Size and scope of Starfleet

[Timo]

We can probably squirm our way out of the 30,000 figure, derived from the idea that the 1,500 Klingon ships immune to the Breen weapon would be outnumbered twenty to one.

Some of the 20:1 ratio can be outright dismissed as hyperbole (its intent was to dissuade the Klingons from even attempting to confront the enemy), so we may choose to believe in, say, 15:1 instead.

We can further suppose that the Klingons would be outnumbered in the specific tactical situations they were hoping to create: Klingon offensives against Dominion defenses. These situations would not involve the grand totals of the two sides, but the ships specifically participating in the situations. Perhaps Gowron's opponents were suggesting a situation where all Dominion ships would be participating in that defense, even though the likelier situation would be that they'd be out there pressing their advantage?

Also, three Dominion ships took their sweet time destroying a single Federation one in "Jem'Hadar", in a situation where the latter lacked shields. In the fleet battles, there was no such lack of shielding. We might then postulate easily enough that 8,000 UFP plus a couple of thousand Alpha Axis ships would "outnumber" up to 30,000 enemy vessels.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[T'Girl]

Personally, I've always viewed Starfleet as being kind of small (a few thousand ships), with the same being true for the Klingon and Romulan navies.

During Kirk's time I believe this was true.

Tens of thousands of ships, tens of millions of personnel, thousands of starbases, countless manufacturing facilities, 150 member worlds, hundreds of billions of citizens...

One Starfleet Academy, San Francisco, Earth.

Something doesn't add up?

For all we know Star Fleet academy graduates a class of officers every month, a four year academy with over fifty separate groups of cadets. In Star Trek XI, during Kirk's court of inquiry, there were thousands cadets in attendance. That might have been his single group.

Not only is Star Fleet academy located in San Francisco, three centuries from now, the academy may be the city of San Francisco.

http://reboot.trekcaps.net/caps/Star_Trek/ariane179254_StarTrek_7264.jpg

T

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Easily solved, Starfleet Academy isn't the ONLY place where officers come from. (Just like the US Navy doesn't have ALL it's officers graduate at Annapolis). It's just that for spots as prestigious as a 'Top Shelf' starship command, that little spot on the resume helps.

That'd work - but it's still a tad too convenient that we never meet a guy, gal or BEM who'd come from somewhere else. That is, if we know somebody's place of graduation, it appears to be San Francisco.

Is there perhaps a really sharp divide there, so that only nobodies like the people on that (dream-only!) roster in "Eye of the Beholder" graduate outside San Francisco?

Timo Saloniemi

I think the simplest solution is the one I have often proposed: that "Starfleet" is a legal/political entity resulting from Federation law, prohibiting the space forces of individual Federation members from representing their home worlds while operating in interstellar space. Earth Starfleet might be distinguishable only by the fact that they have always operated in DEEP space and have never invested much in planetary defense and near-space operations in the Sol Sector; interplanetary enrollment in the Earth branch of Starfleet might simply reflect their being the best show in town when it comes to exploration, while other fleets--the Andorians, example--usually attract federation members with more colorful backgrounds.

 

[Myasishchev]

As Sela put it, 20 starships isn't enough to WAGE WAR, but it's plenty enough for a solid fleet action. For confirmation, see how many ships were involved in the Obsidian Order/Tal-Shiar attack in the Omarian Nebula; the loss of that fleet amounted to the total destruction of BOTH organizations.

One minor comment: the Obsidian Order was destroyed, but I thought the Tal Shiar as a group survived that fiasco? After all, a couple years later, they commandeered the Prometheus.

What's the deal with that, anyway? I mean, no wonder they lost at the Omarian Nebula--they crewed each of their battleships with a boatload spies and no actual qualified personnel.

I don't recall anyone every directly saying the Tal Shiar couldn't have ships, either.

