Ok, just to be clear, was it implied that literal orgies were happening in "Naked Now" or am I being malicious?!?

[Christopher]

Yes, but their families don't physically go on missions with them, they don't ride in tanks and planes with them.

The intent was that the saucer section would be left behind somewhere safe before the battle section went into combat, as we saw in "The Arsenal of Freedom." (This was later ignored because of the difficulty of working with the 6-foot Enterprise miniature, the only one that could separate.) And it's not as if frontier towns or forts never came under attack. It's not as if cities are never hit by storms or wildfires or earthquakes. There's no place where people's safety is absolutely guaranteed. (I for one have never understood how people are willing to risk having homes and families in a city like San Francisco that's right on top of an active earthquake fault. Having families aboard a starship hardly seems any more dangerous than that.)

What would you think of a mercenary who, say, takes his 8-year-old son into the jungle to fight rebels because otherwise he'd "feel alone"?

That's a straw man. Starfleet crews don't bring their children down on away missions to dangerous planets. They leave them on the ship surrounded by state-of-the-art shields and weapons.

 

[CoveTom]

Yes, but their families don't physically go on missions with them, they don't ride in tanks and planes with them.

It's one thing to go and live in a house near a military base, but it's another to go and face an enemy who's shooting at you.

Honestly, who made the decision for children? I'm a little perplexed by the ethics of this. Of course, parents make decisions, but in this case, they're deciding about the fate of other human beings.

What would you think of a mercenary who, say, takes his 8-year-old son into the jungle to fight rebels because otherwise he'd "feel alone"?

In this case, the combat vehicle *is* the military base. They are one and the same. So you are left with either putting families at risk because a starship could go into combat or separating families for many years at a time while ships are off on long-term missions.

As for who made the decision for the children, presumably the parents, who are entrusted with making most all decisions for their children. No one is forced to enlist in Starfleet and, as we have seen, anyone can resign from Starfleet at any time. Even an android. So it is the families themselves, and no one else, who are making these decisions.

 

[Christopher]

In this case, the combat vehicle *is* the military base. They are one and the same.

Again, the whole point of saucer separation was that they weren't supposed to be. The "base" was just being carried around on top of the combat vehicle and would be left behind when combat was needed. The later producers just ignored that intention.

Although a Galaxy-class saucer is less of a military base and more of a university village, since the Galaxy class was meant to be a research vessel that only engaged in combat when all else failed, making military analogies inappropriate.

 

[Oddish]

Although a Galaxy-class saucer is less of a military base and more of a university village, since the Galaxy class was meant to be a research vessel that only engaged in combat when all else failed, making military analogies inappropriate.

That seems about right. Despite the show's intro, the Enterprise D seemed to do more diplomatic, scientific, and courier work than exploration. And it had saucer separation. So having children on it was questionable, nothing more. Putting a kid on a deep space exploration ship like Voyager would have been less defensible.