MACO fleet?
- Thread starter Baxten
- Start date
Spock description of primitive space vessels and atomic weaponry can't be reconciled with Enterprise or even a reasonable view of technological progress. So I'm inclined to dismiss that part of his description.
This is also a pretty solid point.
Spock is only calling them primitive in relation to Federation technological development as of 2266. And even so, NX-01 was considered relatively primitive to Vulcan and Andorian vessels of the time. Once the Federation was formed, and Starfleet acquired technology from its other founding races, it would very likely lead to far more advanced starships.
Or, in other words, would you call a Sopwith Camel primitive when compared to an F-35?
You can maybe retcon that and say they fought on worlds where the environment somehow didn't allow open skin without burning up or disintegrating or something. But by Trek standards that's a pretty big retcon.
And also, what strategic value would that world hold that would possibly justify sending large forces to try to assert a claim to it? M class planets are seemingly dime a dozen in the Star Trek universe, which the more and more we learn about real exoplanets, might actually be yet another prophetic thing Star Trek had going for it.
M class as in you can beam down no consequences? Is that prophetic?
What I meant is that the more we learn about exoplanets in our own local stellar neighborhood, the more we realize that many might possibly be habitable and/or contain liquid water, and orbit in the so-called "goldilocks zone". We haven't obviously found "M-class" planets outside our own solar system yet, but every year the yardstick gets moved closer and closer to that eventuality.
Given that the Klingons and the Federation were jockeying for position over Sherman's Planet, and Angel One was consider to be "of strategic value" in TNG, I would say it's more than just the M-class nature of planets that make them valuable.
Also, as for the Romulan War, Romulan soldiers may have been under orders/duty to kill themselves if they were losing, possibly by detonating whatever power generators they have at base camps or location, or use their disruptors. Given the Romulan Commander's attitude in "Balance of Terror" and the Romulans originally being based on Roman ideas, ritual suicide to avoid capture is consistent with their nature.
Perhaps the higher ups did know however they didn't want the Federation's citizenry making the connection that the Vulcans and Romulans were related however distantly to maintain stability and to prevent any sort of anti-Vulcan prejudice or sentiment from emerging in the aftermath of the war especially with the birth of the federation coming soon after.
Yeah, this is something I've also considered, but think would likely factor into the Romulans' thinking, rather than the Federation's. The Romulans in ENT's fourth season were clearly trying to infiltrate the upper echelons of Vulcan's government in the leadup to the Earth-Romulan War. If they revealed themselves to be somewhat superficially similar to the Vulcans, then it would have removed any potential for espionage on Earth itself by Romulans. Better to let Earth think that Vulcans are the only pointy eared people with bowl cuts, and you can discreetly slip a Romulan agent into San Francisco posing as a Vulcan functionary.
We see anti-alien prejudice exists still in the last episode before TATV(Terra Nova?) you don't think with a revelation earth's allies look curiously similar to an empire the federation's citizens have been told our evil devious and wicked isn't going to provoke some rather anti-Vulcanic responses from some sections of the population? Not to mention the Andorians?
Oh it definitely could. We're speculating in either direction. I was just thinking it might see a better cost/benefit outcome for the Romulans if they kept their cards close to their chest for the purposes of espionage. We know that they continued to pose as Vulcans on Earth and other Federation worlds well into the 24th Century, so perhaps it began as early as the 2160s...
We also know that training Romulans to impersonate Vulcans is very difficult so I imagine there were only a few such agents at a time.
I'm not.
All the more reason to hold your cards closer to the chest. Otherwise it'd sort of turn into the Changeling panic on Earth in the leadup to the Dominion War.
What the respective roles of Starfleet and the Military in that war were is rather unclear. Edison says he hates the Xindi and the Romulans. He doesn't outright say he ever got the chance to fight them, though. Perhaps part of his anger comes from waiting forever for action, for Starfleet to bring matters to the point where the MACO could be deployed, and from Starfleet never quite managing that?
Starfleet as future NASA is not an appealing interpretation at all, because Starfleet is so bad at it. The organization is much less bad at fighting, which may be telling. Save for Archer's bunch, that is.
