Military themes in the Star Trek universe.

[Shamrock Holmes]

The USCG IS military, NOT "can be militarized".

That's complicated. For instance the Deployable Operations Group -- despite being a recognised special operations group -- was not considered part of USSCOCOM because they were not part of the military chain-of-command at the DoD (unless specifically transfered there during wartime as noted).

At least that's what my DD-214 says.

That's certainly interesting, that suggests -- not unsurprisingly given the ability to transfer between USCG and USN units and use of USN Staff Corps officers in certain roles in the CG that individual personnel are considered part of the military and the active duty military at that (National Guard personnel are issued with NGB-22s instead and NOAA & PHSCC use different forms again) despite the Coast Guard not being administratively part of the military. Presumably this is due to the USCG still holding authority under Title 10 (as a member of the armed forces) as well as Title 14 (as a law enforcement and rescue organisation).

At the end of the day, whether or not the USCG is military or non-military "armed force" isn't the most important point as a parallel to Starfleet, but rather that it is definatively an organisation that is other things first and even second, and that third which is an on-point description of Starfleet.

 

[longhorn355]

The US Coast Guard is absolutely a military service. US federal law is quite clear on the matter.

14 USC 1 states: “The Coast Guard, established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times.”

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

You're missing my point. I'll try and make it a different way:

Does the USCG have legal status as a military service? Yes and no. It does hold authority under Title 10 (mostly during wartime), but because it primarily operates under Title 14, it does not have the same legal restrictions under Posse Commitus as the (rest of the) military.
Is the USCG administratively under the authority of the Department of Defence and therefore primarily tasked with military operations. No, it is currently under the Department of Homeland Security and has traditionally been under either the Treasury or Transportation. Which is why USCG-DSFs while being "special operations capable" are not considered part of SOCOM (FBI-CIRG, USSS-SOD et al are not for similar reasons)

Therefore, the USCG is an on-point description of an organisation that can undertake military operations (so is "military" in the modern definition) but is mostly something else entirely (a law enforcement, safety and rescue organisation), which is very similar to what we see of Starfleet (exploratory and diplomatic service).

 

[longhorn355]

You're missing my point. I'll try and make it a different way:

Does the USCG have legal status as a military service? Yes and no. It does hold authority under Title 10 (mostly during wartime), but because it primarily operates under Title 14, it does not have the same legal restrictions under Posse Commitus as the (rest of the) military.

I fully understand and agree with your point that the USCG is a multi-purpose service, unique amongst the other military services, but you are factually incorrect on several legal issues.

You say that the USCG is and is not military, as it relates to legalities, but it has already been pointed out before that it is a military service at all times. Moreover, the USCG is not constrained by the Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385) because it is mostly governed by Title 14, as you say, but because that Act only specifically prohibits using the Army and Air Force as a posse comitatus (except for a few exceptions). The Navy and Marine Corps are only restricted under DOD directives from being used in that manner and not because the Act requires Title 10 forces be restricted.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Moreover, the USCG is not constrained by the Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385) because it is mostly governed by Title 14

Given that the Posse Comitatus Act bans military involvement in law enforcement and Title 14 grants law enforcement powers then this might be technically true (for the reasons outlined below) but practically and legally incorrect.

The Navy and Marine Corps are only restricted under DOD directives from being used in that manner and not because the Act requires Title 10 forces be restricted.

Correct, however as the Coast Guard as a military force is under the Department of the Navy, if it only operated under Title 10 then it would be therefore constrained by the same directives. Hence why it is moved out of the DoD/DoN in peacetime.

 

[Henoch]

Starfleet is a Coast Guard without a Navy.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Starfleet is a Coast Guard without a Navy.

Pretty much.

Or put it a different way, Starfleet is similar to what the Coast Guard might have become if a seperate navy hadn't been set-up.

 

[fireproof78]

Or put it a different way, Starfleet is similar to what the Coast Guard might have become if a seperate navy hadn't been set-up.

Interesting.

 

[Kraig]

Pretty much.

Or put it a different way, Starfleet is similar to what the Coast Guard might have become if a seperate navy hadn't been set-up.

I always thought of it as more of a fusion of the USCG and the NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

I always thought of it as more of a fusion of the USCG and the NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps.

I like the NOAA comparison considering they have no enlisted, like what the TOS and TNG bibles say about Starfleet having only commissioned officers. Although, TOS clearly has enlisted rates in a few episodes.

 

[Kraig]

I like the NOAA comparison considering they have no enlisted, like what the TOS and TNG bibles say about Starfleet having only commissioned officers. Although, TOS clearly has enlisted rates in a few episodes.

The enlisted and unrestricted line officers would be the USCG component. The limited duty and science officers would be the NOAA COC personnel. That is why I listed a fusion of both services.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

I like the NOAA comparison considering they have no enlisted,

I wondered about that, and from what I can tell that's not entirely true.

As they do have contractors that do much of the work that enlisted would do for the other uniformed services (admin, logistics, mechanics et al), they're just not considered a "proper part of the organisation" in the way that enlisted would be. The PHSCC is similar.

 

[Henoch]

The enlisted and unrestricted line officers would be the USCG component. The limited duty and science officers would be the NOAA COC personnel. That is why I listed a fusion of both services.

