What about Kirk's backstory, as used for reference by the TOS writers which said Kirk worked up the ranks serving on destroyers and frigates. What's a destroyer, if not a warship?
So, was Cochrane's warp drive concept something special, or wasn't it ?
- Thread starter at Quark's
- Start date
- Status
If you're accepting the TOS writer's bible as evidence in itself without the information having to be included in an actual episode as aired, then you don't even need to infer from that particular bit, because it directly addresses the question of whether NCC-1701 is a military vessel:
Now, what does the TNG writer's guide say about NCC-1701-D? What does ENT's say about NX-01? (I don't have copies of any of them to check for myself; the above bit is quoted in The Making Of Star Trek.)
The TNG writer's guide says the Enterprise D is less of a battleship than the original, so there you have it, Roddenberry himself called the original Enterprise a battleship. Indeed, it's mentioned frequently the intent is to make TNG less militaristic than TOS and its movies.
The Enterprise writer's guide only provide technical details about the NX-01, it's crew complement, shuttlepods and warp 5 speed limit.
Well, half a battleship, in practice, anyway. Guess that means the "D" is ≤49% battleship, then.
(I mean, as far as writer's guides count, that is. Pun...intended?
)Does it say anything about Starfleet in general? Is that one online anywhere? Thanks for the link to the TNG one, BTW.
Last edited:
This is the closest I could find for Enterprise's though it's just excerpts mostly on character details and the stuff I mentioned earlier about the NX-01. About the only noteworthy thing there in regards to 22nd century Starfleet is the info about Trip which notes he had been assigned to Utopia Planitia and had worked on the construction of many starships, implying at the time this was written that perhaps Starfleet was intended to be a larger organization than was eventually depicted in the show.
http://www.trektoday.com/news/270701_04.shtml
http://www.trektoday.com/news/270701_04.shtml
Do we ever actually see a mission statement for starfleet? I'm actually struggling to think of an instance (although I have been up 24 hours straight. "to boldly go, explore strange new worlds, etc" specifically refers to the Enterprise in every instance we have heard it delivered.
In peacetime starfleet focus a great deal of attention on exploration, as do pretty much all navies throughout history, but what we don't see so much on the show are all the smaller more utilitarian vessels which will doubtless include border patrols, vessels on anti piracy missions and the like, ie roles more commonly associated with the moniker "military".
As we have two definitions given for military, both of which starfleet fit very neatly into, both in detail and spirit, the exploration angle is pretty much redundant to my mind. Yes it's clearly a large part of what they do and the focus of much of the show but they are also the wartime arm of the federation and the only uniformed body we have seen pitted against external threats.
Not sure where you are going with this as;
1) We've never seen starfleet in such a position, in any incarnation they are a professional organisation with dedicated resources
2) Such a scenario would not preclude the use of the term "military" in any case. A poorly resourced ad hoc military is still a military by any definition given here. Whether the American government of the time recognised it as such is largely immaterial, they were an armed force using deadly force on behalf of a nation, thus a military
Their motto in ENT is "semper exploro" ("always exploring") as seen on flags in several episodes including "The Expanse," "Home," "The Forge," "Demons," and "Terra Prime"; Picard cites before the court in "The Measure Of A Man" that "Starfleet was founded to seek out new life" and in "Peak Performance" that "its purpose is exploration." It seems a bit like we're going around in circles here, doesn't it?
Starfleet was created in peacetime; peacetime is all there was for decades prior to its inception, and peacetime is all there had been during its existence at the time ENT begins. For what particular reason would it have been authorized and founded as a force intended to fight wars, at least openly so, if there are none to be fought? As I've said, I can believe there were those who thought it might eventually need to be one, and even those who might have wanted it to be one, but would they have won out in whatever debate surrounded its conception, beyond getting Section 31 included in its charter and the laying of some basic structural framework under the rationale of it being ostensibly and plausibly for other purposes, such as armaments for self-defense and naval ranks to preserve discipline?
If we don't see or hear about them on the show, I don't see why we should assume they exist, or that they are operated by Starfleet if they do. The Vulcans could be patrolling our borders for us as their protectorate, more or less, and the Earth Cargo Service seems to be fending for itself against pirates without much if any help from Starfleet, from what we see. (Also, while I'm sure some countries today do have their borders patrolled by military forces, the U.S. Border Patrol is civilian.)