Anyway, as far as shipbuilding goes, it's important to remember that the Federation is probably a command economy that simply ordinarily happens to have a civilian focus. A Galaxy might take ten years under regular resource constraints, but with energy and material rationing introduced, and conscription or patriotic volunteering of qualified personnel, time might be halved or quartered as a threat looms on the horizon.

Newtype, I don't know if I'm particularly comfortable with the idea of the Federation permitting its political subdivisions to maintain their own militaries... I mean, does anyone want the Stratosians to be able to defend the enforced labor of the Troglytes with their own star fleet? Does anyone want the Tellarites and Andorians to be able to support their own factions on Coridan with orbital bombardment capabilities? Permitting Vulcan to operate a space navy is like allowing Northern Ireland to operate its own nuclear weapons.

I guess it depends on whether the UFP is more like the European Union or the United States. I lean heavily toward the notion that they're more like the US. Er, that is, the US post-1865.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Personally, I've always viewed Starfleet as being kind of small (a few thousand ships), with the same being true for the Klingon and Romulan navies.

During Kirk's time I believe this was true.

I was thinking the number was even smaller (in the hundreds) during Kirk's time myself, but that's just how I envisioned it though...

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Newtype, I don't know if I'm particularly comfortable with the idea of the Federation permitting its political subdivisions to maintain their own militaries... I mean, does anyone want the Stratosians to be able to defend the enforced labor of the Troglytes with their own star fleet?

Wait... what? We're talking about the UNITED FEDERATION OF PLANETS here. If there were any worlds who couldn't be trusted to operate responsibly their own space force, they wouldn't be in the Federation in the first place.

Besides, I thought I made it clear that Federation members aren't allowed to individually represent their own interests outside of their own exclusive economic zone. That might actually be a claus of the Prime Directive; Starfleet ships must adhere to INTERSTELLAR law (defined by the Federation Council) outside of Earth-controlled territory, but they are free to use Earth law when dealing with, say, a lost Earth colony populated by humans. If another starship encountered a lost Andorian colony, they would probably dispatch a ship from the Andorian Royal Air Force to deal with it accordingly.

"Self Determination" is something of a sacrament for the Federation, and I'm not comfortable with the idea that hundreds of alien worlds would all be subordinate to the military/scientific/political domination of one upstart world that hasn't even been in space as long as most of them.

Does anyone want the Tellarites and Andorians to be able to support their own factions on Coridan with orbital bombardment capabilities?

Isn't that EXACTLY what the entire Babel conference was about in TOS?

 

[Myasishchev]

Yeah, the United Federation of Planets. Not the United Coalition of Planets, or the Economic Community of Planets, or the Planetary Alliance Treaty Organization. A federation, not a confederation.

Firstly, permitting federal subunits to possess and organize military force brings in 1)the danger of secession, and 2)the danger that resources meant to be devoted to the common defense by a federal subunit, perhaps developed partly from federal funds, might not be used in the common defense at all. "We Vulcans are a peaceful people, and even though we have a space navy roughly 500 ships in strength, that you partially paid for, using technology you helped create, we have decided not to fight the Romulans, despite the fact that most of the people on Earth have become acid rain."

Secondly, self-determination's great and all, but signing on to the Federation should mean accepting its values--permanently. I can't think of a single secessionary or irredentist struggle that has occurred within the borders of a democracy* that has ever, ever been a good thing. The conflict in Northern Ireland, the Corsican independence movement, the Italian north-south splitters... the sheer ridiculousness of the Flemish and Quebecois... and the secessionist struggle par excellence, a war so ideologically perfect it was not surpassed till World War 2--I speak of course of the war against the Confederate States of America.

*Hence removing the Filipino, Iraqi, Afghan and other insurgencies against the United States from this category.

How good an idea would it have been for South Carolina to have been able to have built its own navy? How good an idea would it be to let us have one now, when that navy would probably have a capacity to achieve mass destruction? I mean, sure, I'd be happy to captain an SSBN against the Union, but that's only because I love boomers.

