Planetary Defenses and a Standing Army for Starfleet

[Timo]

...But since the acquisition of more of this Lebensraum via combat costs lives, there would be a balancing act between living on those planets the Federation already possesses, and striving to acquire more. As it became possible to sustain the society with replicators, the "traditional" way might well start to look too costly.

Of course, the UFP wouldn't unilaterally withdraw from all its possessions - at least not at first, although a Voth-like or Borg-like future in deep space probably is in sight in longer term. But Starfleet would not be particularly geared to fight for additional balls of dirt, and there wouldn't be a high threshold for accepting the loss of colonial worlds to enemy invasion. The emphasis could be on preventing the enemy from engaging in ground combat, not in defeating him in that form of combat.

Sure, the Class M planets of Trek are a nice and cheap resource to have. But they are also dime in a dozen, so clinging on to a particular specimen wouldn't be a priority.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[David Mack]

Temis the Vorta said:
The only exception would be bottlenecks like the DS9 wormhole - there's no good ocean analogy for that

Yes, there is. It's the Panama Canal -- a way for ships to get from A to Z without traversing all the points from B to Y.

 

[Dayton3]

There are a vast number of bottlenecks on Earth for sea going commerce.

Properly called "choke points".

Panama Canal, Suez Canal, Straits of Bosphorous and Dardanelles, Strait of Gibralter to name but a few

 

[Mirror_Barclay]

Sci - thanks for the info on the population of DC, I had no idea. That makes your proposal much more palatable. I still can't agree that the capital district is that big a problem. "Forcibly separated" is again overstating things - the city was purpose built in a swamp. Perhaps we're getting a bit far from Trek, but a little Earth politics is fun to discuss as well.

As for the importance of Class M worlds, many are peoples' homes. There's sentimental value there. Far more in the case of Earth.

We've seen that the Federation will disregard the wishes of a few colonists (and that in return those colonists may disregard the wishes of the Federation - thus the Maquis). It's a long step from that to giving up a planet that was home to billions of your citizens, much less a homeworld. The Federation will fight - on the ground if necessary.

I'm still inclined to believe that logic demands a separate planetary combat arm, with Starfleet security/marines responsible for smaller operations such as those we've seen ship and station crew participate in.

 

[Blueicus]

Perhaps the federation should just turn into the Iain Banks-style Culture and be done with it.

 

[Sci]

Mirror_Barclay said:
Sci - thanks for the info on the population of DC, I had no idea. That makes your proposal much more palatable. I still can't agree that the capital district is that big a problem.

No problem -- happy to give the info, and I'm glad you understand more of my concern. But... You don't think that the fact that more than half a million American citizens don't have a voice in Congress is a big problem? I mean, we're supposed to be a constitutional liberal autocracy with equality before the law; the denial of equal representation in the legislature to DC residents is a flagrant violation of that principle. I don't see how the fact that an entire community has no representation in their nation's legislature isn't a big deal.

"Forcibly separated" is again overstating things - the city was purpose built in a swamp.

A swamp that was once part of Maryland.

Perhaps we're getting a bit far from Trek, but a little Earth politics is fun to discuss as well.

 

[3D Master]

timmy84 said:
I'm not to good at using tags, so forgive me on my response, but I'm gonna try to address them in order.

1. I personally disregard mentioned of UESPA in TOS. It was obviously a writers mistake with the show evolving over time to eventually becoming the Federation Starfleet instead.

And who says they have no representation. Earth is the Federation. Starfleet obviously puts its protection at the top of its to do list (with the Admiralty wary about sending forces to take DS9 back, one of the most important strategic points in the region, in fear that Earth would be an easy target. Why would what you say to be a non-member be so important? Because Earth is the example of the Federation).

2. The District of Columbia is only a modern day example since thats what we all go with really. I'm not saying its exactly like DC, but it seems to me while all other worlds are members of a federation, Earth is not. Other then mentions of UESPA, we have nothing else. UESPA doesn't exist in the 24th century? Why would Earth, the leader of exploration in the region in the 22nd century before the founding of the UFP stop exploring, but the Vulcans, who did very little exploring still be doing it itself.