I can buy that Blue Shirts are similar to the NOAA Corps assigned as staff positions on Starfleet ships which are themselves similar to the USCG.

 

[Colonel Midnight]

I wondered about that, and from what I can tell that's not entirely true.

As they do have contractors that do much of the work that enlisted would do for the other uniformed services (admin, logistics, mechanics et al), they're just not considered a "proper part of the organisation" in the way that enlisted would be. The PHSCC is similar.

Yes, they’re a weird mix... I feel sorry for the contracted staff, as they get the raw end of the deal sometimes. I was working a job on one of the NOAA ships back in 2018 when the budget shutdown hit. The contracted staff were laid off immediately, blam-o. C’est la vie or Nature of the Beast, but still...

Cheers,
-CM-

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Thanks for the RW confirmation.

 

[Kraig]

Yes, they’re a weird mix... I feel sorry for the contracted staff, as they get the raw end of the deal sometimes. I was working a job on one of the NOAA ships back in 2018 when the budget shutdown hit. The contracted staff were laid off immediately, blam-o. C’est la vie or Nature of the Beast, but still...

Cheers,
-CM-

The USCG was still required to work during the shutdown, but didn't get paid on time.

 

[BlueShift]

While debating the military character of Starfleet is an entertaining sport, it cannot be decided.
That the information we get on the Star Trek universe itself is inconclusive (mostly due to its real world nature as a long-running franchise subject to commercial considerations and artistic license) has already been pointed out. It’s kind of like the Bible: what you get out of it depends as much on what you look for as on what is written (aka hermeneutics).

Maybe less clear (though often argued between the lines of many posts) is the fact that the meaning of ‚military‘ is unterdetermined and contested. That means: what a military is varies according to place and time, political position, professional considerations etc. (e.g. a legal definition of military in Chinese law will be significantly different from the definition applied by a CIA analyst in a politics brief on Chinese military expenditure).

Moreover, the meaning of military is essentially contested. This means, the difference in meaning is not ‚academic’, but attached with political value. This is not only about ideological differences (people value their respective understanding of military as it reflects their broader left or right political position) but also about very concrete consequences.

Consider e.g. the legal-political debates surrounding the war on terror. Taliban and Al Qaeda forces basically fulfilled many definitions of military (an organized force tasked with fighting sanctioned by a government). Yet, the US introduced basically a new legal category of unlawful combatant for Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. This is because if they had been defined as military it would have become legally difficult to put them on trial (normally, you must do that with enemy military personnel). However, treating them basically as civilian criminals would have precluded the use of military force under US and international law.

So the point for our discussion is: we will not be able to decide whether Starfleet is military or not, because ‚military‘ is and cannot be defined conclusively outside of specific context.

Which doesn‘t mean that discussion is pointless, but effectively an exercise in politics - and fun for the sake of it. So, here my less ‚meta‘ contribution:

Starfleet is like the Imperial Roman Army - at least in some respect. According to an academic book I recently read, the Roman Army was not simply the military (and construction force) of the Empire, but in many ways was the Empire. Only in the Roman Army (and the Imperial Bureaucracy) did a sense of imperial identity develop and passed on to recruits from all over the Empire. The Army did not only represent the Empire itself to its many subjects and citizens form widely varying backgrounds, but also diffuse its cultural and technological achievements throughout its far reaching territory. Effectively, it was the Empire’s means of maintaining cohesion in a time when communication and travel where far from easy and fast.

So, the Roman Army is an example of a military that does (unintentionally) much more than our modern understanding of military suggests. And maybe it offers a better template for understanding Starfleet than modern US military.

Thus understood, the defining trait of Starfleet is not whether it’s primarily a fighting force or an exploratory agency but that is the institution that makes Federation values a real ( and coherent) thing to Starfleet personell from many worlds, member planets of the Federation and all those strange civilizations beyond its borders - by any means including exploration and fighting, law enforcement, supply missions etc.

 

[suarezguy]

Despite "not being a military" Starfleet still keeps all the trappings of military service, identical ranks, protocols, terminology, ceremonies, right down to the littlest details. Honestly, if we're supposed to believe Starfleet isn't a military, then maybe so much effort shouldn't have been expended in making Starfleet so identical to the military. It's like the joke I often pull out other times this issue comes up, Starfleet isn't a military, they're an armed uniform service with rank structure, martial discipline and the responsibility of defending the Federation and fighting its wars.

Police departments use ranks, uniforms, ceremonies, arms and internal discipline and even often refer to non-members as civilians.

Honestly, if Starfleet would present itself with any sort of consistency as an organization then I would have less issue with it not being a military. But, because it often gets put in to military situations strikes me that it needs a little bit more military, some discipline, some promotions, some transfers, some consistency in order to be that organization.

Crew members semi-regularly transferring off is I think a good example of something that would make a series more realistic, to contemporary practices, and also less enjoyable. And discipline on the shows has been so lax for so long that having quite a bit more would at least be jarring.

Despite TNG being the poster child for the "not a military" claim, there is absolutely nothing "non-military" about the Enterprise D aside from the fact its captain and crew deny being a military.

And ongoing having mass numbers of civilians.

 

[The Wormhole]

You just had to reply two months later to add that too, didn't you? Besides, the police don't fight wars.