Self-determination is not at all necessarily good. Self-determination permits local governments to do all kinds of horrible things. Self-determination, in extremis, permits a criminal local government to opt out of the commitments of a binding, constitutional contract, in order to pursue their own way. Like the Stratosians, or the Tellarites, or the Andorians. That's why by the 24th century, at the latest, the Federation had tightened up their system, and to all appearances had actually established a federal system of government, instead of the loose alliance system that might have prevailed until "Journey to Babel." I can accept that the Federation might not have been a true federation by that point--heck, I think I suggested that too at one point--but it shows exactly why the loose alliance is worse in virtually every respect. It's certainly not in the slightest bit the Trek utopia we'd want.

I don't want to live in the UFP if it's okay for someone to, say, stone their wives to death for infidelity, as long as they're from the planet Rajmadorian, and they're sincerely acting from their cultural imperatives and within their local laws. I'm even wary about accepting a UFP that outlaws whatever barbaric practice we want to use as an example, but permits the barbarians to retain significant military force that could be used to defend that barbaric practice in the event the Federation came to enforce its abolition.

I want to live in a Federation, not in a collection of vaguely like-minded, collective-security-conscious, socially-unpleasant aliens.

 

[USS KG5]

Also, three Dominion ships took their sweet time destroying a single Federation one in "Jem'Hadar", in a situation where the latter lacked shields. In the fleet battles, there was no such lack of shielding. We might then postulate easily enough that 8,000 UFP plus a couple of thousand Alpha Axis ships would "outnumber" up to 30,000 enemy vessels.

Timo Saloniemi

Well we can do whatever we like really - the only real "fact" to be derived from the on-screen evidence of DS9 is that starfleet has thousands, as opposed to hundreds, of ships.

Personally I think a figure of about 8,000 in peacetime and anything upto 16,000 at wartime peak might well be about right, your mileage may vary.

 

[BK613]

Seems to me that to determine the size of Starfleet, you need to know at least three things:

What is the definition of "starship?" Are we talking all warp-driven ships in the fleet? Or are we talking combatants only when we use the term? Does the USS Grissom count as a starship?

What is the size of the Federation? That is to say, how many star systems*, star bases, outposts, and other assets need to be defended? And how spread out are those assets? What did Picard mean when he said "across 8000 light years?"

On average, what is the maximum number of assets that a single combatant can effectively defend? Or at the very least. how many combatants does the UFP need, given the assets it has, to provide an effective deterrent against attack?

In addition, though not a requirement for determining the size, if you decide that Starfleet is huge, then what organizational structure could it have that would make it appear smaller to us, the TV audience?


*(A very important aspect of this is, how many systems need to be defended? Consider, as a small estimate, for example, that if the Federation were a "box" of size 100 ly x 100ly x 8000 ly, it would contain 150-300 thousand stars. How many of those are important and do you need to defend them all?)

 

[Timo]

Well, we probably don't have to worry about the exact definition of "starship", because whenever fleet sizes are discussed in onscreen dialogue, our heroes and villains use the more generic word "ship" instead. Still, it seems the Dominion considers its smallest battlebugs "ships" in this sense, and Starfleet gives the Defiant class the same courtesy. But at no point do our heroes consider runabouts or attack fighters "ships"...

The size of the Federation, in terms of numbers of assets, is difficult to determine per se, or via considering the instances where said assets have or have not been defended. Hundreds of outposts might be lost every year for every one that the Enterprise rescues in the nick of time.

But regarding the last two points, one would think the standard method of defending UFP assets does not involve positioning permanent or semipermanent starship forces in their vicinity. For one thing, we never really see such positionings - even Earth seldom hosts more than one operational starship. For another, during the war it appeared that defense of Betazed and Earth depended on the maneuvers of a single unified fleet that also had assignments elsewhere (the 10th and 3rd, respectively). Apparently, distributing forces across the targets to be defended is not a workable strategy, and instead Starfleet moves its fleets across the entire battle theater, hoping to catch the enemy in the right time and place with decisive forces.