Again, Starfleet was chartered before the Federation existed, at a time when there were no wars to be fought, and had been none for decades, and would be none for decades. When an existential outside threat to Earth did present itself in the form of the Xindi, we saw Earth's military—a distinct and separate uniformed body from Starfleet—brought on board to deal with it, in spite of the fact that by that point Starfleet arguably already had more "hands on" experience in such matters thanks to various encounters they'd had while carrying out their functions of exploration and seeking out new life. That's what we actually see on the show.
Sorry, maybe I should have been a bit more explicit. I think these points might be relevant:
(1) We didn't always have a navy, as one wasn't always considered necessary, and even when one did become necessary there was significant resistance within the governmental body to establishing and/or maintaining one. Therefore, it is not without historical precedent that we mightn't have a space military/navy if one wasn't considered necessary, and/or if there were political obstacles to having one.
(2) While the U.S. Coast Guard is a military organization, many or all of its antecedent services were civilian ones. Therefore, it is not without historical precedent that Starfleet may be clearly a military force of the UFP in the 23rd and 24th centuries, and yet might have originally begun as a non-military one in context of Earth in the 22nd.
So, in your opinion—this question having been skirted around a few times now—all the U.S. federal agencies doing this today that are not recognized by the government as being military forces, are in fact military forces? (See FBI, CIA, ATF, DSS, Secret Service, etc.) Their actual purposes as intended and established have no bearing on the matter, it's only that they are armed and authorized to use deadly force that counts? Do I take it you have no use for the term "paramilitary" either?
I wish you a pleasant rest as soon as you may take it.
Last edited:
The joys of working nights off to bed in a mo
Yeah, very much in agreement that this is going in quite pointless circles and probably neither warrants earnest debate nor addresses the OP. Still as we are all playing nice I'll stick with it.
Yeah, the limitations in the definition are definitely valid, I noted that myself when I brought into play, but my reasoning is that its hard to have a meaningful discussion about whether something fits into a category without first defining that category. The definition was lacking in that it incorporates seemingly non military modern day bodies, but it was better than the vague distinction between "military" and "explorers" when history (especially European history) indicates that the two are not mutually exclusive and that military bodies in many cases have been far more involved in exploration than war fighting.
Equally many military bodies are instituted in peacetime without diminishing their military status as such. I take your point that there is precedent for a country to be without an established navy but don't see how it follows that starfleet is analogous. Still ultimately the question is one of splitting hairs and in no small part comes down to how you view exactly what a military is.
Thank you for the motto by the way, although I was thinking more of a formal mission statement which is a slightly different thing.
For me the lack of any viable alternative either in peacetime or war says a lot, especially in the light of their highly militarised structure but as people have alluded characters in universe have differed somewhat in their views of SF's role which by extension has varied in it's on screen portrayal.
If they can't decide themselves how are we supposed to? Seemingly the Klingons have spent a few centuries pretty confused about who these people are too.
Just a thought to consider though, if they operate on the scale of a military, fulfill the role of a military, have the structure of a military and serve a society which even during total war makes no attempt to supersede them with another more dedicated body, how does that differ from being a military? Why given the choice would you deprive them of that status?
It seems to me that every point raised against makes the case simply that they don't HAVE to be interpreted as such, not why they shouldn't be.
off to bed in a moYeah, very much in agreement that this is going in quite pointless circles and probably neither warrants earnest debate nor addresses the OP. Still as we are all playing nice I'll stick with it.
Yeah, the limitations in the definition are definitely valid, I noted that myself when I brought into play, but my reasoning is that its hard to have a meaningful discussion about whether something fits into a category without first defining that category. The definition was lacking in that it incorporates seemingly non military modern day bodies, but it was better than the vague distinction between "military" and "explorers" when history (especially European history) indicates that the two are not mutually exclusive and that military bodies in many cases have been far more involved in exploration than war fighting.
Equally many military bodies are instituted in peacetime without diminishing their military status as such. I take your point that there is precedent for a country to be without an established navy but don't see how it follows that starfleet is analogous. Still ultimately the question is one of splitting hairs and in no small part comes down to how you view exactly what a military is.
