So, was Cochrane's warp drive concept something special, or wasn't it ?

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

I've never interpreted the events in Enterprise as implying that Earth's Starfleet is the very same organisation as UFP''s Starfleet

I've certainly never found it to imply otherwise; where do you, specifically? As ever, I would point out that the notion of two separate Starfleets rather than one whose role evolves and expands as time goes on is pure fanon, originally put forth around the time of ENT's premiere to "explain" the perceived "continuity error" of Starfleet preexisting the Federation.

because Earth seems to have been instrumental in the founding of the UFP

Indeed. As @TwoJakes says above and as I meant very much to imply, the UFP would not exist if not for Earth and humans, not in the form we know it anyway. So when people ask "why does everything seem so Earth/human-centric?" I find it slightly bemusing. It's obvious. (Now, whether this is truly a realistic portrayal or not, I think fairly immaterial, as it's as much a conceit of the fiction as warp drive. But for a rough analogy, look at how much the European empires like Britain and Spain—and their American successors—influenced the global scene for centuries.)

Enterprise depicts most races to have their own military (e.g. Andorians, Vulcans), at least some of which ostensibly have ships more advanced and powerful than Earth's Starfleet ships.

[...]

Why would eg. the Vulcans relinquish their military and exploratory tasks to a fleet of (in their eyes) outdated ships, when they could supply superior ships for that task themselves?

Who says they would? As I see it, there are more or less two basic paths that the transition in Starfleet's role might take, although the details of which and over how long a period of time can only be speculated since there are significant gaps in what we were actually shown.

(1) Member worlds initially maintained their own fleets for their own purposes until gradually phasing them out as Starfleet was built up to snuff and became equipped to effectively take over those roles.

(2) Member worlds' fleets were simply folded into Starfleet wholesale; i.e., all those advanced Vulcan and Andorian ships themselves became Starfleet ships.

A combination of these two might see a scenario in which Starfleet initially assumes a coordinating role among the various members' fleets before ultimately and eventually superceding and/or absorbing them entirely.

Remember that Starfleet was not initially a military organization at all—not even for Earth—but only an exploratory one. The military role came about as it became needed, with things like bringing the M.A.C.O.S. on board and beefing up the weaponry and such being early examples. By the time we get to the Dominion War, Starfleet seems exclusively to be the UFP's military force, at least on the frontier. (Yet, is there any particular reason we can't think major member worlds mightn't even then continue to have limited fleets of their own for local defense, etc.?) But there's a long time between the one and the other in which that transition could have taken place organically and not necessarily all at once. Things could still be in a state of transition to some degree in Kirk's time!

 

[TwoJakes]

Remember that Starfleet was not initially a military organization at all—not even for Earth—but only an exploratory one.

While it possible that the NX-01 was intended to be a primarily exploration ship, Starfleet predates that ship and they had eariler starships that by appearances were not used for exploration. ENT Starfleet was probably a military/defensive organization from the time of it's creation. Even if they don't apply the term "military" to themselves.

Yet, is there any particular reason we can't think major member worlds mightn't even then continue to have limited fleets of their own for local defense, etc.?

Maybe not limited in the least. DS9 said that the Vulcan's have their own starbases, TNG said Vulcan have their own defense starships. TOS said the Tellarites have their own starships.

Member worlds initially maintained their own fleets for their own purposes until gradually phasing them out as Starfleet was built up to snuff and became equipped to effectively take over those roles

Thing is, while we heard of a large number of vessels concentrating during the Dominion War, the majority of the time Starfleet seems to be spread pretty thin. It would make a great deal of sense for each member maintaining large "member fleets" of their own for local defense, colony support, search and rescue, and customs.

 

[The Old Mixer]

(1) Member worlds initially maintained their own fleets for their own purposes until gradually phasing them out as Starfleet was built up to snuff and became equipped to effectively take over those roles.

[...]

Things could still be in a state of transition to some degree in Kirk's time!

This is pretty much my take on it. The situation portrayed in Enterprise makes all those early references to the TOS Enterprise being an "Earth ship" and such seem less apocryphal. Indications are that Starfleet was still primarily an Earth agency into Kirk's time, and that the Federation was more of an alliance that a centralized power that would have one shared fleet, etc.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

While it possible that the NX-01 was intended to be a primarily exploration ship, Starfleet predates that ship and they had eariler starships that by appearances were not used for exploration. ENT Starfleet was probably a military/defensive organization from the time of it's creation.

I seem to recall that the purpose of the organization itself was stated early on as exploration, with a motto of "Semper exploro," and that when the M.A.C.O.S. came on board in "The Expanse" it was a potential source of discomfort that they now had "the military" on board. (And this was Admiral Forrest referring to them as such, not some starry-eyed idealist as one might cast Picard in "Peak Performance"!) I think these roles obviously and naturally became integrated and combined as time went on, but this process had only just begun at the time of ENT's third season.