Such doctrine may make it impossible for an observer to divine any sort of a ratio between targets to be defended and ships to do the defending with. Five thousand and fifty thousand targets might be defended with the very same size of force; it would all depend on being in the right place at the right time, and there would be no notable gain from an increase in ship numbers.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yeah, the United Federation of Planets. Not the United Coalition of Planets, or the Economic Community of Planets, or the Planetary Alliance Treaty Organization. A federation, not a confederation.

Firstly, permitting federal subunits to possess and organize military force brings in 1)the danger of secession, and 2)the danger that resources meant to be devoted to the common defense by a federal subunit, perhaps developed partly from federal funds, might not be used in the common defense at all.

Which, again, is consistent with anything but the United Federation of Planets as depicted in Star Trek. I am not prepared to visualize this political entity as being composed of shifty, self-interested quasi-nationalists who would just as soon screw over their fellow members whenever it's convenient for them to do so. As I said, if their governments were THAT backwards, they wouldn't have joined in the first place.

Nor am I prepared to posit a Federation of Planets that exists as a de facto Earth Empire, composed of hundreds of alien worlds that have been politely subjugated for their own good. The primary moral imperative of the Federation is freedom and self determination, and it would duplicitous to the extreme for these values to be upheld by a culture that begrudges those rights of their own members.

The other thing is that we don't know for sure how these ships are paid for; the Human-dominated Starfleet could well be paid for entirely through Earth resources. Same for the Andorian/Vulcan/Tellarite fleets. And even more to consider that in some conflicts--the Cardassian Wars, for instance--it's entirely possible that the whole of the Federation might force one of their members (namely Earth) into a fairly one-sided settlement just because none of the other members had any stake in the outcome (it was only HUMAN colonies in dispute with the Cardassians) and weren't willing to commit much of their resources to the war effort. Federal Control works both ways.

Secondly, self-determination's great and all, but signing on to the Federation should mean accepting its values--permanently.

Values and cultures can and do change. I don't see the Federation using military force to prevent some of its members from seceding. Obviously, they would do everything in their power to encourage more rational elements to prevail, but if popular sentiment favors secession, there is nothing they could do about it that wouldn't be in strict violation of their fundamental principles.

I can't think of a single secessionary or irredentist struggle that has occurred within the borders of a democracy* that has ever, ever been a good thing.

The American Revolution, for one.

Plus the fact that all of these members joined the Federation voluntarily, not by accident of geography and national heritage. To say to them "You're in, you can't leave ever again" would be to tacitly admit that they have been conquered in by a relatively non-violent empire. This would be all the more gross in the case of, for example, Bajor, where their entry into the Federation was literally brought about by the fact that the Bajoran religion latched onto a Starfleet officer as its primary religious figure (and this same officer had standing orders to do "everything short of violating the prime directive" to bring Bajor into the Federation; this is all well and good, so long as the Kai is still in power).

Self-determination is not at all necessarily good.

I'm sure you believe that, but the Federation does not.

I don't want to live in the UFP if it's okay for someone to, say, stone their wives to death for infidelity, as long as they're from the planet Rajmadorian, and they're sincerely acting from their cultural imperatives and within their local laws.

The UFP already has that rule whether you want to live in it or not. What you are overlooking is that, under those circumstances, Rajmadorian would not be allowed to join the Federation until it changed some of those laws.

OTOH, it's legal on Vulcan for competing males to fight to the death over a woman. Rajmadorian might well get a pass...

I'm even wary about accepting a UFP that outlaws whatever barbaric practice we want to use as an example, but permits the barbarians to retain significant military force that could be used to defend that barbaric practice in the event the Federation came to enforce its abolition.

