I think there needs to be more planetary defenses for Earth with an outer defense perimeter around the orbit of Pluto, and an inner defense perimeter around the orbit of Mars, ideally thise defense system will be composed of ummanned drones that can fire photon and quantum torpodoes, as well as phasers for smaller targets, also starbases need to be heavily armed, and Spacedock also needs to be armed to protect it from attack, regarding the need for a standing armyu, I think this is needed in order to give a more robust ground capability for Starfleet personel, say armored vehicles armed with phasers or matter/antimatter artillery shells, and tube artillery that fires matter/antimatter artillery shells, also APCs are needed, this will give Starfleet a more formidable ground attack capability if they need it, and may be needed against a faction that has armored assets, against which light infantry armed with only phasers will be at a very big disadvantage, also, Starfleet personel need to be equipped with some sort of body armor to guard against phaser blasts on a low setting, or glancing blows from phasers. WHen I am talking about a standing army, I am thnking more along the line of a Galactic Empire style standing army, with about 800000 men, although it would use caterpillar tracks instead of feet for its armored assets.
Planetary Defenses and a Standing Army for Starfleet
- Thread starter ren0312
- Start date
I've thought the same thing, kind of a shell within a shell with respect to the orbiting defense perimeters. However, the current level of threat doesn't warrant being on a permanent wartime footing, sinking what would be really enormous resources into armored war ships and such a large standing army. Diplomacy yields better results, for the most part. Besides, none of that armor ever protected a Storm Trooper from a good blaster.
The Force is with us.
The Force is with us.
Star Trek is a happy peaceful hippy show. Picard gives a five minute speech and disputes that have caused centuries of bloodshed are settled on the spot.
Even if armor won't stop a phaser or disrupter blast, you get those dumbass crazy Klingons with their knives and stabbing weapons or things like the Dominion bayonette. Star Trek guys also don't carry any sort of Environmental survival gear. They've never even heard of a canteen or breathing mask.
Even if armor won't stop a phaser or disrupter blast, you get those dumbass crazy Klingons with their knives and stabbing weapons or things like the Dominion bayonette. Star Trek guys also don't carry any sort of Environmental survival gear. They've never even heard of a canteen or breathing mask.
I see little use for the rather primitive technologies described by the OP - or then little evidence of their absence.
Obviously Earth and other Trek planets have fortifications of some sort, explicitly mentioned whenever assorted supervillains like the V'Ger or the Whale Probe or the Borg come barging in. It just happens that such supervillains tend to be immune to those defenses, quite regardless of their firepower: they simply shut down all resistance with the flip of a switch! Which means we don't see these systems in action.
We do see what they can do in DS9 "Tears of the Prophets". A thousand starships would face stiff resistance from such a defense. However, we also see that the systems are at their very best when they closely hug what they protect. There's no point in creating a "perimeter" in empty space when the same defenses can be more efficiently used to defend the actual targets - the planets. For example, we are told that Jupiter and Mars have their own defenses in "Best of Both Worlds". The Borg apparently deliberately engage the defenses of each planet at close range on their way to Earth, to clear the path and/or to assimilate as much tactical knowledge as they can before going against the main target.
As for ground forces, we don't know what they would or wouldn't have, because we only follow our naval heroes in action. But we do hear that ground forces have personal forcefields available ("Paradise Lost"), and those may have something to do with how Burke in "Nor the Battle to the Strong" survived a disruptor blast, at least for a while. However, it doesn't appear technologically possible to actually protect individual people against accurate or sustained disruptor or phaser fire in the 24th century: the ability of the Borg to do so comes as a rude surprise to our heroes in "Q Who?".
The same is true today as regards small arms fire, so the doctrines employed could be similar. This would mean the use of armored vehicles. But Starfleet already has those: usually, they are called shuttlecraft. There is no good reason in the 24th century to build "tanks" that are unable to fly. Special combat shuttles might look a bit different from the ones used aboard starships, and might be designated differently (and might lack a couple of nice-to-have features such as impulse or warp drive), but the essentials would still be the same.
As regards large standing (or sitting) armies, why bother? The Federation could probably raise an infantry of a billion men, women and assorted others in a matter of months. An army wielding swords or longbows needs to be extensively trained, for years if not decades at an end; an army wielding assault rifles can be sent to the fronts with just a few weeks of training. An army equipped with hand phasers would really only need a quick briefing and an arousing speech before being deployed.
