Scotty and his military comment

[Belz...]

Argument From Ignorance Redux: Not only can you not imagine Starfleet being anything other than a military, you can't imagine any OTHER military organization existing at all.

Sorry but that's not an argument from ignorance. YOUR argument is an argument from ignorance: there is no evidence that this organisation exists, therefore it does. Our argument is that it's your burden of proof to show that it exists.

Otherwise I can posit that the Federation has a clown division. I mean, we never see any clowns in Starfleet, so there has to be a separate clown corps, right ?

They also described Genesis as a "doomsday weapon" and referred to the Federation as "a gang of galactic criminals."

No, they refered to Kirk and his crew that way.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Which means to you, Starfleet is the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, the Military Police, the NSA, the CIA, the FBI and the Coast Guard all rolled into one. Because surely a Federation of planets with a hundred different members and nearly a trillion citizens only has room for ONE organization to do anything ever.

Just one piece of actual evidence of the existence of another military organization? You should be able to come up with one in six-hundred hours of material.

Why would I need to? There's zero evidence that Starfleet is the SOLE government agency in the entire Federation that can handle any one of its mission roles. We don't even know for sure it's their only exploration agency.

You're the one making the POSITIVE claim that Starfleet is the only show in town. You know good and damn well you can't prove a negative.

Face it, in a society of a trillion people, the only time we ever see anyone do anything of a military nature it's connected with Starfleet.

Which is mainly because we've only ever SEEN a couple hundred of those trillion people, and most of them were in Starfleet.

Just a few quick questions: with Worf being a Klingon, wouldn't he actually want to join the Federation's military arm?

No, he'd want to join the KLINGON EMPIRE'S military arm. That was always an option for him, and the Captain of the cruiser in "Heart of Glory" even offered him a job, which he politely turned down.

Worf joined Starfleet because when he was young a Starfleet officer saved his life and raised him as his own. He's here because believes in Starfleet and what it stands for; if he was just looking for a good fight, he would have moved back to Qo'nos at the first chance he got.

Twice, during battles with the Borg (Wolf 359, Sector 001) all we see are Starfleet ships.

And I've said many times that the Federation's standing military probably doesn't HAVE any ships. Considering most wars are fought on the ground anyway, they wouldn't need them either.

 

[Belz...]

And I've said many times that the Federation's standing military probably doesn't HAVE any ships. Considering most wars are fought on the ground anyway, they wouldn't need them either.

Eddie, if you are claiming that ground battles are fought by a different branch of Starfleet or a branch separate from the navy, that's fine by me. It would make sense that infantry was a separate organisation anyway.

But the question here (the topic) is that Starfleet has been involved in ALL of the armed engagements of the Federation in all incarnations of Star Trek, ever, and no other Federation organisation has. In fact, Starfleet predates the Federation.

You'll be hard pressed, under those conditions, to convince anyone that such a separate navy branch exists without providing actual evidence. Not supposition and hand-waving: evidence.

You're the one making the POSITIVE claim that Starfleet is the only show in town.

It's easy to turn burden of proof around with wordplay, isn't it ? Your positive claim is that another such organisation exists. Ours is that it does not.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Argument From Ignorance Redux: Not only can you not imagine Starfleet being anything other than a military, you can't imagine any OTHER military organization existing at all.

Sorry but that's not an argument from ignorance. YOUR argument is an argument from ignorance: there is no evidence that this organisation exists, therefore it does.

You have that backwards. The appeal to ignorance is "I see no evidence for X, therefore there is no X."

Our argument is that it's your burden of proof to show that it exists.

Actually it's YOUR burden of proof to show that the Military Assault Command Organization was disbanded prior to the 23rd century. If you have that evidence, I'm curious to see it: when were the MACOs demobilized and what was done with their personnel and equipment?

They also described Genesis as a "doomsday weapon" and referred to the Federation as "a gang of galactic criminals."

No, they refered to Kirk and his crew that way.

"Admiral Kirk, this is your opponent speaking. Do not lecture me on treaty violations! The Federation -- in creating an ultimate weapon -- has become a gang of galactic criminals! It is not I who will surrender, it is you!"

 

[BillJ]

If there are Federation MACO's, why is it Starfleet holding ground installations?

There is no proof other than six-hundred episodes that Starfleet is the military. If those don't sway you, then nothing will.

 

[KGator]

Nah, NASA isn't the military. It makes use of military expertise, like how a news network might hire a retired general to comment on military matters, but NASA doesn't wage war....