Again: the Federation doesn't impose its morals on its members. Quite the opposite, in fact: it simply excludes from membership people who refuse to live up to Federation morals (as it did with the Maquis). I would expect that rather than start a war to impose order on those worlds (as the Dominion would) the Federation Council would probably start with sanctions and trade limits, with removal from the Federation as a last resort. If you can't live by our rules, you can't be a member.

I want to live in a Federation, not in a collection of vaguely like-minded, collective-security-conscious, socially-unpleasant aliens.

The Federation IS a collection of vaguely like-minded, collective-security-conscious, socially unpleasant aliens.

I mean, last time I checked, the Tellarites and the Andorians were still members. And the Vulcans have been described as "socially unpleasant" by pretty much everyone in the galaxy.

 

[BK613]

Well, we probably don't have to worry about the exact definition of "starship",

.

I respectfully disagree. I think there is value in defining that which you are attempting to count. Starfleet could have tens of thousands of ships but I think, for this discussion, we are interested in the number of ships needed to do those things you have a "navy" for:
-the defense of the homeland
-the ability to wage war
- and, the peacetime projection of political power and influence (which in SF's case, would include
exploration and first contact.)

The size of the Federation, in terms of numbers of assets, is difficult to

determine per se, or via considering the instances where said assets have or have not been defended.

You can make some educated guesses though, based on the data points we have. Truth is, even a small region of space, like a box 100 ly on a side, has thousands of stars in it. The federation, spread across 8000 ly, wll have hundreds of thousands of systems. And while a lot of those will not contain M-class worlds, many will need to patrolled for pirates, enemy spying devices, etc.

Hundreds of outposts might be lost every year for every one that the Enterprise rescues in the nick of time.

I would like to think that at least some of the other starship commanders were competent and many of those outposts were being rescued in the nick of time by other herioc crews.

But regarding the last two points, one would think the standard method of defending UFP assets does not involve positioning permanent or semipermanent starship forces in their vicinity.
For one thing, we never really see such positionings - even Earth seldom hosts more than one operational starship.

Implied on several occasions:
Checkov comments on the lack of starships in their assigned patrol routes in STIV.
Kirk reports to Commodore Stone in "Court Marshal."
In "Space Seed," Kirk refers to starbase 12 as their "command base in this sector."
In "Coming of Age," Weseley Crusher is one of four candidates from that starbase, implying the E-D's attachment. Otherwise, why couldn't he undergo the exam separately.

For another, during the war it appeared that defense of Betazed and Earth depended on the maneuvers of a single unified fleet that also had assignments elsewhere (the 10th and 3rd, respectively).

Apparently, distributing forces across the targets to be defended is not a workable strategy, and instead Starfleet moves its fleets across the entire battle theater, hoping to catch the enemy in the right time and place with decisive forces.

I think a distinction should also be made between peacetime Starfleet and wartime Starfleet, because the organizational structure will be different for each case.

 

[T'Girl]

Yeah, the United Federation of Planets. Not the United Coalition of Planets, or the Economic Community of Planets, or the Planetary Alliance Treaty Organization. A federation, not a confederation.

The exact structure of the federation has never been defined, is it a asymmetical federation, like Malaysia, where the various member states have different status and levels of Independence? In India this is refer to as accession or state-hood deals. The Russia Federation has 83 federal regions with a half dozen levels of autonomy.

The Federation in Kirk's time would of seem to have been more of a confederacy, member worlds didn't send representatives, they sent ambassadors to the Federation council. The member planets interacted through treaties and agreements.

Firstly, permitting federal subunits to possess and organize military force brings in 1)the danger of secession ...

Fully independent military forces maybe a condition a applying world insists upon before becoming a member of the Federation. I remember no talk of Bajor surrending control of it's military. In the early days of America, the states had their own state militias (a well regulated militia) and maritime patrols. The current states possess a armed force of over 830,000 police. Twenty five states still have official militias, with the state governor as commander in chief. Except during times of war, the national guard are also directly under the command of the state governors.