Thank you for the motto by the way, although I was thinking more of a formal mission statement which is a slightly different thing.
For me the lack of any viable alternative either in peacetime or war says a lot, especially in the light of their highly militarised structure but as people have alluded characters in universe have differed somewhat in their views of SF's role which by extension has varied in it's on screen portrayal.
If they can't decide themselves how are we supposed to? Seemingly the Klingons have spent a few centuries pretty confused about who these people are too.
Just a thought to consider though, if they operate on the scale of a military, fulfill the role of a military, have the structure of a military and serve a society which even during total war makes no attempt to supersede them with another more dedicated body, how does that differ from being a military? Why given the choice would you deprive them of that status?
It seems to me that every point raised against makes the case simply that they don't HAVE to be interpreted as such, not why they shouldn't be.
The terms destroyer and frigate have never been canonically established for Starfleet vessels, much less for the ships that Kirk served on for his early career. One of the only times that the term warship has been used for a Starfleet ship was for the Enterprise-D in the "Yesterday's Enterprise" alternate timeline, which then went out of it's way to point out that the D was a ship of peace, not war.
The writer's guide is not a canonical source (for example, the TNG writer's guide had no mention of Worf, despite him being one of the most important characters), so while it provides the foundation, the descriptions have no bearing on the final product.
Someone check me on this.
It was Starfleet that fought the Romulan War during the 22nd century, and it wasn't a case of Earth creating (or already having) a separate military organization that fought the war while Starfleet either sat to the side or at best provided some support.
Or maybe it was never spelled out.
And I mean on the show, not in some book.
It was Starfleet that fought the Romulan War during the 22nd century, and it wasn't a case of Earth creating (or already having) a separate military organization that fought the war while Starfleet either sat to the side or at best provided some support.
Or maybe it was never spelled out.
And I mean on the show, not in some book.
There weren't many people who thought the US would never need a navy, they had just needed one in the Revolution, after all. What was in question was whether they could afford to maintain a peacetime fleet, or just assemble a naval force converted from merchant shipping in time of war. The country was on shaky financial ground in the 1780s, with a recession, big debts from the Revolution and being cut out of British-dominated trade. Maintaining a navy was the single most expensive thing a government could do and many thought the new country could not afford it, or if they could it would put too high a burden on the public. American ships began to be captured in the Mediterranean in 1785, ratification of the Constitution began in 1787, the first Congress met in 1789 and the act to build the first six frigates was in 1794, so the time without a navy was pretty short.
Yes, but they were also semi-military because they could always be "drafted" into the navy in wartime, and often were because of the small size of the peacetime navies. This began as early as 1798 in the Quasi-War with France. One of the first navy ships to respond to Fort Sumter in the Civil War was the revenue cutter Harriet Lane.
Agreed about Kirk, but Starfleet "frigates" were mentioned in TNG "Conspiracy" and "destroyer units" in DS9 during the Dominion war. It was TMoST that said Kirk had previously commanded a "destroyer-class" ship.
I agree it is a plausible scenario and have never meant to suggest otherwise in anything I have said, but in point of fact no, it was never spelled out. Very little about the war has been, beyond what Spock says in "Balance Of Terror":
SPOCK: Referring to the map on your screens, you will note beyond the moving position of our vessel, a line of Earth outpost stations. Constructed on asteroids, they monitor the Neutral Zone established by treaty after the Earth-Romulan conflict a century ago. As you may recall from your histories, this conflict was fought, by our standards today, with primitive atomic weapons and in primitive space vessels which allowed no quarter, no captives. Nor was there even ship-to-ship visual communication. Therefore, no human, Romulan, or ally has ever seen the other. Earth believes the Romulans to be warlike, cruel, treacherous, and only the Romulans know what they think of Earth. The treaty, set by sub-space radio, established this Neutral Zone, entry into which by either side, would constitute an act of war. The treaty has been unbroken since that time.
One might infer from the description of the "primitive" vessels which fought in it that if they were operated by Starfleet, they certainly weren't of the NX's technological caliber. Perhaps a fleet of stripped-down "flying bombs with seats" was indeed created for the purpose? Perhaps those seats were occupied by MACOs? Or perhaps there were no seats, and much of the conflict was fought with unmanned drones, as we in fact saw the Romulans make use of at least once on ENT? Stiles had several relatives "in the space service" who lost their lives in the war, but it is not specified how.
