Size and scope of Starfleet

[Crazy Eddie]

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.

Depending on how the cookie crumbles for the Bajoran government, the Federation might end up with a substantial refugee crisis. They then do their best to provide humanitarian aid to the maximum extent their laws allow.

It is, however, naive and arrogant to think the Federation has a responsibility to play superman and impose order on the rest of the universe. This line of thinking very quickly devolves into Dominion style imperialism.

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?

That depends. Is the mob in control of the government or just the military?

 

[Myasishchev]

The government has a duty to protect its citizens from the majority. That's the whole point of liberal democracy.

The government intervening in its own territory to defend its own citizens from the actions of its own citizens is not the government being a superman, but doing exactly what governments are designed to do.

 

[RAMA]

I still say its 20,000 ships...and Starfleet Academy must be one of only a number of regional officer schools.

RAMA

 

[Unicron]

I'm kind of mixed on the whole secession issue; it's undoubtedly a complex issue, and there is no simplistic answer. I think there are valid points to both views, and I think that validity depends in no small part on the existing political circumstances. I personally think the states in the American union do reserve the right to leave it should the political conditions ever become dire enough, in keeping with the autonomy they enjoy under the Constitution; however, I also think the southern politicians who helped trigger the Civil War opted for secession for the wrong reasons, and that many other southerners supported a cause that was politically wrong but with better intentions. People can make poor choices while intending to do good or honorable things.

But since politics aren't really suited for this forum, I'll shut up now.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The government has a duty to protect its citizens from the majority. That's the whole point of liberal democracy.

No, that's the point of CONSTITUTIONAL democracy. Strictly speaking, the primary function of the government is to protect its citizens from the MINORITY, that is to say, criminals, rebels, revolutionaries, radicals and terrorists. Protecting citizens from the tyranny of a corrupt majority is a matter of civil rights and constitutional liberty.

In which case, the extent to which a government must intervene to curb the activities of the majority depends ENTIRELY on the constitutional powers granted to it by the Articles of Federation. To wit: does the Federation have either the right or the authority to enforce its own bill of rights on a member world whose MAJORITY rejects said rights. This again goes back to the secessionist argument where the southern states broke away because the majority of them refused to accept (even the possibility of) the abolition of slavery. In this case, Bajor has been independent much longer than it has been a member of the Federation, and one way or the other the Federation Bill of Rights is a legal/moral system far more alien to them than any indigenous theocracy they could produce. Though it might be morally satisfying to us humans, it would be both highly unwise and ultimately self-defeating to even attempt a military overthrow of that theocracy in the face of popular Bajoran support.

Again, it depends on the standing of the theocratic movement. Do they actually control the government (that is, by popular or tacit support of the people, one way or the other) or did they come to power by way of a coup de tat and control the planet by sheer force of arms? The latter case is fairly easy to deal with: simply overwhelm the theocrats and remove them from power and a more popular regime will come into being. If, on the other hand, the theocracy has the blessing of the Bajoran people, removing it will accomplish very little except to de-legitimize whatever government you attempt to install in its place.

 

[Arpy]

They wouldn't have let Bajor in the Federation if it were a theocracy. The ministers control the government not the vedeks. That the Bajoran people are largely religious does not negate the fact that the power of their government rests in secular hands...Catholic France is controlled from Paris not Vatican City. Come to think of it, Anglican England is controlled by neither its religious nor royal leader either.

 

[Timo]

They wouldn't have let Bajor in the Federation if it were a theocracy.

Why not? They seem to allow in monarcies, meritocracies, dictatorships and hyperegalitarian cybernetic collectives. As long as the religion observed and enforced by the theocrats isn't at odds with general UFP principles, it shouldn't be that different from the lot.

Now, "general UFP principles" must be a very broad and bland concept, as the above discussion already shows: it allows for ritualized murder, parasitic possession and all sorts of fancy local taboos that would make today's crazier religions moan in jealousy. The Bajoran religion appears relatively hedonistic and easygoing overall, and probably makes for less uptight or dogmatic citizens than the Vulcan religion of logic.

It's a bit debatable whether the UFP approves or disapproves of caste systems. The particular style of system that Bajor once supported was a potential showstopper in "Accession", but not a surefire one, and need not mean a categorical ban. And certainly there has never been an openly expressed requirement for material atheism for UFP applicants.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[T'Girl]

Would the Federation admit a member world governed like the Vatican or pre-1951 Tibet?

 

[Myasishchev]

I'd like to think not, but anything's possible. They let in the Ardanians, who had a slave class. I prefer to imagine that during the Klingon Cold War, they relaxed their standards quite a bit, and that after Praxis and Khitomer, they stopped aligning themselves with planets run by jerks.