As for survival gear, that would be a matter of doctrine, and dependent on technology. The most efficient trooper in the 24th century might be one that carries nothing but his phaser, relying on timely resupply via transporters for his daily needs. A soldier lugging things like food, lodgings and medicine with him might be woefully disadvantaged in comparison, and an army sticking with 20th century infantry fighting doctrines could lose to a numerically inferior enemy that boldly abandons such hindrances as camouflage, armor and individual self-sustenance.
Difficult to tell, really - because, as said, we have never quite seen Trek ground combat, except for a few impromptu scuffles by naval personnel.
Timo Saloniemi
Obviously Earth and other Trek planets have fortifications of some sort, explicitly mentioned whenever assorted supervillains like the V'Ger or the Whale Probe or the Borg come barging in. It just happens that such supervillains tend to be immune to those defenses, quite regardless of their firepower: they simply shut down all resistance with the flip of a switch! Which means we don't see these systems in action.
We do see what they can do in DS9 "Tears of the Prophets". A thousand starships would face stiff resistance from such a defense. However, we also see that the systems are at their very best when they closely hug what they protect. There's no point in creating a "perimeter" in empty space when the same defenses can be more efficiently used to defend the actual targets - the planets. For example, we are told that Jupiter and Mars have their own defenses in "Best of Both Worlds". The Borg apparently deliberately engage the defenses of each planet at close range on their way to Earth, to clear the path and/or to assimilate as much tactical knowledge as they can before going against the main target.
As for ground forces, we don't know what they would or wouldn't have, because we only follow our naval heroes in action. But we do hear that ground forces have personal forcefields available ("Paradise Lost"), and those may have something to do with how Burke in "Nor the Battle to the Strong" survived a disruptor blast, at least for a while. However, it doesn't appear technologically possible to actually protect individual people against accurate or sustained disruptor or phaser fire in the 24th century: the ability of the Borg to do so comes as a rude surprise to our heroes in "Q Who?".
The same is true today as regards small arms fire, so the doctrines employed could be similar. This would mean the use of armored vehicles. But Starfleet already has those: usually, they are called shuttlecraft. There is no good reason in the 24th century to build "tanks" that are unable to fly. Special combat shuttles might look a bit different from the ones used aboard starships, and might be designated differently (and might lack a couple of nice-to-have features such as impulse or warp drive), but the essentials would still be the same.
As regards large standing (or sitting) armies, why bother? The Federation could probably raise an infantry of a billion men, women and assorted others in a matter of months. An army wielding swords or longbows needs to be extensively trained, for years if not decades at an end; an army wielding assault rifles can be sent to the fronts with just a few weeks of training. An army equipped with hand phasers would really only need a quick briefing and an arousing speech before being deployed.
As for survival gear, that would be a matter of doctrine, and dependent on technology. The most efficient trooper in the 24th century might be one that carries nothing but his phaser, relying on timely resupply via transporters for his daily needs. A soldier lugging things like food, lodgings and medicine with him might be woefully disadvantaged in comparison, and an army sticking with 20th century infantry fighting doctrines could lose to a numerically inferior enemy that boldly abandons such hindrances as camouflage, armor and individual self-sustenance.
Difficult to tell, really - because, as said, we have never quite seen Trek ground combat, except for a few impromptu scuffles by naval personnel.
Timo Saloniemi
Judging by the several threads the OP has authored, it looks like he's trying to remove Trek from its context and squeeze it into some strange conception he has.
That was the privilege of writers as TOS proceeded from episode to episode, or when Trek hopped from the TV screen to the silver one, or transformed into TNG, or DS9. Who's to say some future look into the Trek universe wouldn't make it useful to "accept" the concepts postulated by the OP? There could be dramatic worth there, even if it requires reinterpreting some of the original ideas and intentions.
Still, I hope that when/if Trek next breaks new ground (perhaps in this TOS rehash movie?), it will be a big departure that considereably expands the fictional universe. Just adding extra militarism to the existing framework is soooo 2000s...
Timo Saloniemi
Still, I hope that when/if Trek next breaks new ground (perhaps in this TOS rehash movie?), it will be a big departure that considereably expands the fictional universe. Just adding extra militarism to the existing framework is soooo 2000s...
Timo Saloniemi
This is part of the reason why I have been secretly hoping for a new Trek series that is based on a planet. For example, a Federation embassy on Cardassia with a small housekeeping/humanitarian aid force.
Needless to say, I don't think this will ever happen any time soon.