Yes it does. The U.S. space shuttle was specifically designed to be capable of performing spy missions against the Soviet Union, up to and including the interception of Soviet spy satellites, which would necessarily constitute an act of war. NASA also conducted about two dozen shuttle missions in the 1980s on behalf of the U.S. military, the exact nature of which remains classified (mainly the launch and recovery of reconnaissance and ELINT satellites). Those same missions are now being performed by the X-37B -- a NASA design that has since been militarized for the NRO.

You're thinking that Starfleet is effectively the Federation's navy; that analogy falls apart when you realize the Federation literally HAS a Navy, and probably an army and an Air Force too, and that any combination of these are fully capable of fighting small regional wars all on their own. Starfleet as an organization is just one of many, but it's the one whose PRIMARY goal is exploration, not combat.

NASA has historically been at odds with the US Military and only participated with them when there was no other choice (funding issues) or by direct order. NASA also falls outside the Military Chain of Command. Its a civilian agency. The military also has its own space program but its not commented upon and secretive by nature.

When you say the Federation has a Navy . . . do you mean ocean going vessels? Because clearly Starfleet is the Federation's navy in space. And like has clearly been pointed out several times. Any claim that the Federation has a separate space military arm directly conflicts with the obvious fact that Starfleet seems to be fighting all of their space battles.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Eddie, if you are claiming that ground battles are fought by a different branch of Starfleet or a branch separate from the navy, that's fine by me. It would make sense that infantry was a separate organisation anyway.

Pretty much, yes. Except that Starfleet is hardly "the navy", considering the Federation appears to have a LITERAL Navy.

But the question here (the topic) is that Starfleet has been involved in ALL of the armed engagements of the Federation

Now that's an interesting claim there. HAS Starfleet really been involved in ALL armed engagements of the Federation?

Because we know for sure of at least one instance where they did not: the colonists on Delta Rana IV apparently formed up a combat force to take on the Husnok, taking anyone who could even hold a weapon. Starfleet didn't reach that planet until WEEKS later, by which time the Husnok were extinct and Kevin Uxbridge was deep into his crazy post-apocalyptic gardening project.

In fact, Starfleet predates the Federation.

As do the MACOs.
Which is interesting, come to think of it, because Starfleet was DEFINITELY not a military organization in the 22nd century. This means you actually have TWO things to prove:
- The Starfleet BECAME a military organization before the 23rd century
- That the MACOs ceased to exist.

 

[KGator]

I think the bottom line here is that Starfleet seems to be a quasi-mission force for exploration, military action, scientific advancement, law enforcement, diplomacy and internal/external defense all under the same umbrella. Its vitually a coat of many colors.

Military missions seem to be a major component but not necessarily the primary mission of the organization.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If there are Federation MACO's, why is it Starfleet holding ground installations?

Apparently because the MACOs who were supposed to relieve them never showed up. That was, IIRC, the entire premise of the episode: the Starfleet team at AR-558 had been there for months waiting for reinforcements that never came.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

NASA also falls outside the Military Chain of Command. Its a civilian agency. The military also has its own space program but its not commented upon and secretive by nature.

And the Federation may not be all that different in that regard.

When you say the Federation has a Navy . . . do you mean ocean going vessels? Because clearly Starfleet is the Federation's navy in space.

I refer to the Federation Naval Patrol, Tom Paris' original first choice of employment.

And no, Starfleet is not a "space navy" any more than the air force is "flying infantry." Analogies only go so far.

Any claim that the Federation has a separate space military arm directly conflicts with the obvious fact that Starfleet seems to be fighting all of their space battles.

Not all of them.

 

[Belz...]

You have that backwards. The appeal to ignorance is "I see no evidence for X, therefore there is no X."

Actually, Argument from Ignorance works both ways. Read the link.

Actually it's YOUR burden of proof to show that the Military Assault Command Organization was disbanded prior to the 23rd century.

Did you miss the part where I said we were talking about a military organisation, not specifically infantry ? The only thing we can say about MACOs is that we have not seen them outside of ENT. It doesn't change anything about the fact that Starfleet participates in all Federation armed confrontations in the history of Star Trek.

And as far as ground troops go, you might remember Colonel West, from TUC, who was a member of starfleet with an infantry rank. So maybe the MACO were integrated into Starfleet at some point.

"Admiral Kirk, this is your opponent speaking. Do not lecture me on treaty violations! The Federation -- in creating an ultimate weapon -- has become a gang of galactic criminals! It is not I who will surrender, it is you!"

Again, I stand corrected. I was thinking about TVH, but I must have remembered that wrong.

HAS Starfleet really been involved in ALL armed engagements of the Federation?

In the franchise ? Yes.

Because we know for sure of at least one instance where they did not: the colonists on Delta Rana IV apparently formed up a combat force to take on the Husnok, taking anyone who could even hold a weapon. Starfleet didn't reach that planet until WEEKS later, by which time the Husnok were extinct and Kevin Uxbridge was deep into his crazy post-apocalyptic gardening project.