 

[Cicero]

Prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, the US Navy had (total) 790 ships of which 225 were warships, plus all the little stuff. By the end of the second world war, it was 6,789 ships, 833 warships. In comparison the US Navy today has 285 total ships, of which 117 are warships.

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm#2000

T'Girl

Actually, at least 187 are warships (117 surface warships, 52 attack submarines, 14 ballistic missile submarines, 4 guided missile submarines). The number is slightly higher if our ten amphibious assault ships are counted (our LHAs and LHDs are essentially light carriers larger than any carrier built outside the US or Russia).

 

[neozeks]

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.

I distinctly remember it was said (I think it was in Rapture) that upon entry into the Federation, the Bajoran Militia was to be absorbed (presumably not entirely) into Starfleet.

The only thing that I see as supporting newtype_alpha's multiple member worlds' fleets idea is the fact that Starfleet seems dominated by humans and human designs, so eitiher it is just Earth's fleet or humans are imperialistic. But there are good out of universe (the show is made by humans, for humans, human actors, budgetary concerns - we're simply expected to suspend our disbelief) and in universe explanations (maybe there's a policy of mostly one species dominated crews and we see just those, humans are simply more willing to serve in SF, the 'human' ship design is just on the outside, internal systems are probably a mix of a whole lot of species technologies) for that.

 

[Vance]

Well, TOS does mention 'Vulcan ships', etc, and the worlds of the Federation were FAR more independant than what we see come TNG time. (TOS had the Federation as largley a United Nations body, and the Enterprise was called explicitly an 'Earth' ship through the entire serires). This is keeping with a UN-style system of the 1960s era.

Now, come TNG, the 'Federation' is a lot more of a unified governmental body - much more 'homogenous' (as DS9 even states with derision). While there remains some independant fleets (Vulcan ships, again), it does seem like Star Fleet has also homogenized completely - with little tolerance for planets and colonies 'acting on their own'. This is consistant with the 'Progressive World' espoused by supporters of the UN in the 1990s (and what they wanted the UN to become).

 

[Timo]

While there remains some independant fleets (Vulcan ships, again)

No military vessels, though. The ones in "Unification" were expressly merchant, and the ones in DS9 were either research vessels, or transports of unknown affiliation. No government operating organization apart from Starfleet was ever specified. Starfleet ships largely (the Hera) or wholly (the T'Kumbra) crewed by Vulcans were never identified as "Vulcan vessels".

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Vance]

Could be Merchant Marines, though we really don't know. We do know that in TOS there are armed ships under member-world auspices that aren't Star Fleet... (SS Beagle) which are explicitly Merchant Marines or attached to members (Those thieving bastards of Telar).

This obviously changes by TNG, which seems to wrap ALL military-themed ships into Starfleet, period. If it's Federation and armed, it's star fleet proper. Can't have those uppity citizens and presumably independant worlds arming themselves, can we? :P (Like I said, it's a VERY 1990s view of the UN and the world)

 

[Myasishchev]

Heck, if anything the Federation underregulates it. I think it's shocking enough that the Federation lets random citizens own antimatter.

 

[Timo]

Could be Merchant Marines, though we really don't know.

The "Unification" ships were shown in an Okudagram to belong to something called the "Vulcan Merchant Fleet", or at least the T'Pau did. No exact identity was given for the operator of the Vulcan transport of similar type in "For the Cause". Beyond these, there was a single "Vulcan ship" in DS9, the unseen science vessel T'Vran.

We do know that in TOS there are armed ships under member-world auspices that aren't Star Fleet... (SS Beagle)

Armed? How so? And under what auspices? We never learned much about the Beagle... Could have been owned by a commercial interest rather than a member world.

To be sure, "Unification" has an explicit line referring to "Vulcan defense vessels" responding to the Romulan threat. But we don't learn if those would have been non-Starfleet ones.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mysterion]

Heck, if anything the Federation underregulates it. I think it's shocking enough that the Federation lets random citizens own antimatter.

When you outlaw antimatter, only outlaws will have antimatter!

 

[Timo]

...But it then suffices for us law-abiding citizens to have matter.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Captain_Amasov]

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"...

Aren't Runabouts given their own NCC number? Wouldn't that make them an actual Starfleet ship rather than say a fighter or shuttlecraft?

 

[Vance]

Sadly, the NCC would indeed indicate that Star Fleet does indeed consider the runabouts Starships.

No, I can't explain that one either.