Size and scope of Starfleet

[BK613]

I disagree.Warships are vessels that have a primary, wartime purpose (ASW etc) and are built around weapon systems that support that purpose. And there isn't any system included on a warship that doesn't ultimately support that wartime purpose.

That is a little simplistic.

No that is succinct; I didn't feel like writing a treatise on it.
starship = warship, now that is simplistic.

Warships have many systems with a dual-purpose and although many are built with a particular purpose in "war" defined, post cold war the roles of military and police are blurring significantly.

Put simply the definition of "warship" is bound to be as blurred as the definition of "war" is becoming.

And as newer ships, like the littoral combat ships, come on line to handle these new roles, the lines will blur even further. But the ships will still be primarily for delivering hurt to the enemy.

Starships are not built around weapon systems, they include many, many systems that have nothing to do with war and their primary purpose is not to wage war. "Our missions are peaceful, our weapons defensive."

Yeah well if you believe that you will believe anything.

It's not a matter of belief it's a matter of what was presented, especially during TOS and TNG.

Starfleet are only peaceful in the same way that the US military is peaceful now - they are all cuddles until someone fraks with them, then the teeth come out.

Before you pull the science card, remember that all the great explorers and scientists sailed on what were essentially warships, though not necessarily highly-rated ones. Darwin for example may not have rated a 74, but Beagle was a 10-gun Sloop probably of the same rate as an Oberth would be comparable to her peers.

Sorry simply not true; most were armed cargo vessels of some kind. Cook's Endeavour and Resolution were converted colliers, Columbus's ships were carracks and caravels, etc. Even the Beagle was reduced to 6 guns for her most famous voyage.

As for something like the Galaxy class, Starfleet sailing into your territory with a massive ship-of-the-line that had lots of scientists aboard and was very comfortable would be just as antagonistic as sailing in with a Klingon Attack Cruiser.

Remember ST3 - the Klingons consider the Enterprise a "Federation Battle Cruiser" that has ten-times the armament of their "Scout Class" Bird-Of-Prey. Sounds like a warship to me.

Kira: I thought Starfleet didn't build warships.
Sisko: She's the first.

Warships occasionally called upon to make peaceful gestures are not the same as "peaceships" occasionally called upon to make war. lol

Starfleet is deliberately portrayed as hypocritical over their ships in DS9 and rightly so. They even have the gall to build a balls-out warship so heavily armed it can almost blow itself to bits firing and call it an "escort"!

Ron Moore was famous for taking swipes at the Trek Utopia...LOL

 

[Timo]

Kira: I thought Starfleet didn't build warships.
Sisko: She's the first.

That's a rather severe misquote.

Here's how it really went:

Sisko: "Unofficially, the Defiant's a warship. Nothing more, nothing less."
Kira: "I thought Starfleet didn't believe in warships."
Sisko: "Desperate times breed desperate measures. [explanation on how the Defiant was an anti-Borg weapon] The Defiant was the prototype, the first ship in what would have been a new Federation battle fleet."

Sisko just smirks at Kira's sarcasm, and never actually acknowledges any truth in her words. And he never makes any suggestion that there wouldn't have been an "old" battle fleet that the "new" one was intended to supplement or supplant.

Starfleet may not believe in warships, but it builds them all right. We haven't heard of an unarmed Starfleet vessel yet: even shuttles and hospital ships carry phasers. In that sense, "Starfleet vessel = warship" probably holds true unconditionally, and "Starfleet vessel = warship = starship" might hold true as well - or then starship is a subset of Starfleet vessels = warships, or then starship and warship are significantly overlapping subsets of Starfleet vessels. Certainly a first approximation would be to use the three words interchangeably, especially if you are a civilian or a foreigner, with or without an agenda.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Praetor]

I'd tend to agree. Like it or not, there is definitely in-universe weight to the notion that the Federation isn't the smiling totally benevolent utopia it looks like, and that in turn has to be acknowledged in any discussion of their fleets.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I don't think the Federation has ever been described as a utopia. Earth, yes, but not the entire Fed. Economic equity probably varies substantially between worlds, depending on the social/economic structure of member planets.

I mean, there's something to be said for enlightenment and self-improvement, but then there are planets like Coridan that JUST came out from under the umbrella of imperialistic power plays, sometimes by former Federation members themselves. There's bound to be "south" part of the Federation, poorer worlds where only the indigenous really bother to live anymore.

 

[BK613]

Kira: I thought Starfleet didn't build warships.
Sisko: She's the first.

That's a rather severe misquote.

You're right. I was quoting from memory and didn't take the time to look it up as I should have. I do think that the gist of it is correct though, especially if you include the bit you uncharacteriscally left out (which I've inserted and bolded into the quote to save space)

Here's how it really went:

Sisko: "Unofficially, the Defiant's a warship. Nothing more, nothing less."
Kira: "I thought Starfleet didn't believe in warships."
Sisko: "Desperate times breed desperate measures, Major. Five years ago, Starfleet began exploring the possibility of building a new class of starship. This ship would have no families, no science labs, no luxuries of any kind. It was designed for one purpose only, to fight and defeat the Borg. The Defiant was the prototype, the first ship in what would have been a new Federation battle fleet.
DAX: So what happened?
SISKO: The Borg threat became less urgent. Also, some design flaws cropped up during the ship's shakedown cruise, so Starfleet decided to abandon the project."