If a member planet no longer agreed with the Federation, why couldn't they able to secede?

 

[Longinus]

Yeah, the United Federation of Planets. Not the United Coalition of Planets, or the Economic Community of Planets, or the Planetary Alliance Treaty Organization. A federation, not a confederation.

Firstly, permitting federal subunits to possess and organize military force brings in 1)the danger of secession, and 2)the danger that resources meant to be devoted to the common defense by a federal subunit, perhaps developed partly from federal funds, might not be used in the common defense at all.

Look. If someone wants to leave, then they do. I am sure that membership in the Federation is completely voluntary, and if, say, Tellarites want to leave, I'm pretty sure Picard wont be ordered to subjucate them with military force.

The American Revolution, for one.

Well I'm not so sure about that...

As for UFP members having their own fleets, yes I culd see that on TOS era. Star Fleet could be more like NATO forces, comprising of pooled fleets of different worlds. That would even with with the Kirk's reference to United Earth Space Probe Agency. Maybe UESPA forms Star Fleet together with Royal Andorian Space Force, Tellar Interstellar Defence Organisation, etc.

However, at TNG era I can't see that being the case any more. Ship crews are more diverse, (though still mostly human) and we never see any other but generic Star Fleet vessels (We don't see them in TOS either, but only SF ship we see is supposedly rare Connie, so that's nor here or there.) By 24th century separate fleets of the member worlds would have merged to one unified whole. Of course there still would be non-Star Fleet ships for trade and maybe for policing nearby space of the member worlds.

 

[Myasishchev]

What if the Tellarites attempt to attack Fort Sumter?

Newtype: The American Revolution is somewhat outside the scope of the "within the borders of a democracy" qualification... we had our own legislatures, but we weren't allowed to elect representatives to the House of Commons. I'm not trying to make a case for the wisdom of revolt, just saying that the situation there is more analogous to an occupation than to a genuine secessionary war. The ACW, by contrast, was a secessionary war, fought between the United States and an upstart that attempted to withdraw from a democracy in which they had been equal--indeed, thanks to the Connecticut Compromise, more than equal--parties to.

OTOH, it's legal on Vulcan for competing males to fight to the death over a woman. Rajmadorian might well get a pass...

Alright, a valid point. But at least there's some consent involved in that. I mean, it's not expressly stated, but I think Spock could have said (if biologically feasible), "chick ain't worth it."

The exact structure of the federation has never been defined, is it a asymmetical federation, like Malaysia, where the various member states have different status and levels of Independence? In India this is refer to as accession or state-hood deals. The Russia Federation has 83 federal regions with a half dozen levels of autonomy.

Sure. Neither of whom legally recognizes secession from their state to the best of my knowledge. No, the SSRs don't count. They were quasi-independent countries under the aegis of the USSR. The Ukrainian and Byelorussian SSRs actually had seats on the UN General Assembly, which I always thought was hilarious, kind of like if we had the Republics and California and Texas sitting next to us.

In the early days of America, the states had their own state militias (a well regulated militia)

Not regulated well enough.

and maritime patrols. The current states possess a armed force of over 830,000 police.

None of whom operate genuine military equipment, although local police could conceivably make a rather nasty cadre for an county or state insurgency. When the NYPD gets a CVN, it would be analogous to the hypothesis of a local-levy starfleets.

Twenty five states still have official militias, with the state governor as commander in chief. Except during times of war, the national guard are also directly under the command of the state governors.

I wonder how well it would go over if a governor refused to mobilize the National Guard in response to a presidential request. Not being facetious, but I think that would be interesting to see.

If a member planet no longer agreed with the Federation, why couldn't they able to secede?

It really depends on the Federation Charter. If there's a opt-out clause, they are legally entitled to do so.