Is this just a matter of Starfleet being new at everything, so bad at everything, and the fact that its older ships and skippers can drive away Klingon warships is a fluke? But the organization already has veterans, Admirals of all sorts, even if we never learn what they are veterans of. And it's never stated to be new.
OTOH, exploration is stated to be new, which is understandable: nothing left to explore near Earth because Vulcans have already been everywhere and know everything, or at least use this as their argument for telling Earth not to redo any of that stuff. But would there be any fighting to be done near Earth, either? We know there are pirates, but we also know Starfleet does nothing about them. We hear of the Kzinti war in another context, but the timing is unclear and the references never make it to ENT itself.
Then again, humans would play wargames even if there were no opponents; that's the way we're built. Playing explorer is much harder to do if there's nothing real to explore, and a less popular pastime both in kindergartens and governmental organizations. An idle Navy can always justify itself as "preparedness". An idled Calypso just wastes taxpayers' money.
Timo Saloniemi
Starfleet as future NASA is not an appealing interpretation at all, because Starfleet is so bad at it. The organization is much less bad at fighting, which may be telling. Save for Archer's bunch, that is.
Is this just a matter of Starfleet being new at everything, so bad at everything, and the fact that its older ships and skippers can drive away Klingon warships is a fluke? But the organization already has veterans, Admirals of all sorts, even if we never learn what they are veterans of. And it's never stated to be new.
OTOH, exploration is stated to be new, which is understandable: nothing left to explore near Earth because Vulcans have already been everywhere and know everything, or at least use this as their argument for telling Earth not to redo any of that stuff. But would there be any fighting to be done near Earth, either? We know there are pirates, but we also know Starfleet does nothing about them. We hear of the Kzinti war in another context, but the timing is unclear and the references never make it to ENT itself.
Then again, humans would play wargames even if there were no opponents; that's the way we're built. Playing explorer is much harder to do if there's nothing real to explore, and a less popular pastime both in kindergartens and governmental organizations. An idle Navy can always justify itself as "preparedness". An idled Calypso just wastes taxpayers' money.
Timo Saloniemi
No, you failed to properly understand the question.
If MACO was the only military force of the United Earth, its purpose would have been defense of the United Earth. How could it defend it, if it could not even wage space battles? How could its tactics and technology have been two to three years more advanced than those of Starfleet, if it did not even have its own fleet of military starships?
Since MACOs were used solely as foot soldiers, which was mentioned in the original post, then Star Trek is using an outdated definition of navy and military, where two used to be treated as separate organizations in the distant past. Star Trek is supposed to take place in the "future" of a fictional universe. Many trekkies also swear that the franchise is "progressive". Treating a navy, as an armed force, as different from a military is regression or retrogression, even by the modern definition of the word.
Wikipedia: Navy
If the explanation is different, then explain why the United Earth's military force is less powerful weapon-wise than a self-proclaimed non-military one because that sounds backwards.
If MACO was the only military force of the United Earth, its purpose would have been defense of the United Earth. How could it defend it, if it could not even wage space battles? How could its tactics and technology have been two to three years more advanced than those of Starfleet, if it did not even have its own fleet of military starships?
Since MACOs were used solely as foot soldiers, which was mentioned in the original post, then Star Trek is using an outdated definition of navy and military, where two used to be treated as separate organizations in the distant past. Star Trek is supposed to take place in the "future" of a fictional universe. Many trekkies also swear that the franchise is "progressive". Treating a navy, as an armed force, as different from a military is regression or retrogression, even by the modern definition of the word.
Wikipedia: Navy
The word formerly denoted fleets of both commercial and military nature. In modern usage "navy" used alone always denotes a military fleet. . . .
If the explanation is different, then explain why the United Earth's military force is less powerful weapon-wise than a self-proclaimed non-military one because that sounds backwards.
Last edited:
However, we can clearly see what Star Trek considers to be a military when armed starships are already possible.
No one's forcing you to participate.
That's a reasonable interpretation and he does say something to the effect of "in relation to us" or something implying a comparison therein. But a lot of people especially people who aren't fans of ENT take his statement literally.