A barely readable computer screen in "In A Mirror, Darkly" with most of its information copied verbatim out of the first edition of the Okuda Chronology further specifies that the plural "wars" began between the Romulans and "Earth forces" in 2156 and ended in 2160 with the Battle of Cheron in which a "humiliating defeat" (first mentioned in connection with the above Neutral Zone treaty in "The Defector") was suffered by the Romulans "at the hands of an Earth/Andorian/Vulcan/Tellarite alliance."
(Incidentally, it also mentions that Cochrane was born in 2030 and that "his work [made] such an enormous contribution to space exploration that universities and planets [were] one day named after him" and that it was in 2061 that his "first successful demonstration of light speed propulsion" took place, which "became the basis for early warp drive technology, and heralded First Contact with members of the Vulcan race." And that the UFP's incarnation of Starfleet was chartered in 2161 "to boldly go where no man has gone before.")
If I've missed out anything else about the Romulan War(s) that has actually been in the show, I shall rely on others to check me!
And so why can't the above apply equally (in an analogous sense) to the situation in Archer's time? Why would the military need its own standing fleet of ships in peacetime, if it anticipated being able to make use of Starfleet's (and perhaps others) when need arose?
Last edited:
You missed the bit where soon after the Naval Act of 1794 was passed, Congress decided to ransom the Algerian pirates' captives instead, and amended it to halt construction of those frigates if this resulted in peace. That peace and halting of construction occurred in 1796, and it was not until after further debate that it was resumed only on the three vessels furthest along, and not until 1798 that completion of the rest was authorized. No U.S. naval vessel actually set sail until 1798.
(Also, as I neglected to mention in my previous post, the initial objections to having a standing navy weren't solely fiscal ones, although that was as you say the elephant in the room; others included that it would too imperialistic and construed as provocative to the superior European powers.)
But Americas martime borders (more analogist to Star Trek's environment) are patroled by the US Coast Guard, ships and aircraft. And other branches of the armed services participate in surveillance and intercepts.
For example, the USAF will send out fighters if a Russia recon bomber "gets lost" and has to be shown back into international airspace.
Sure, but again, that wasn't the case before we had a Coast Guard or an Air Force (or a Navy, for that matter). These each came into being through various circumstances as the specific needs for them presented themselves, they weren't all set up in place from the moment (or decade, or even century) that the country was founded.
Last edited:
Congress created the Continental Navy in 1775, prior to the official founding of the nation. By 1785 the Navy was disbanded and the ships sold.
The (precurser to) US Coast Guard was created in 1790. It fell to them to protect US civilian shipping.
The Naval Act was passed in 1794 and the first three US Navy warships were launched in 1797. The US was involved in a naval war with France between 1798 to 1800.
The US was without martime protection for less than five years, disbanding the Navy was a costly mistake.
The (precurser to) US Coast Guard was created in 1790. It fell to them to protect US civilian shipping.
The Naval Act was passed in 1794 and the first three US Navy warships were launched in 1797. The US was involved in a naval war with France between 1798 to 1800.
The US was without martime protection for less than five years, disbanding the Navy was a costly mistake.
Last edited:
President Washington communicated to Congress on March 15 , 1796, that he intended to halt construction according to the statute, but urged them to re-authorize the completion of the vessels. A Senate committee recommended completing three of the six on March 22, and legislation to that effect was passed and signed April 20. The captains of the remaining three were not discharged until June. Tiny though it was, the naval establishment of 1794 stayed in continuous existence, though of course under the War Department until April 1798.
Agreed, that was the feeling of some of the more staunch Anti-federalists.
Okay. Two questions. Is a frigate always a military vessel? Were the DS9 destroyer units referring to specific ships or fleets of ships? (Also, during DS9, they were at war, so Starfleet was acting like a military at that point, regardless of wether that was in reality or not.)
What is "TMoST"?
1. Yes.
2. Groups of destroyers, apparently.
3. The Making of Star Trek, 1968 book by Stephen Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry.
- Status