 

[The Wormhole]

^^Admiral Forrest referring to the MACOs as "the military" with the implication Starfleet isn't military is just sloppy writing. While it's possible that Berman and Braga had intended Starfleet to be more NASA like compared to the militaristic Starfleet of the other shows, it still came off as a military anyway, though granted most examples come from the fourth season where Manny Coto and his writers essentially abandoned the 22nd century world-building established in the first two seasons, at least as far as Earth and Starfleet were concerned and made things more in line with the previous Treks.

 

[woodstock]

There seems to be a crap load of tangents in this thread, but to the original question, I don't see anyone mentioning what Riker said in FC: [roughly] "your theories on warp design allow fleets of starships to be built." I would assume that means other species had developed warp drive on their own (including the Vulcans, that should not be questioned), but that it was difficult to build many at a time until Cochrane came along. Basic Warp Design at Starfleet Academy having the first chapter of their text book named 'Zephram Cochrane' would make sense if it was warp design that allowed for mass production rather than custom builds.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Joining the Federation is (hopefully) nothing like joining a cult.

I don't know, man. The 1st season TNG crew, with all their talk about how wonderful and superior they are to 20th century humanity, do seem kind of cultish now that you mention it.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

^^Admiral Forrest referring to the MACOs as "the military" with the implication Starfleet isn't military is just sloppy writing. While it's possible that Berman and Braga had intended Starfleet to be more NASA like compared to the militaristic Starfleet of the other shows, it still came off as a military anyway, though granted most examples come from the fourth season where Manny Coto and his writers essentially abandoned the 22nd century world-building established in the first two seasons, at least as far as Earth and Starfleet were concerned and made things more in line with the previous Treks.

It wasn't just Forrest in "The Expanse" who said this. It came up again in "Home" when Archer suggested Erika Hernandez should have M.A.C.O.s aboard Columbia and she resisted the idea, saying she wasn't sure how she'd feel about a military officer on her bridge. (And that was in the fourth season, BTW.) It seems to me that Archer was a big proponent of integrating Starfleet and the military after the Xindi attack. Before that, and outside of Section 31, whatever role Starfleet had in defense seems to have been a more incidental than intended one, a consequence that followed from their presence in space and the threats they encountered in the course of their exploration, rather than the other way around.

And this portrayal of Starfleet's development in ENT actually makes sense of Picard's contentious insistence in "Peak Performance" that "Starfleet is not a military organization" but one whose "purpose is exploration" despite all the intervening evidence to the contrary, if we assume as would seem appropriate to Picard's character that he is describing its originally intended role, which he idealizes despite its adulteration over time through necessity. (See also his wistful "Does anyone remember when we used to be explorers?" in Insurrection.)

 

[TwoJakes]

Picard's contentious insistence in "Peak Performance" that "Starfleet is not a military organization"

That's the episode where Picard's superiors order him to engage in war games. Not a military my ass.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

That's the episode where Picard's superiors order him to engage in war games. Not a military my ass.

That's what I'm saying. By that point Starfleet clearly was the Federation's military. But it wasn't founded as a space military initially. It grew into that role over time. Picard's comment didn't make sense at the time of "Peak Performance," but it does in light of what ENT showed.

 

[The Wormhole]

It wasn't just Forrest in "The Expanse" who said this. It came up again in "Home" when Archer suggested Erika Hernandez should have M.A.C.O.s aboard Columbia and she resisted the idea, saying she wasn't sure how she'd feel about a military officer on her bridge. (And that was in the fourth season, BTW.)

True. Of course, denying Starfleet is a military frequently goes on in the other Treks, and even still goes on in the Abrams movies.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Of course, denying Starfleet is a military frequently goes on in the other Treks...

Not really, no. In fact, I'm struggling to think of any post-UFP examples besides "Peak Performance" and Scotty's nearly identical comment in Into Darkness: "This is clearly a military operation. ls that what we are now, because I thought we were explorers?" What else can you think of?

(It's certainly something people in message board debates have frequently denied about SF based on those quite infrequent references, that's for sure. )

Again, my point here is ENT shows us that Starfleet was originally founded for the purpose of exploration, and then took on roles of defense and combat as time went along, which makes it not only generally consistent with everything we've heard and seen of SF in "the other Treks" but actually helps to smooth over what inconsistency there is among them on this issue. (Just as it does in dealing with a number of others, I might add, lending an unintended irony to a fair few of the indictments that have been levied against it insofar as "continuity errors" are concerned. Not that it was always good drama, but then that's another kettle of raktajino entirely!)

 

[The Old Mixer]

I think that in the case of the 24th century folks, it's a matter of semantics. They don't want to be branded as a military organization, even though Starfleet walks and talks like a duck.

In Archer's time, they went into things seeing themselves as purely an exploration agency (though probably already with some local defensive / law enforcement duties, as has been touched upon), but the need for Starfleet to take on a more militaristic role when needed started to assert itself.

By Kirk's time, Starfleet's military functions were well-established, and perhaps even more emphasized than they would be in the next century, hence Kirk readily describing himself as "a soldier, not a diplomat."

