I’m going with aesthetic reasons. Imagine the man/rabbit in the moon being merely a historic reference. I can see there being some serious pushback on that. It’s something that’s in every single person’s metaphorical backyard.
San Francisco: Never the same twice
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
I’m going with aesthetic reasons. Imagine the man/rabbit in the moon being merely a historic reference. I can see there being some serious pushback on that. It’s something that’s in every single person’s metaphorical backyard.
That's exactly what I was thinking of.
Not to step on the joke with a serious answer..
The tree itself is only identifiable in the shot where the Disco crew is gathered around it. It's obviously the one gigantic one in the middle of the park back by the building that looks like the intake of an airliner jet engine.
In every other shot (including ones from future Disco) the tree isn't there because Starfleet has a little artificial curved dock and lagoon there instead. At some point before dropping Tilly off at the Academy, they filled in the lagoon with a park and transplanted the tree, which like Finn I was going to suggest it's most likely Boothby's prizewinning tree that Picard carved "Picard + A.F." into.
The Atlantis Project probably should have been visible in some shots of Earth in the TNG films (though FC covers the location with the Borg temporal vortex even before transitioning to the past), DS9, VOY, & DSC.
So either Picard's buddy Loius didn't get the funding he needed without also getting Picard to sign on to lead the Atlantis Project, or Earth and the Moon use mass holographic cloaks (probably tied to the weather modification net) to screen out geographical features, starbases, etc. that weren't part of the original landscape and near Earth orbit in order to keep things looking pristine on fly-in.
There's a not good show called Moonhaven on A&E that has an atmosphere generated by towers in one of lunar maria (see attachment below) which might be what Lake Armstrong looks like (until it's holo-cloaked on certain days), because Riker seemed to imply a little more then a dome covering water.
Floating (in the air) cities never made much sense to me except in the case of novelty/tourist areas and temporary resource extraction in places with treacherous surfaces. But why would one set up your civilation around a situation where if you lose power, you all die (or a lot doo[)? If you're powerful enough to build that you have to be super-powerful, so why not just move? Or superparanoid and unwilling to move.
Underground and island cities, absolutely. Lots of them.
Not everyone finds urban environments oppressive or unpleasant. And large urban areas are actually better for the environment than suburban environments or small towns.
My turn to be pedanticthat's "chief in command", not "commander in chief". There is a difference.
The President of the Federation is the actual Commander in Chief of all the Federation's military. I can't see any reason why they wouldn't be. Not the actual top ranked Admiral in Starfleet - that's the "chief in command" you just mentioned. But the specific phrase "Commander in Chief" is always the President.
Well, okay. So, to start with:
Admiral "Bill" in TUC (who is named William Smillie in the novelization, so let's just use that for convenience) is referred to as "the C-in-C." From context, this almost certainly means, "commander-in-chief." The Starfleet Commander-in-Chief appears to be the single officer in command of the entire Federation Starfleet. However, by the same token, we clearly see Fleet Admiral Smillie take orders from the Federation President (who is named Ra-ghoratreii in the novelization and later novels) in TUC.
The new Paramount+ era shows have been consistent with this. In 2259, Admiral Robert April appeals to the Starfleet C-in-C to get authorization to learn about the classified events of DIS S2 ("Strange New Worlds" [SNW]). In 2399, Fleet Admiral Kirsten Clancy is explicitly established to be the Starfleet Commander-in-Chief; she butts heads with Picard before realizing he was correct and sending a fleet to rescue him and the Coppelius Androids from the Zhat Vash ("Maps and Legends," "Broken Pieces" [PIC]). And in 3189-3190, the position of Starfleet Commander-in-Chief still exists. Fleet Admiral Charles Vance serves as C-in-C, and in 3190 he takes orders from newly-inaugurated Federation President Laira Rillak ("Die Trying," "That Hope Is You, Part II," "Kobayashi Maru," "All In," "The Galactic Barrier," et al [DIS]). This is, again, consistent with Fleet Admiral Smillie being C-in-C of Starfleet but still taking orders from President Ra-ghoratreii in TUC.