That doesn't mean it's a good idea to put that clause in there, because, like I said, secessionists in a democracy are usually doing so for selfish, chauvinist, provincial and indeed morally reprehensible reasons. Like hating Protestants, or wanting to keep slaves, or wanting to speak French. Okay, the last one's not so bad, but it's at best frivolous and probably pretextual. The lukewarm Quebecois secessionist I know, at least, wants to leave Canada because of multiculturalism and minorities. The faux Southern secessionists I've met hold their evil if partially facetious views due to monstrous convictions like rule-by-Christianity and dislike of blacks, presidential and otherwise.

If Bajor wants to return to theocracy, is it better to kick them out of the Federation and let them persecute kill the secularists, or send Federation marshals to enforce the fundamental laws they agreed to follow?

 

[Vance]

What if the Tellarites attempt to attack Fort Sumter?

Good point, many in the North in 1861 were quite content to let the South leave the Union - right up until the South decided to claim some states by force, such as Maryland and Pennsylvania. The attack on Fort Sumter was, effectively, an invasion by a rebel state.

How does this relate to the Federation? Tougher call, but it's easy to think that if the Federation had actually failed to deal with issues between, say, Vulcan and Andor, Andor may have not only left the Federation, but attacked Vulcan in seeking their own redress. And, of course, what if Andor wanted to take some colonies by force that didn't want to rebel...

 

[Timo]

we are interested in the number of ships needed to do those things you have a "navy" for:
-the defense of the homeland
-the ability to wage war
- and, the peacetime projection of political power and influence (which in SF's case, would include
exploration and first contact.)

But that's apparently exactly what is covered by the generic word "ships" when fleet strengths are discussed in DS9 dialogue. None of the speakers would really have it in their interests to list buoy tenders, fuel lighters, tugs, or even hospital ships in the totals. And none of the fleets we see seem to drag this entourage with them to battle.

The federation, spread across 8000 ly, wll have hundreds of thousands of systems. And while a lot of those will not contain M-class worlds, many will need to patrolled for pirates, enemy spying devices, etc.

Yet we don't know if they are patrolled for such things. Space piracy still exists in the TNG era, as in "Gambit". Enemies are always surprising our heroes by appearing within UFP territory. Klingons seemed to have free run of the Federation as soon as they began cloaking in the movies; Romulans probably always had that.

Implied on several occasions:
Checkov comments on the lack of starships in their assigned patrol routes in STIV.
Kirk reports to Commodore Stone in "Court Marshal."
In "Space Seed," Kirk refers to starbase 12 as their "command base in this sector."
In "Coming of Age," Weseley Crusher is one of four candidates from that starbase, implying the E-D's attachment. Otherwise, why couldn't he undergo the exam separately.

True that starships don't operate solely solo, so to speak. But they don't tend to loiter within or near star systems, either. As said, Earth was always short of those, even when supposedly the patrol routes between Earth and Vulcan had their assigned ship strengths...

I think a distinction should also be made between peacetime Starfleet and wartime Starfleet, because the organizational structure will be different for each case.

Certainly so. Or then the structure is always there (Picard knows in advance that his ship is the command vessel for fleet action near Minos Korva if the balloon goes up, even though his witnessed adventures basically never involve fleet action), but with the caveat that ships perform individual assignments until the organization governing them makes noises to the contrary. Whether there is any actual organizational reshuffling when the noises are made is anybody's guess.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

What if the Tellarites attempt to attack Fort Sumter?

Why would they need to, since secession from the Federation could be more easily accomplished by a strongly worded email?

Newtype: The American Revolution is somewhat outside the scope of the "within the borders of a democracy" qualification...

Not in the context we're using it, involving a far-flung empire with different administrative districts and varrying levels of autonomy. The "borders of a democracy" include many hundreds of worlds whose inhabitants were independent for tens of thousands of years before they joined the Federation; this is more a colonial situation than that of a single people/nation/group consolidating their own rivalries under one roof and then suddenly succumbing to an internal schism (i.e. Iraq).