 

[The Wormhole]

Again, my point here is ENT shows us that Starfleet was originally founded for the purpose of exploration, and then took on roles of defense and combat as time went along,

Ah but, Starfleet ships have always been armed, even before the NX-01. More importantly, prior to the NX-01 Starfleet officers were armed with weapons which had no stun setting (the concept of which was new to everyone in Broken Bow). If Starfleet were founded as only an exploration service and defense and combat were added later, why were the ships armed? And more importantly, why did the officers not have stun weapons? Stun weapons exist today, they should be easy to come by in the 22nd century.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

If Starfleet were founded as only an exploration service and defense and combat were added later, why were the ships armed?

For the same reason one never goes into the Alaskan wilderness without a rifle. When I said "defense" I meant organized defense of Earth and its territory as a dedicated and standing mission, not defense of themselves, which would obviously be necessary to any explorer.

More importantly, prior to the NX-01 Starfleet officers were armed with weapons which had no stun setting (the concept of which was new to everyone in Broken Bow)
[...]
Stun weapons exist today, they should be easy to come by in the 22nd century.

I don't recall it ever being said that the weapons they used before the phase pistols didn't have stun settings or that this was a novel concept to them, merely that it was important to distinguish which was which on the new model. But if this was ever said anywhere, then there's an actually good example of that "sloppy writing" you mentioned earlier!

 

[The Wormhole]

I don't recall it ever being said that the weapons they used before the phase pistols didn't have stun settings or that this was a novel concept to them, merely that it was important to distinguish which was which on the new model. But if this was ever said anywhere, then there's an actually good example of that "sloppy writing" you mentioned earlier!

That they draw attention the fact the phase pistols had "two settings" implies to me this is not standard weaponry of the time. If there had been stun settings on the EM-33 it presumably wouldn't be necessary to indicate which was which on the phase pistol. Certainly everyone should naturally assume the left button meant stun and the right was kill. Hell, this practice is continued on all phaser models for the next 200 years, why would previous weapons do it any differently?

 

[The Old Mixer]

For the same reason one never goes into the Alaskan wilderness without a rifle.

The Russians!!!

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

That they draw attention the fact the phase pistols had "two settings" implies to me this is not standard weaponry of the time. If there had been stun settings on the EM-33 it presumably wouldn't be necessary to indicate which was which on the phase pistol. Certainly everyone should naturally assume the left button meant stun and the right was kill. Hell, this practice is continued on all phaser models for the next 200 years, why would previous weapons do it any differently?

You've obviously never handled actual weapons if you think it's as simple as "seen one, seen 'em all." There of course may be strong similarities among many models but familiarity with the particulars of one does not confer instant familiarity with another, especially not if it's a wholly new type of weapon! It would also be quite irresponsible to dispense such new weapons without reviewing basic features like this; even if there were likely to be prior familiarity on the part of the recipient, that shouldn't be assumed and taken for granted. And it's just completely ridiculous to think that pointing out "it has two settings, this one is stun and this one is kill" can be translated as "the weapons we had before this one were kill only"; you're grasping at straws here.

 

[TwoJakes]

For the same reason one never goes into the Alaskan wilderness without a rifle

But the question was "why were the ships armed?" Exploring new worlds would require hand weapons, this is prudent. The thing is, the ship itself was designed to fire missiles.

Of the small number of officers on the bridge, one of them was a ordnance officer.

You've obviously never handled actual weapons

I have, and yes they are saying that the new weapons are different than the previous issue. As I recall the dialog it was more than just a new layout of controls, there was a previously nonexistance switch for a previously nonexistance stun setting.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

But the question was "why were the ships armed?" Exploring new worlds would require hand weapons, this is prudent. The thing is, the ship itself was designed to fire missiles.

The principle is exactly the same. The weapons are there to deal with threats to the ship and crew, both foreseen and unforeseen, that might be encountered out there in the unknown. That doesn't make Starfleet a military, it makes them not the fools they'd have to be to go out there without ample protection to face up to whatever they might find with little or no backup available. (And guess what, even spatial torpedoes proved to be inadequate to the task once they got out there.)

Of the small number of officers on the bridge, one of them was a ordnance officer.

(I believe he was the tactical and armory officer, but that's just semantics.) Of course if you have weapons on board, then you need someone to be in charge of maintaining, distributing, and operating them.

I have, and yes they are saying that the new weapons are different than the previous issue. As I recall the dialog it was more than just a new layout of controls, there was a previously nonexistance switch for a previously nonexistance stun setting.

This is the dialogue:

ARCHER: Ah. Our new weapons.
REED: They're called phase pistols. They have two settings, stun and kill. It would be best not to confuse them.

Nowhere is it said that the previous weapons did not have stun settings, and this conclusion does not logically follow from what is said. The EM-33s could have had five settings that were more complicated to configure than flipping a switch for all this line tells us about them as opposed to the phase pistols. And even if they didn't have stun settings, that in and of itself would tell us precisely nothing about whether Starfleet's intended role was military from its inception more than a decade earlier, so I don't see what the actual point is. Rifles don't have stun settings either, but that doesn't mean everyone who uses them in the course of their day to day routine is in the military. Good grief, what are we actually arguing about here? This is a tangent to a tangent.

(@The Wormhole, sorry for the "bro do you even lift" tone in my last post, no offense was intended and I can't exactly claim extensive personal expertise in weaponry either.)