In "Homefront" (DS9), Federation President Jaresh-Inyo refers to himself as "his [Vice Admiral Leyton's] commander-in-chief." (Incidentally, Leyton acts like the commanding officer of the entire Starfleet even though he's only a Vice Admiral.) This line establishes the Federation President's command authority over Starfleet -- command authority already seen in TUC and in TVH.
In a moment, I'm going to explain why there is no conflict between the President being the commander-in-chief and the commanding officer of Starfleet having the title of commander-in-chief.
Well, if you want to get really pedantic, it wouldn't technically be a military dictatorship if the head of state weren't commander-in-chief (or supreme commander, or whatever term you want to call it) of the armed forces just so long as those armed forces don't actually overthrow the democratically-elected government. Like, if the supreme commander of the armed forces were the head of the army and he just always did what the head of state politely asked him to do, then I guess it's not a dictatorship.
But yeah, a military that is not subordinate to the civilian government is inherently a threat to democracy and civil rights and liberties.Just getting into some weird other scenarios: There are situations where the commander-in-chief is something other than the head of state though. In Germany, the Federal Minister for Defense normally holds supreme command authority over the Bundeswehr during peacetime, but the Federal Chancellor assumes supreme command authority if the Bundestag declares a state of defense. So the Federal President has no military command authority whatsoever -- it's always endowed on someone who is directly answerable to the Bundestag.
Meanwhile, in the Westminster system, the Monarch (or the Governor-General representing the Monarch) is the legal commander-in-chief, but that authority can only be exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister, making, of course, the P.M. the de facto if not the de jure supreme military commander. But the officers still all swear oaths of loyalty to the Monarch, not the Prime Minister!
In the State of Israel, the cabinet as a body is considered to collectively hold supreme command authority over the armed forces. In the State of Japan, the Prime Minister is commander-in-chief of the Self-Defense Forces. In the Netherlands, supreme authority over the armed forces is held by "the Government," which consists of the Monarch and the Cabinet but only the Cabinet are actually allowed to make decisions.
And this one is interesting: In Switzerland, the Federal Council consists of seven members of the Federal Assembly who collectively serve as head of state and head of government. (The President of the Swiss Confederation is merely the presiding officer of the Federal Council, and they serve rotating one-year terms.) Normally the Federal Council collectively serves as commander-in-chief -- but, in times of war, the Federal Assembly elects a General, who serves as commander-in-chief but still must answer to the Federal Council.
I really don't like that idea. It's still very anti-democratic.
Yep!
And in fact, the U.S. also until recently referred to the commanding officers of its Unified Combatant Commands as "commanders-in-chief." So the head of United States European Command was called the Commander-in-Chief of United States European Command, the head of U.S. Central Command was called Commander-in-Chief of United States Central Command, etc. During the Bush administration, they re-titled those positions as "combatant commander" so as to reserve the phrase "commander-in-chief" for the President for propaganda purposes. But there was never a conflict between the titles -- the U.S. President was commander-in-chief of all armed forces, and the combatant commanders were commanders-in-chief of their particular UCCs.
That's why there is no conflict between the Federation President being the commander-in-chief and the commanding officer of Starfleet being titled as commander-in-chief. The President is just probably the commander-in-chief of all Federation armed forces (including, presumably, the Federation Naval Patrol), whereas the Starfleet C-in-C is only C-in-C of that particular organization.
Creators projecting their ideas of what a "better future" means onto Star Trek without necessarily doing a lot of research on other ideas of progress is pretty much how Star Trek has always been made.
