• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Militia

Tim Walker

Fleet Captain
Fleet Captain
Would it make sense for the Federation to use part time volunteers to defend Federation space? With an organization resembling a coast guard?
 
There may be plenty of opportunities for citizens to defend the Federation or their home planets, but what those opportunities are will be limited by th expertise required and the time and cost of training. All branches of the US military run reserves, and people can do cool stuff, like fly advanced air craft. However, those pilots came as pilots, perhaps joining the reserves after years of regular service. Some might be positions for people permanently invovled in the reserves. Some opportunities are simply unavailable.
 
Why in the world would it ever be needed? The Federation is a post-scarcity, conflict-free utopia.

Right?

RIGHT???

TF5QJ0q.gif
 
Seems to me there’s no such things as “part-time” interstellar defense duty. You’re not going home on weekends…
 
Just what the Federation needs, bunches of folks running around with WMD’s.
You do know that the basic Photon Torpedo is a WMD in itself if used within the Atmosphere of a M-Class planet, right?

And everybody throws them around willy nilly in space.

Each StarFleet Torpedo at normal full yield has 1.5 kg of M/A-M on-board which ≈ 64.44 MegaTons.
That's in between the 50 MegaTon Tsar Bomba that was tested and the 100 MegaTon Proposed Tsar Bomba.

Average Spacers who encounter your typical Space Pirates need Beam Weapons & Photon Torpedoes just to survive.

Same with Colonial / Outpost Defense.

What you call WMD's are just "Regular Arms" for 'Militias & Spacers' use to defend themselves.
 
In general, what constitutes a militia can vary. It might be anything from a full blown military (like the Bajorans) to a group of armed civilians. We don't even know exactly what the Federation's laws on private ownership of weapons is. The only armed civilian I remember seeing was Guinan, who had a non-Federation issue rifle behind her bar.

I'm not sure Earth would need a militia, given its very low crime rate. But, I would think that they would be commonplace on human colonies.
 
In general, what constitutes a militia can vary. It might be anything from a full blown military (like the Bajorans) to a group of armed civilians. We don't even know exactly what the Federation's laws on private ownership of weapons is. The only armed civilian I remember seeing was Guinan, who had a non-Federation issue rifle behind her bar.
Considering Guinan who lives within the UFP borders and on UFP Property owns a personal weapon, it's safe to say that private ownership is allowed.

Same with Retired Admiral Picard at his Chateau.

I'm not sure Earth would need a militia, given its very low crime rate. But, I would think that they would be commonplace on human colonies.
Depends on what part of Earth, some of the more rural areas might have it.

The more Urban and Suburban areas might not.
 
Guinan was on a Starfleet vessel at the time and her weapon was wielded in Ten Forward; I think it's very possible she had special dispensation.

Picard was former Starfleet so may have also had special dispensation. At any rate, I'm not sure they're a good baseline for establishing whether the Federation allows for private ownership of weapons by civilians.
 
I dunno, hand phasers.

But Vaporizing Buildings & Cars aren't that destructive in comparison.

Even with hand phasers, in the right hands one can kill a ton of people. See: "The Omega Glory" (Star Trek).

"We drained four of our phasers, and they still came. We killed thousands and they still came."
 
One blast from a Federation phaser set to Level 16 can destroy a good-sized building.

However, it stands to reason that lower powered weapons would exist, and might be available to civilians.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
On a side tangent.
I really dislike the trend in Vertical Video.

It's such a bad idea for long term video preservation.
You lose so much information when you reframe older video into that new Vertical Video format.

Wider Horizontal Video I get; going Vertical to accomadate SmartPhone Ergonomics is just due to inherent human laziness of not wanting to rotate the SmartPhone Camera 90°.
That's just bad & lazy.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top