction between them and the military is a bit sharper on paper than in reality.
A quick Google search reveals that the ESA has as many active duty military personnel involved with it as NASA, while the CSA's most famous astronaut (Chris Hadfield) is an active duty military officer, or at least was the last time he was to space. JAXA appears to be the only modern day space agency with no connections to the military at all.
As I've said a few times on this thread, the essential difference in modern lingo is:
Military = armed, fights wars, may or may not engage in law enforcement (more common for maritime rather than land forces)
Civilian = unarmed, doesn't fight wars (although in some cases personnel can be seconded to warfighting units as in the case of the two civilian US uniformed services).
Not that Japan likes to admit having a military at all, although with the elevation of post of Director-General of the Defense Agency to the cabinet-level rank of Minister of Defense that's looking more and shaky.
Pike: It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada.
Kirk: We're a combined service.
Picard: Starfleet is not a military organization, its purpose is exploration.
Owing to the fact that 80's Picard is Gene's Vision's mouthpiece, of course he will say this, but like so many of the more outlandish statements about the UFP, it just doesn't work or hold true.
What we are left with is an ideological stellar nation that chooses to redifine terms, for whatever reason. It has a military, but it doesn't admit it. It has an economy and methods of trade and inheritance, but it claims not to have money. It is dominated, at least to every extend seen, by humans but claims to be democratic. It's just one of those things.
It's all just fodder for rehashing these debates over and over. It will not end. Even if Admiral Vance says "by the way, Captain Burnham, never forget, we're a military organization and we always have been, we just don't ever say so." there will still be the same debates back and forth.
Kirk: We're a combined service.
Picard: Starfleet is not a military organization, its purpose is exploration.
Owing to the fact that 80's Picard is Gene's Vision's mouthpiece, of course he will say this, but like so many of the more outlandish statements about the UFP, it just doesn't work or hold true.
What we are left with is an ideological stellar nation that chooses to redifine terms, for whatever reason. It has a military, but it doesn't admit it. It has an economy and methods of trade and inheritance, but it claims not to have money. It is dominated, at least to every extend seen, by humans but claims to be democratic. It's just one of those things.
It's all just fodder for rehashing these debates over and over. It will not end. Even if Admiral Vance says "by the way, Captain Burnham, never forget, we're a military organization and we always have been, we just don't ever say so." there will still be the same debates back and forth.
I should point out, if you look at the actual law (42 USC §207), USPHS commissioned officers do not have naval rank titles; admiral, commander, lieutenant and so on are used by courtesy but are not their legal grades.
Lots. When the world was not completely explored, it made perfect sense. The US Army, facing a largely unsettled continent, had a whole branch devoted to exploration, surveying and map-making, the Topographical Engineers (folded into the Corps of Engineers during the Civil War). Likewise the French Army, the Ingénieurs Géographes. And navies in the 1800s were heavily involved in exploration, surveys, mapping and even pure research. Both because it had strategic advantages (in a war you want to know what harbors, channels, approaches etc. you can use and chart them so they'll actually be usable) and because they were highly technological organizations and trying to stay on the cutting edge made them better able to do their jobs. And in the industrial age, there was both the need for standing navies (too big and complex to re-build for every war) and the financial structure to fund a peacetime force; using them for exploration etc. was both a good return on investment and provided seagoing experience that could not be gained at anchor on port call after port call.
Here, from an old post, is a sample of some things the USN was doing in the two decades before the Civil War:
- 1838-1842, Lt. C. Wilkes, Peacock, Vincennes, Porpoise. Surveying and exploring the west coast of North American and Pacific islands.
- 1848, Cdr. W. Lynch, unnamed boats. Explored the river Jordan and the surveyed the Dead Sea.
- 1849-1852, Lt. J. Gilliss. Made an expedition to Chile to make astronomical observations.
- 1850-1851, Lt. E. De Haven, Advance, Rescue. Searched for the Franklin Arctic expedition.
- 1850-1851, Lt. W. Herndon and Lt. L. Gibbon. Explored the Amazon river.
- 1852-1855, Cdr. C. Ringgold, Lt. J. Rodgers, Porpoise, Vincennes, John Hancock. Surveyed and explored the China seas, Bering Strait, and North Pacific ocean.
- 1852-1856, Lt. T. Page, Water Witch. Explored and surveyed South America's Rio de la Plata river system.
- 1853, Lt. Henry J. Hartstene, Release, Arctic, Searched for Franklin Arctic expedition.
- 1856, Lt. O. Berryman, Arctic. Sounded the Atlantic for a possible transatlantic cable.
- 1857-1858, Lt. T. Craven, Varina (Coast Survey vessel). Surveyed the Isthmus of Panama for possible canal route.
I already mentioned the Royal Navy's 1800s peacetime role in an earlier post. The Royal Navy also had a corps of officers, the navigating branch, who in addition to serving on ships, made hydrographic surveys, charted coastal soundings around the world, developed astronomical, tide and compass variation charts, and so on. Until after WW1 the US Navy had a professors of mathematics branch, who besides educating midshipmen ran the US Naval Observatory and published a great amount of astronomical research. The time reference for US satellites is still set by the Naval Observatory.
People say that Starfleet is an exploration organization as if that's the end of the story, without considering everything that goes with it. An age of exploration and colonization brings with it all kinds of implications: Rivalries for new resources, a need for new transportation network hubs, new opportunities for illegal activity, new bases to secure everything, and a basic desire for one's enemies not to gain better positions. Add on top of this the fact that, in Star Trek, exploration has been shown to be highly dangerous, with powerful new threats appearing without warning. It makes sense that exploring ships would also be the most formidable fighting ships. Really, it would actually make less sense if Starfleet weren't the exploration/survery service, police/patrol force and national military armed force all rolled into one.
Last edited:
So, an armed, uniformed service that engages in among other things law enforcement, safety and welfare duties... seems reasonable. And not in any way contrary to them being a military by the current definition.
Ditto.
While the US Navy isn't a combined service per se (as the USMC are under the DoN but not the CNO), but the UK Naval Service (which includes the RN, Fleet Air Arm and the Royal Marines among others) is.
I've offered several options for how this may be technically true, the scene itself makes clear that this cannot be legally true.
Several different definitions of "military" have been used historically, and even one or two oddities in modern day (JSDF being the main one).
That's politics pure and simple in the first case. In the second, I can accept that it doesn't have physical currency, but some form of "energy credit", "social credit" (ala Black Mirror's Nosedive) or other digital currency seems essential.
Similar threads
- Poll