The only two clues we've ever gotten to 23rd/24th/25th Century Earth's population in the canon are:
- In Star Trek: First Contact, the Borg-assimilated Earth of the alternate timeline we briefly glimpse has a population of nine billion drones
- In Star Trek (2009), Vulcan has a population of approximately 6 billion people when it is destroyed by the Narada in the Kelvin Timeline
Because civilian control over the military is essential for maintaining democratic governance. If an armed force can operate without answering to the democratically-elected civilian government, it inherently poses a threat to democratic rule. History has demonstrated this time and again. Just ask the ancient Romans.
Which I suppose brings us back to the age-old question of is Starfleet military...
"Starfleet is not a military organisation." Jean-Luc Picard, TNG: "Peak Performance"
"Gene Roddenberry was very adamant that the Starfleet was not a military or a militaristic operation." Nicholas Meyer, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country special edition audio commentary
"The Federation, sir. Starfleet. we're not a military agency." Montgomery Scott, Star Trek: Beyond
Edited for spelling.
Last edited:
“I’m a soldier, not a diplomat.”
- Kirk, “Errand of Mercy”
- Kirk, “Errand of Mercy”
From THE STAR TREK GUIDE (Star Trek Writers/Directors Guide), third revision, April 17, 1967, page 27:
Is the starship U.S.S. Enterprise a military vessel?
Yes [....]
Yes [....]
Angels and ministers of grace*, defend us. Not again.
*(And here I'm thinking along the lines of @Locutus of Bored )
*(And here I'm thinking along the lines of @Locutus of Bored )
Last edited:
The latest go-round (and one of the better ones IMHO): https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/is-starfleet-military.312882/ (It's not that old. People might still be able to add to it.)
"Because civilian control over the organization that fights all the wars and has armed ships and personnel is essential for maintaining democratic governance. If an armed force (hey, I didn't have to change anything here) can operate without answering to the democratically-elected civilian government, it inherently poses a threat to democratic rule. History has demonstrated this time and again. Just ask the ancient Romans."
Whatever Starfleet is, Admiral Leyton's actions in Homefront and Paradise Lost are bad.
"Because civilian control over the organization that fights all the wars and has armed ships and personnel is essential for maintaining democratic governance. If an armed force (hey, I didn't have to change anything here) can operate without answering to the democratically-elected civilian government, it inherently poses a threat to democratic rule. History has demonstrated this time and again. Just ask the ancient Romans."
Whatever Starfleet is, Admiral Leyton's actions in Homefront and Paradise Lost are bad.
Yep. Setting aside the question of whether Starfleet is a military (it is) -- it is undoubtedly an armed organization capable of state-level violence, and therefore has the same physical capacity to overthrow the civilian government as any military, and therefore needs to be subject to civilian governmental control as much as any military. Which means Starfleet needs to be under the command of the Federation government or else it's anti-democratic.
In honour of my own Latin teacher, who was known affectionately to his students as "Scrumpy":
Scrumpibus sitibus on the deskiorum
Deskibus collapsibus, Scrumpy on the floorum
In domini patrium spiritus morbidum dio madre. Omni Gallia divisa est in tres partes. Corpus delecti. Quid pro quo. Veni, vidi, vici. Nolo contendere. Habeas corpus. Rick Dureus. Ipso facto. Pro forma. Pari passeu. Hic, hike, hoc. Huius, huius, huius. E pluribus unum. Ouriyay oingay ootay etgay iedfray inthe airchay. Tempus fugit. Caveat emptor. Coitus interruptus. Mitzi Gaynor ad nauseam. Amen.
This whole thing about whether or not "Starfleet" is "military" stems from GR's mental gymnastics, based on his ever-changing personal philosophy (including "sexual liberation"), as reflected by the changing times (from the 1960s thru 1970s). If there is to be a designation for Starfleet, I'd go with what Movie Pike had described it: Starfleet is "peacekeeping space armada" (since it is "in continuity"). Other than that, maybe use the term "Peacekeepers", in honor of the UN?
Pike said "The Federation" was "a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada".
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/is-starfleet-military.312882/ Well under a year old.
And? It keeps coming up. Provides the same answers.