Did you just try to argue that Starfleet didn't participate in all Trek battles because a group of civilians took up arms against an alien invader ?

Which is interesting, come to think of it, because Starfleet was DEFINITELY not a military organization in the 22nd century.

I see no major difference between ENT's Starfleet and that of other shows.

Apparently because the MACOs who were supposed to relieve them never showed up.

Apparently ? Nobody mentions MACO in that episode. Again, you are speculating without evidence.

 

[KGator]

NASA also falls outside the Military Chain of Command. Its a civilian agency. The military also has its own space program but its not commented upon and secretive by nature.

And the Federation may not be all that different in that regard.

When you say the Federation has a Navy . . . do you mean ocean going vessels? Because clearly Starfleet is the Federation's navy in space.

I refer to the Federation Naval Patrol, Tom Paris' original first choice of employment.

And no, Starfleet is not a "space navy" any more than the air force is "flying infantry." Analogies only go so far.

Any claim that the Federation has a separate space military arm directly conflicts with the obvious fact that Starfleet seems to be fighting all of their space battles.

Not all of them.

First of all the Army has flying infantry, they are called Air Assault forces and they utilize helicoptors (Airborne troops are also flying infantry but the planes are flown by Air Force personnel). The only reason the Army is into helicoptors as much as they are is because they are banned from using planes (because the Air Force has that monopoly). When humans start going into space you can expect one of the existing branches will assume that mission and its most likely the Navy who already operates large ships in and under the ocean. You won't see an Army space fleet, a naval space fleet and an Air Force space fleet (well you might at first before the government gets tired of redundant spending and missions and designates one branch to control that arena).

I hardly think the idea that any planet or separate collection of planets having its own internal planetary defense or law enforcement arm is somehow any evidence that there is a separate space navy. The idea that cultures would immediately surrender all military forces to the exclusive control of Starfleet upon entrance to the Federation is a bit of a stretch. Besides, with the Earth seeming to be attacked just about every other movie . . . . Starfleet sure seems inept and anyone relying on them alone to defend a planet (even the human homeworld) would strike me as extreme risktakers.

And was there some evidence that these defense forces were not directly or indirectly under the control of Starfleet??? I could not tell from that clip.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Actually it's YOUR burden of proof to show that the Military Assault Command Organization was disbanded prior to the 23rd century.

Did you miss the part where I said we were talking about a military organisation, not specifically infantry ?

You're claim is that the MACOs are exclusively infantry? Based on what?

The only thing we can say about MACOs is that we have not seen them outside of ENT. It doesn't change anything about the fact that Starfleet participates in all Federation armed confrontations in the history of Star Trek.

And they always did, even when they were EXPLICITLY a nonmilitary organization.

So we have it established in Enterprise that a starship can be sent to take on an entire alien fleet and shoot down their superweapon without itself BEING a military vessel. Why would it be any different a century later?

And as far as ground troops go, you might remember Colonel West, from TUC, who was a member of starfleet with an infantry rank. So maybe the MACO were integrated into Starfleet at some point.

Or Colonel West was the liason officer o the MACOs, which would have interesting implications for what he means when he says "We can go in and rescue the hostages and get out within 24 hours."

Did you just try to argue that Starfleet didn't participate in all Trek battles because a group of civilians took up arms against an alien invader ?

Precisely.

Because Delta Rana IV had no STARFLEET presence. The Civilians did it themselves.

We'd like to think that's a pretty rare occurrence, but we know that colonies and installations get attacked sometimes, we know that civil wars happen, we know that various aliens come out of the woodworks looking for trouble. Not every space station or colony has a Starfleet presence; indeed, it seems to me not even MOST. So who exactly is defending those colonies when Starfleet isn't around?

Or to put that another way: What role, if any, did Starfleet have in the fall of Turkana IV?

I see no major difference between ENT's Starfleet and that of other shows.

Neither do I.

Which is why I wasn't surprised in "Home" when Captain Hernandez tells Archer "I'm not sure how I would feel about a military officer on the bridge."

 

[Crazy Eddie]

First of all the Army has flying infantry, they are called Air Assault forces and they utilize helicoptors (Airborne troops are also flying infantry but the planes are flown by Air Force personnel). The only reason the Army is into helicoptors as much as they are is because they are banned from using planes (because the Air Force has that monopoly). When humans start going into space you can expect one of the existing branches will assume that mission and its most likely the Navy...

You were making sense up to that point, but for historical and technical reasons that is COMPLETELY absurd.