OTOH, it's legal on Vulcan for competing males to fight to the death over a woman. Rajmadorian might well get a pass...

Alright, a valid point. But at least there's some consent involved in that. I mean, it's not expressly stated, but I think Spock could have said (if biologically feasible), "chick ain't worth it."

Possibly. But more important, there's consent by the rest of the Federation. Remember, at the Babel conference there was a big debate as to whether or not Corridan would be allowed to join the Federation; a similar debate vis a vis Ramjadorian might involve, say, the Vulcans listing all the reasons why the world would contribute greatly to the Federation economically and militarily, with the humans and Bolians objecting because the Ramjadorians are chauvanist barbarians.

Depending on how the vote falls, the planet might be allowed to join, or it might have to meet certain preconditions first. The only point is the Federation isn't an EMPIRE, and I have to believe membership is both voluntary and subject to approval of (and sometimes expulsion by) current members.

If Bajor wants to return to theocracy, is it better to kick them out of the Federation and let them persecute kill the secularists, or send Federation marshals to enforce the fundamental laws they agreed to follow?

That's easy. You give them seven weeks to abide by their treaty obligations and send mediators to try and resolve the conflict peacefully. When it's all said and done, if Bajor remains a violent fascist theocracy, you call a vote and decide whether to allow them to remain Federation members (which would probably come out unanimously in favor of their expulsion).

The Federation isn't an empire, it doesn't maintain the allegiance of its territories by force of arms. This is supposed to be the reason everyone would WANT to be in the Federation: the benefits are huge, and you never have to worry about them showing up with a battlefleet to forcibly strip-mine your world "or else."

 

[Unicron]

I had a somewhat similar question I wrote while working on my custom Trek race, who are one of the smaller nations on the sidelines. They've traditionally been neutral, but in the wake of the Dominion War have shown a stronger interest in formally joining the Federation. But there are some potential issues that would have to be resolved first; my race had conflicts with both the pre-Federation Andorians and the Romulans, whom they also share a border with, and who as an ally against the Dominion might view this new member as more enemy territory along the Neutral Zone (should a future war occur between the Feds and the Romulans). All in all, it's clear that membership in an organization like the Federation doesn't come lightly or easily.

 

[Myasishchev]

What if the Tellarites attempt to attack Fort Sumter?

Good point, many in the North in 1861 were quite content to let the South leave the Union - right up until the South decided to claim some states by force, such as Maryland and Pennsylvania. The attack on Fort Sumter was, effectively, an invasion by a rebel state.

How does this relate to the Federation? Tougher call, but it's easy to think that if the Federation had actually failed to deal with issues between, say, Vulcan and Andor, Andor may have not only left the Federation, but attacked Vulcan in seeking their own redress. And, of course, what if Andor wanted to take some colonies by force that didn't want to rebel...

Exactly. This gets down to why, on a gut-feeling level, I think permitting the secession of a federal subunit is bad. It treats a local sovereign as the sole actor of any worth, when the individual is the constituent that needs protection from the potentially arbitrary and omnipotent power of the state. The point of any constraints on a democratic government are to protect the individual from this power wielded at the whim of a majority.

In your example, the Federation should have a greater duty to defend the rights of the Andorians who want to keep their association than the Andorians who want to renounce it.

That's easy. You give them seven weeks to abide by their treaty obligations and send mediators to try and resolve the conflict peacefully. When it's all said and done, if Bajor remains a violent fascist theocracy, you call a vote and decide whether to allow them to remain Federation members (which would probably come out unanimously in favor of their expulsion).

And, in this example, every Bajoran who did not agree with the unconstituonal theocracy is going to rightfully demand from the Federation protection from local despotism. Is it correct to abandon the billions-strong minority of Federation citizens who are going to have the right to life--that the Federation promised to provide them upon admission--stripped away by a theocratic mob? Why shouldn't military force be employed, to the maximum necessary to ensure the rights and liberties of Federation citizens?