Needless to say, I don't think this will ever happen any time soon.
I don't understand. In what way would that lead to more interesting and more entertaining stories?
It wouldn't, it would just make it more like Star Wars. Never underestimate the power of fake military hardware to give a sci-fi geek a stiffy! Why do you think so many fan-designed starships have 342 phaser trips and carry 5000 torpedoes and have five wings of fighter craft?
Incidentally, in Roddenberry's novelization of "Star Trek:The Motion Picture" when Chekov reports (as seen in the movie) that all of Earths defenses have gone down GR has Kirk thinking that with Earths "forcefield protection, massive lunar firepower, and the sheer weight of Earth itself........."
So obviously even GR intended that Earth have a planetary forefield and that the moon have bases on it with "massive firepower".
I've heard one theory that the people of Earth will not allow Starfleet to emplace heavy weapons on or near Earth because of the fear that some future faction on Earth might seize weapons and use them against the remainder of the planet.
So obviously even GR intended that Earth have a planetary forefield and that the moon have bases on it with "massive firepower".
I've heard one theory that the people of Earth will not allow Starfleet to emplace heavy weapons on or near Earth because of the fear that some future faction on Earth might seize weapons and use them against the remainder of the planet.
Why bother creating a defence perimeter at Pluto (or ANY planet other than the actual target) when an attacker could just as easily attack on a different plane and completely circumvent any such defensive line?
Space is three dimensional.
Why waste resources on ground troops that could be incinerated from orbit by far more mobile starships?
Space is three dimensional.
Why waste resources on ground troops that could be incinerated from orbit by far more mobile starships?
I think Timo Saloniemi's point speaks to that, namely, that the best defense would be at and around the point of attack, Earth.
I would like early warning of an attack from as far away as possible, at Pluto, e.g., might give you many minutes, depending on the speed of the craft. Launching ships from the moon, using fixed weapons like the verteron array seen in Terra Prime, on Mars to attack from distance would also give Earth defense forces a chance to get up to speed.
Weapons like the verteron array, that could fire great distances would be very desirable, but are they practical? If it had existed in TNG, would it have had a chance to stop the Borg? It seemed more powerful that any space based weapon we've seen so far.
the verteron array wasn't a weapon, it was a tool for diverting comets to aid in terraforming Mars that was abused as a weapon.
Woah dude, have you ever heard of a full stop!
They have these defenses anyhow, there are many mentions of planetary defenses in Trek, with the Earth particularly well protected. When the Breen attack Earth in DS9 for example almost their entire force is wiped out.
There is no evidence that they are not - logically they can protect themselves.
It seems that although they are blended into the rest of the fleet Starfleet's security teams are "marines" of a sort, and the doubtless have heavy weaponry to use in ground conflicts. However Starfleet probably deliberately avoids such conflicts because of the casualties.
In a DS9 episode they have something like this they refer to as "Hoppers".
We see them wearing it in DS9.
Why would Starfleet need an 800,000 man army? Doubtless there are ten times that number of security oficers in Starfleet at the very least by DS9 figures.
Starfleet does not NEED to have a huge costly standing militia when they don't often fight prolonged ground campaigns. I doubt anyone in Trek would, it would be silly once you have space superiority you have won. The ground war would last only as long as space was in dispute - like in "Siege Of AR-558".
I definitely don't hold to the idea that Starfleet could just take any starship crewmembers and call them ground troops. Things just don't work that way. It'd be like taking a security guard at Wal-Mart and sending him to the front lines in Iraq.
I realize we have very little canon information one way or the other, but I gotta go with the presence of Colonel West in ST VI. (And don't anyone even TRY to tell me that was part of his name, as opposed to his rank. Occam's Razor, anyone?) I can only conclude that Starfleet does have a division dedicated to ground combat. What this division is *called*, I have no idea. I prefer to call it the Starfleet Marine Corps because it just makes sense. Starfleet is a navy; navies don't have ground troops; the closest thing thereof would of course be MARINES.
As to what these Marines would do during peacetime? Just ask any real-world Marine. There's gotta be hundreds of things they can do. Disaster relief missions, for example.
I realize we have very little canon information one way or the other, but I gotta go with the presence of Colonel West in ST VI. (And don't anyone even TRY to tell me that was part of his name, as opposed to his rank. Occam's Razor, anyone?) I can only conclude that Starfleet does have a division dedicated to ground combat. What this division is *called*, I have no idea. I prefer to call it the Starfleet Marine Corps because it just makes sense. Starfleet is a navy; navies don't have ground troops; the closest thing thereof would of course be MARINES.