To begin with, humans have ALREADY moved into space, and the Navy ceased its involvement in space operations 50 years ago. All U.S. military operations are now conducted through the Air Force, in much the same way air operations used to be conducted through the Army. If a military organization is to spin off in space, it'll branch off from the Air Force Space Command -- which DOES operate in space -- and not from the Navy, which has no spaceflight capabilities to speak of.

Moreover, the analogy to "airborne infantry" is an apt one: the Air Force doesn't need to develop a hundred-thousand-man infantry unit, because the Army has plenty of troops. The Air Force doesn't need to have attack helicopters or gunships or paratroopers; the Army has all of that, they just need a ride sometimes.

Carry that a little bit further: if it was possible to drop paratroopers from modified research aircraft without compromising survivability, would there be any need to build specialized military hardware for that job? If, furthermore, it was possible to arm those same research aircraft with air-to-air missiles, ELINT systems, ECM and ECCM equipment and have those modified research aircraft match or exceed the performance of air superiority fighters from their next closest rivals, would there be any particular need to build dedicated military hardware?

There's all kinds of reasons why you would need a land army, but if you didn't need a dedicated Air Force, why would you bother building one? Same question for Starfleet: if the exploration fleet can outfight anyone else's military, then why do you NEED a space branch of your military?

And was there some evidence that these defense forces were not directly or indirectly under the control of Starfleet???

Unlikely. Backstage material describes them as very large, unmanned missiles designed to shoot down interlopers entering the system. Under normal circumstances they'd be more than adequate; against the Borg, they're just targets.

If they'd been with Starfleet, they would have been, you know, STARSHIPS.

 

[Belz...]

You're claim is that the MACOs are exclusively infantry? Based on what?

You're right, I don't know that. But since we've only seen them as enforcers on ENT, we can't draw much conclusion from that, can we ? As I said, we never see them again, so they don't show up for the Dominion war, for instance.

And they always did, even when they were EXPLICITLY a nonmilitary organization.

I'll let you try to reconcile that, Eddie. They fight all of the Federation's battles in space but they are not military. Sure.

Or Colonel West was the liason officer o the MACOs, which would have interesting implications for what he means when he says "We can go in and rescue the hostages and get out within 24 hours."

It's a possibility, yes. However, I remind you no one was at that meeting but Starfleet officers. And the Romulan ambassador, for some reason. So what does that "we" stand for, then ?

Did you just try to argue that Starfleet didn't participate in all Trek battles because a group of civilians took up arms against an alien invader ?

Precisely.

Sorry but that's silly. So in order for Starfleet to participate in every engagement in Trek history, no single civilian must ever pick up a weapon ? This is an extremely weak argument.

I see no major difference between ENT's Starfleet and that of other shows.

Neither do I.

Well, that's that, then.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And they always did, even when they were EXPLICITLY a nonmilitary organization.

I'll let you try to reconcile that, Eddie. They fight all of the Federation's battles in space but they are not military. Sure.

Sure. What's so strange about that?

It's a possibility, yes. However, I remind you no one was at that meeting but Starfleet officers. And the Romulan ambassador, for some reason. So what does that "we" stand for, then ?

I really do wonder...

Sorry but that's silly. So in order for Starfleet to participate in every engagement in Trek history, no single civilian must ever pick up a weapon ?

"The civilians picked up weapons and did the fighting" would be "an engagement in which Starfleet wasn't involved." So yes.

It's obviously counter factual that ONLY Starfleet can fight on the Federation's behalf. The Federation, unlike the United States, has no concept of "lawful combatant" and basically maintains ANYONE can fight in defense of their own territory, and they often do.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I see no major difference between ENT's Starfleet and that of other shows.

Neither do I.

Which is why I wasn't surprised in "Home" when Captain Hernandez tells Archer "I'm not sure how I would feel about a military officer on the bridge."

They are completely different organizations. The one in ENT is the Earth Starfleet; in TOS and further on, it's the Federation Starfleet. They are not the same organization. They have completely different jurisdictions, responsibilities, and organizing charters.

The Earth Starfleet is indeed not a military grouping. The Federation Starfleet is. (The UFP Starfleet is military, it's just not militarISTIC. That's the difference.)

 

[LobsterAfternoon]

Plus, in Siege of AR-558, when the relief crew does show up, aren't they Starfleet, not any here-to-fore unseen organization or MACOs?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ I don't remember what the relief crew looked like in that episode. I don't think we saw them. I do recall that some of those AR-558 people wore a unique brand of uniform, but those were the ones that were already there.

 

[BillJ]

^ I don't remember what the relief crew looked like in that episode. I don't think we saw them. I do recall that some of those AR-558 people wore a unique brand of uniform, but those were the ones that were already there.

If I remember correctly, they did all wear the Starfleet arrowhead communicator.