Unlike previous multi-purpose starships, the Defiant was a new type of ship with with a single purpose, to fight. In other words a warship. And she was built in response to a single Borg cube decimating 40 starships at Wolf 359. "Desperate times..."

Sisko just smirks at Kira's sarcasm, and never actually acknowledges any truth in her words. And he never makes any suggestion that there wouldn't have been an "old" battle fleet that the "new" one was intended to supplement or supplant.

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Starfleet may not believe in warships, but it builds them all right. We haven't heard of an unarmed Starfleet vessel yet: even shuttles and hospital ships carry phasers. In that sense, "Starfleet vessel = warship" probably holds true unconditionally, and "Starfleet vessel = warship = starship" might hold true as well - or then starship is a subset of Starfleet vessels = warships, or then starship and warship are significantly overlapping subsets of Starfleet vessels. Certainly a first approximation would be to use the three words interchangeably, especially if you are a civilian or a foreigner, with or without an agenda.

If you hold that "armed ship = warship," then what you say makes sense. But if warships are a subset of armed ships (and they are,) then the logic falls apart I think.
--------
You know, my computer is a remarkable piece of engineering. It's purpose is to be multi-purposed and I use it in a multitude of ways: to check the news and weather, to watch old TV shows (hulu and DVD), to make art (3D and photoshop,) to prepare curricula for my classes, to stay up-to-date with my friends and family (email/IM/twitter,) etc, etc, etc.
And I use it to play games.
But it is not a gaming console.
Now gaming consoles are capable of doing some of the things that are listed for my PC but their primary purpose is to play games. That's what they are made for and that's why people buy them.

starship = PC
warship = gaming console

And that's how I view this starship/warship thing
IMO

(and my PC actually does it better than a console: faster processors, more memory, bigger HDD, better resolution and refresh rate. More "warship" than the "warships" lol)

 

[USS KG5]

No that is succinct; I didn't feel like writing a treatise on it.
starship = warship, now that is simplistic.

I explained my comment, there is no need for the sarcasm, we are supposed to all be friends here.

And as newer ships, like the littoral combat ships, come on line to handle these new roles, the lines will blur even further. But the ships will still be primarily for delivering hurt to the enemy.

Sounds pretty blurry to me.

It's not a matter of belief it's a matter of what was presented, especially during TOS and TNG.

Oh piffle - this kind of debate may be fun but run a quick search on the board - people argue over the ambiguities all the time, anyone's mileage may vary drastically.

Sorry simply not true; most were armed cargo vessels of some kind. Cook's Endeavour and Resolution were converted colliers, Columbus's ships were carracks and caravels, etc. Even the Beagle was reduced to 6 guns for her most famous voyage.

All naval vessels on the register though? How heavily armed do you feel a ship needs to be?

A lot of ships of the lower rates were not built as "warships".

Kira: I thought Starfleet didn't build warships.
Sisko: She's the first.

Well I went over that, Starfleet are hypocrites - Kirk would never have said anything as diplomatic.

Ron Moore was famous for taking swipes at the Trek Utopia...LOL

He was quite right too - Trek only told stories well when it departed from that "Utopia" idea, and when the stories were told that way, as in the first season of TNG at its worst, the preachiness was insufferable.

Ron Moore went on to make a TV show far better than Trek had been for years, he knew what he was talking about.

 

[Arpy]

^ You're suggesting that Utopia = conceited preaching. I love Trek, Utopia, Season 1 of TNG, Moore, and Roddenberry too God forgive him. I also loathe preaching, believe the Federation overall and not just Earth is a utopia, and that it could be great to visit more of it too. It's more about how well the story is told than the subject matter.

And another thing, to think utopia is boring is to inadequately conceptualize it.

 

[EmperorTiberius]

^ You're suggesting that Utopia = conceited preaching. I love Trek, Utopia, Season 1 of TNG, Moore, and Roddenberry too God forgive him. I also loathe preaching, believe the Federation overall and not just Earth is a utopia, and that it could be great to visit more of it too. It's more about how well the story is told than the subject matter.

And another thing, to think utopia is boring is to inadequately conceptualize it.

Love the Golden Age of Federation season one as well and the Utopia

 

[USS KG5]

^ You're suggesting that Utopia = conceited preaching. I love Trek, Utopia, Season 1 of TNG, Moore, and Roddenberry too God forgive him. I also loathe preaching, believe the Federation overall and not just Earth is a utopia, and that it could be great to visit more of it too. It's more about how well the story is told than the subject matter.

Sorry, but I disagree. Apart from anything else even as presented in TNG Season 1 it is NOT a Utopia, they have a government apart from anything else, which you would not really need in a Utopia.

TNG season 1 is the worst offender by far, but there is way too much preaching, looking down on other cultures and downright horseshit written into Trek whenever the writing takes a dip.

Roddenberry at least was a good human character, having high ideas and being generally a nice enough bloke, but often acted like a git and was an unrepentent womaniser.

And another thing, to think utopia is boring is to inadequately conceptualize it.

Well, I don't think I said that. Besides, it would make very boring television drama seeing drama is based in CONFLICT.