Because UESPA was a writers mistake, and the Earth Starfleet which did explore space still does. But as the Federation Starfleet.

UESPA wasn't a writers' mistake, UESPA was one of the best things of Star Trek.

Star Trek Enterprise, was the writers' mistake, or rather the suits' mistake.

There is no such thing as a United Earth Starfleet. The suits were too afraid that if the new ship wasn't in "starfleet" there wasn't enough recognition and thus people wouldn't be watching. (When in fact, it was the other way around, starfleet meant people ran away and turned it off.)

The concept that in 2161 a treaty was signed, and voila there was the Federation exactly the way it was 2 centuries later, and all internal problems between member species was just gone like that, is idiotic. Hell, we've seen quite some animosity and rivalry remaining between the species, even Starfleet having to protect a new member from member species in "Journey to Babel." Or you going to tell us that that entire episode was a "writers' mistake" as well?

Much easier and more realistic to look upon the formation and evolution of the Federation like the formation and evolution of the United States and European Union. In the beginning, it wasn't more than a loose military alliance, with a very tiny, more idealogically-formed Starfleet - the flagships in command of the individual fleets should a war where everyone was needed break out. The individual species fleets remained exactly as before, fully independent from one another and the major armed forces.

Time moved on, and slowly, bit by bit, the members of the Federation would more and more unit, Starfleet would slowly grow, while the individual members fleets would slowly shrink and more and more become part of Starfleet, to the point where you'd have to be trained at a Starfleet Academy to join any space force - most likely run by that very space force - and these space forces could still order Starfleet ships run by their graduates. Somewhere in between S1 and S2 of TOS, this progression would be completed where UESPA and other member's space forces ceased to exist, and there would only be Starfleet, and local defense forces.

 

[Anwar]

"Starfleet" is just a generic term given to space forces, anyone can call their space force "Starfleet".

The one in ENT was the Earth Starfleet, which is a different thing from the Federation Starfleet.

UESPA is right up there with the writers calling the Federation the "Earth Federation" once, just a sign of a partially completed universe.

 

[Nebusj]

Sci said:

Mirror_Barclay said:
"Forcibly separated" is again overstating things - the city was purpose built in a swamp.

A swamp that was once part of Maryland.

And one which already had a thriving city -- Georgetown -- within its boundaries. (Also in a spot convenient for various interests for Mr Washington.) It was only in 1871 that Georgetown was merged into Washington, and it took a while for the Federal City to in the popular consciousness merge into the entire district.

 

[Sci]

Nebusj said:

Sci said:

Mirror_Barclay said:
"Forcibly separated" is again overstating things - the city was purpose built in a swamp.

A swamp that was once part of Maryland.

And one which already had a thriving city -- Georgetown -- within its boundaries. (Also in a spot convenient for various interests for Mr Washington.) It was only in 1871 that Georgetown was merged into Washington, and it took a while for the Federal City to in the popular consciousness merge into the entire district.

And excellent point, that!

 

[timmy84]

Alright. I'll admit some of my arguments were flimsy at best. But no one has convinced me otherwise yet either.

Of course, I doubt I'm gonna convince most of you either to my point. I will say that I don't accept books into the universe just cut and paste like. For example, I just forgot the title to the story in the Dominion Wars book that references the UE government, but it also references the US government, which till that point, had always been referenced in the past tense in Star Trek.

Every national government as we know them don't exist in Star Trek. The Russian Federation (or Soviet Union I guess in the original Star Trek) is just Russia. The People's Republic of China is just China. The United States of America isn't even referenced. Its just regions in North America.

Of course this isn't really an argument that the UE doesn't exist. Of course the absence of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Its just the complete lack of reference to it during the entire run (*sigh* other then UESPA, which apparently after leading the way into space for Earth is unable to field its own starship and crew) of post-Federation Star Trek implies to me that it doesn't exist.

Of course something exists. But I don't think its a proper government. Think about it.

What does a utopia need with a government?

With that far from settled, I don't know if I should feel good or ignored that nobody decided to argue with me to the fact that Starfleet Security is the fabled 'Starfleet Marines'.

 

[Sci]

timmy84 said:
Of course, I doubt I'm gonna convince most of you either to my point. I will say that I don't accept books into the universe

Why not? They're all equally fictional.