As to what these Marines would do during peacetime? Just ask any real-world Marine. There's gotta be hundreds of things they can do. Disaster relief missions, for example.
No it wouldn't - there is a lot of on-screen evidence that Starfleet Security are highly trained troops, much feared by their adversaries. There is absolutely no reason why they could not act as marines (in fact your suggestion is bluddy silly - every US marine is trained as a rifleman) and they probably do.
We do have evidence for troop transports from DS9, so I'm not saying that Starfleet does not have troops directly assigned to ground fighting in times of war, but there is no evidence for a seperate army. Every soldier we have seen on Trek claimed to be a member of Starfleet.
I think you need to re-think your straw man policy - taking a wal-mart security guard (hello, I failed the police exam) and comparing them to a force we have plenty of on-screen evidence for being very highly trained and skilled soldiers.
He was obviously supposed to carry the rank of Colonel, no argument there, ironically quite a junior rank to have the President's ear!
Marines ARE the ground troops of a Navy, that is EXACTLY what Marines have always been. The US Marine Corps is so big and powerful that it is basically considered a second army BUT they are the ground troops of the US Navy.
In the ENT era we had the MACOs, in TUC we have a Colonel who is presumably a Colonel of Marines but by TNG we have very little, and the evidence suggests more strongly that the marines are cross-trained so they can serve on Starships as ship security.
Actually in peace time most soldiers do precisely bugger all of constructive use. They do a lot of training and exercises but fortunately disaster relief missions are as rare as wars. That is why they reduce drastically the size of armed forces in peace time, there is far less for them to do.
However we have never seen any of these marines aboard a Starship, at least not in the TNG era - whatever you may say about the movie era by TNG the marines seem to have been totally folded into the rest of the fleet. They may have unfolded again by DS9, but when we see a major ground battle it is being fought by Starfleet officers with naval ranks in the "Siege Of AR-558".
I've also thought there was something screwy about how Star Trek focuses on the "navy" when the geography of the Milky Way is far more akin to a planet with unimaginably vast oceans that are worthless in and of themselves, punctuated by tiny, widely scatttered islands where everyone lives and that everyone fights over because they are the only thing of value.
On a planet like that, the islands would be heavily fortified and the oceans largely empty. You'd still want battleships, but they would patrol close to the islands.
The only exception would be bottlenecks like the DS9 wormhole - there's no good ocean analogy for that, but that area would also be highly fortified. The DS9 minefield was an example of that.
But to depict that kind of warfare simply wouldn't be Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry based TOS on his experience in the NAVY. So this is just another one of those things we have to accept, along with the odd lack of robots used for warfare.
Maybe we need something that isn't called Star Trek, that is set in a new cosmos, that depicts battles fought largely around and on planets, space stations etc, and largely with robots (while somehow addressing the problem that "nobody cares if a robot dies" without dragging out the whole Cylon thing, since if you're going to do that, just stick with humans.)
On a planet like that, the islands would be heavily fortified and the oceans largely empty. You'd still want battleships, but they would patrol close to the islands.
The only exception would be bottlenecks like the DS9 wormhole - there's no good ocean analogy for that, but that area would also be highly fortified. The DS9 minefield was an example of that.
But to depict that kind of warfare simply wouldn't be Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry based TOS on his experience in the NAVY. So this is just another one of those things we have to accept, along with the odd lack of robots used for warfare.
Maybe we need something that isn't called Star Trek, that is set in a new cosmos, that depicts battles fought largely around and on planets, space stations etc, and largely with robots (while somehow addressing the problem that "nobody cares if a robot dies" without dragging out the whole Cylon thing, since if you're going to do that, just stick with humans.)
AFAIK, Gene served in the Air Force, not the Navy.
As for why Starfleet is organized like the Navy: I don't think it's got much to do with actual water, but rather that a Navy-style rank system and organization is simply the most efficient to use. Starfleet is a fleet of ships, after all.
Look, this isn't rocket science.
And that's the point.
Rodenberry translated the Napoleonic navies to space. That's all. And modeled shipboard life on WWII.
Why do people (including Bermaga) have so much trouble grasping that?
And that's the point.
Rodenberry translated the Napoleonic navies to space. That's all. And modeled shipboard life on WWII.
Why do people (including Bermaga) have so much trouble grasping that?
Similar threads