For example, I just forgot the title to the story in the Dominion Wars book

"Eleven Hours Out."

that references the UE government, but it also references the US government, which till that point, had always been referenced in the past tense in Star Trek.

Actually, there were references to the U.S. and other national governments still existing in some form in any number of older books, including 1988's Spock's World and 1984's Crisis On Centarus.

In any event, canonical references to the US government were always past tense -- but then, the canon never addressed the question of whether or not the US still existed in any form one way or the other. So there was no contradiction there.

Further, the ENT episode "Affliction" did contain a scene where an address for a neighborhood in San Francisco is displayed on a computer panel, and the address's final line says, "CA, USA." Now, I normally take computer screens with a grain of salt -- after all, the giant hamster on a wheel in the Enterprise-D's MSD would be canonical if we accepted everything that every computer screen said -- but this one was clearly visible. So if nothing else, that strongly implies, from a canonical standpoint, that the US still exists as a political division of United Earth.

Every national government as we know them don't exist in Star Trek.

There's no evidence of that. Certainly, there's evidence that they are no longer sovereign states. But in "Attached," when Beverly mentions the last country to join Earth's global government, she doesn't say they ceased to exist -- she just says that they joined it. Looking at history, Vermont and Texas didn't cease to exist when they joined the Union.

Besides, it would be impossible to administer an entire planet with just one governmental body; as a matter of practicality, you'd need the national governments to stay in place. This is consistent with the recent Enterprise novel The Good That Men Do, which refers to United Earth as having a federal system of government rather than a unitary system.

Of course this isn't really an argument that the UE doesn't exist. Of course the absence of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Its just the complete lack of reference to it during the entire run (*sigh* other then UESPA, which apparently after leading the way into space for Earth is unable to field its own starship and crew) of post-Federation Star Trek implies to me that it doesn't exist.

Well, consider this: The Federation President was never referenced, or even hinted at, until 1986's Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Through all of TOS and the first three films, the presidency was never even hinted at. Does that mean that there was no Federation President during TOS? The presidency was after this only mentioned five more times in the canon: In Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, in DS9's "Homefront," "Paradise Lost," and "Extreme Measures," and on a barely-legible computer screen in ENT's "In A Mirror, Darkly, Part II." Does that mean that throughout all of TNG and VOY there was no Federation President?

How often in your every-day life, furthermore, do you, for instance, mention your state's governor? City mayor? Do you talk a lot about the actions of your state or municipal legislature? Probably not often. But that doesn't mean they don't exist, either.

Of course something exists. But I don't think its a proper government. Think about it.

What does a utopia need with a government?

Who runs the schools? Who determines how land is divided up? Who enforces the law? How are natural resources divided up? Who puts out house fires (as per Star Trek Generations)? Who determines where transporters can be installed? How is subspace bandwidth regulated? Who regulates whatever minor commercial enterprises might still be going on (we know a few are from Quark's needing to buy a ticket to DS9 from Earth in "Little Green Men")? Who makes regulates the medical industry? How are the rights and responsibilities of citizens determined? Who figures out whose trash gets picked up first? Who runs the water system? Who runs the power grid? Who rescues cats from trees?

Even in a society that's virtually a utopia, there will always be a need for government, even if only for logistics.

And on top of all that: How can the voice of the people of Earth be represented in the Federation government is United Earth does not exist as a Federation Member State? That would be like abolishing the State of New York; how would New Yorkers' voices be heard in Congress?

With that far from settled, I don't know if I should feel good or ignored that nobody decided to argue with me to the fact that Starfleet Security is the fabled 'Starfleet Marines'.

*shrugs* It's possible. There's no information one way or the other so far as I know.

 

[3D Master]

timmy84 said:
Alright. I'll admit some of my arguments were flimsy at best. But no one has convinced me otherwise yet either.

Of course, I doubt I'm gonna convince most of you either to my point. I will say that I don't accept books into the universe just cut and paste like. For example, I just forgot the title to the story in the Dominion Wars book that references the UE government, but it also references the US government, which till that point, had always been referenced in the past tense in Star Trek.

Every national government as we know them don't exist in Star Trek. The Russian Federation (or Soviet Union I guess in the original Star Trek) is just Russia. The People's Republic of China is just China. The United States of America isn't even referenced. Its just regions in North America.

We call them the same now, does that mean the Chinese and Russian governments don't exist now? Does the fact that the US government exist mean, there are no governors and state government? Does the state government mean there is no mayor and county? No Sheriff?

Of course not. They still exist, but in some places it's the government higher up the chain that calls the shots, and in other places the government higher up the chain has no say. US and UE and UFP is just the same, but a few steps further. US and EU and AU governments still exist (notice the African Union has been referenced on screen!) it's just that there is a governmental body above them.

Its just the complete lack of reference to it during the entire run (*sigh* other then UESPA, which apparently after leading the way into space for Earth is unable to field its own starship and crew) of post-Federation Star Trek implies to me that it doesn't exist.

No, it means that some things that EU used to have control over, it no longer has, and the Federation has jurisdiction there. The same with other member worlds governments.

What does a utopia need with a government?

There is no such thing as a utopia. Earth and many other Federation member worlds' may be as close as you can get to one, but they are not.

 

[FordSVT]

Timo said:
...But since the acquisition of more of this Lebensraum via combat costs lives, there would be a balancing act between living on those planets the Federation already possesses, and striving to acquire more. As it became possible to sustain the society with replicators, the "traditional" way might well start to look too costly.


Timo Saloniemi

I might be mistaken, but it would seem to me that you're making the claim that the Federation gets most or even a large portion of it's "new" land/planets from conquest and warfare. Not bloody likely. As you've said, there are plenty of big, life supporting balls out there to pick from, and if someone already "owns" such a world the Feds simply leave it alone or attempt to negotiate for what they'd like. Heck, if they're too primitive they leave them alone entirely (unless they go rogue like in "Insurrection").

Most or all of the post-TOS planetary battles we've seen have been for strategic reasons during times of war, not just resources and definitely not colonization.

 

[Dayton3]

Actually we have no evidence in Star Trek that Class M "Earth like" worlds are plentiful.

Sure, that is where the episodes take place, but for all we know there are hundreds or thousands of uninhabitable or hostile worlds for every Class M one.

 

[FordSVT]

Dayton3 said:
Actually we have no evidence in Star Trek that Class M "Earth like" worlds are plentiful.

Sure, that is where the episodes take place, but for all we know there are hundreds or thousands of uninhabitable or hostile worlds for every Class M one.

Even if that was the case there would be thousands of m-class planets within several hundred light years of earth. There are a lot of stars out there. Even more worlds would have atmospheres we or our machines could tolerate in order to get resources, so you only need to concern yourself with m-class words for pure colonization. A few hundred planets + moons and artificial habitats would support a Federation population of trillions. There's simply no need and no evidence that the Federation conquers territory for expansion. Plenty of evidence, however, to suggest that would be completely antithetical to the constitution and ideals of the Federation.

Edit: Remember that planet Dr. Soong retired to where Data was summoned? An entire m-class planet and only one resident within easy flying time of Federation worlds. I don't know who owned it (if anyone), but if they're so rare you'd think it would be crawling with settlers and colonies if there was such a drastic need for people space.

 

[Timo]

I might be mistaken, but it would seem to me that you're making the claim that the Federation gets most or even a large portion of it's "new" land/planets from conquest and warfare.

Actually, I'm making the opposite claim: for the reasons I mention, the Feds would claim no new land/planets through conquest and warfare, ever, and would therefore deliberately neglect the art of ground combat.

That latter part is all IMHO, as we haven't seen ground combat onscreen enough to tell whether it is neglected or not. I just argue that the need for the UFP to expand would not be built in their economy, and indeed the government would do little to push the frontiers: it would be the anti-establishment folks who settle these empty new Class M worlds that await there in abundance, as we witness in so many TNG and DS9 episodes.

There are many examples in history about a civilization neglecting a certain branch of arms in favor of having an especially strong branch of some other type, and surviving against dissimilar opponents. It wouldn't be all that unlikely for the Feds to choose not to fight on the ground, or for the Ferengi to choose not to fight in space, or for the Romulans to choose not to fight in person...

Timo Saloniemi