Starfleet as a military orginization

Yes, but Lewis was an infantry officer and Clark an artillery officer, they clearly were part of a "fighting force" first and foremost. Even the US Army's later Corps of Topographical Engineers, which did a lot of exploring, was primarily concerned with the military applications of their mapping and surveying.

It seems to me that there are three pathways for the origins of Starfleet: Military (by which I mean a permanent, national fighting force like an army or navy), police or exploratory. The US Coast Guard would be an example of a police-type organization that takes on occasional military roles. And it could be a combination of all three: I can imagine a NASA type exploration body taking on a regulatory and policing role as space becomes more crowded, and then evolving to take on military roles as more unfriendly types are encountered.

--Justin

 

I wonder if this concern would be addressed had Enterprise gone one for another three seasons. Now we know how the Federation came together, but just how did Starfleet eventually usurp the highly advanced fleets of three worlds to become the premier power?

 

Um, no, the US Coast Guard is a military organization. Military organizations can and often do take on far more than just defensive operations. The USCG is a military, it is always a military, it is part of the United States Armed Forces. It is a military that engages in law enforcement more often than national defense, but it remains a fact that the USCG is one of the agencies legally empowered to engage in national defense and therefore constitutes a military.

No one disagrees that Starfleet does much more than just national defense -- clearly the Starfleet engages in exploration and scientific research and diplomacy, too. But none of that means that it is not a military.

Folks have got to get this notion out of their minds that "military only equals combat."

 

It didn't. The United Earth Starfleet (UESF) and Federation Starfleet (FSF) are separate organizations that happen to share a name. But they're no more the same organization than the Massachusetts State Navy is the same organization as the United States Navy.

 

Not much exploring to be done at short range - the Vulcans had already been everywhere. We never heard of an exploration mission, either, or of a skipper who would have had qualifications of that sort; they put their warp 5 expert in command of the exploration mission instead.

Not much coast-guarding, either, it seems: no UESF seemed to ever have challenged a pirate vessel, for example. And the idea of search-and-rescue would be quite ludicrous anywhere outside the Sol system if it took the SAR ship months or years to arrive...

What the Intrepid and her two companions did do was defensive combat, seeming capital ship against capital ship.

They defeated their Klingon counterparts. I'd say that's pretty high praise if one wants to define "heavily armed" or "combat ready".

It was explicated that she left port before being completed, though. Her big phase guns were ready - it's just that only one (plus parts for two more) was aboard, and the rest were waiting back in the Sol system for Archer to finish his unscheduled ferry mission.

There wasn't much to suggest that the phase cannon would be a novel weapon never installed elsewhere before; Reed and Tucker did know their way around one, and the ships from "The Expanse" had this weaponry as well and may have carried it for much longer than two years for all we know. What was new was the overload mode that our heroes discovered, with a bit of help from nasty aliens.

Hmm... That works fine, too. Good idea.

Odds are they left their gunners and other specialists ashore in "Broken Bow", though, just like Reed complained they left their guns and ammo. The most "militant" guy aboard was called Armory Officer, and was needed down below in the torp room, yet the ship did have a requirement and a bridge console for what later Trek would call a Tactical Officer.

The two-year mission we saw was never supposed to be the one the ship was designed for. Archer simply decided not to return home after his ferry mission, and had to make do with limited resources as a consequence. When he did get home, her ship became a rather more powerful fighting machine - but only by receiving ordnance that apparently already was slated to go there, since the gunports had always been there on the hull. And the sister ship Columbia was specifically said to be receiving an even heavier, nonstandard weapons fit as the result of the S1&2 experiences, so the one on the Enterprise could well have been standard despite being heavy.

Timo Saloniemi

 

Note that I defined "military" for the purposes of my comments as a permanent national fighting force, which I would say excludes the USCG as its primary mission is not fighting. And there are some major legal differences between the USCG and the other armed forces. The Coast Guard is not covered by Posse Comitatus, and can board foreign vessels for maritime law enforcement, which the USN can not do. Which is why USCG detachmentare used aboard some navy vessels, which raise the Coast Guard ensign for law enforcement operations. The CG Commandant is not a member of the Joint Chiefs, its operating forces do not normally fall under a US Unified Command, and on and on. Also, the USCG's origin was as a "revenue marine" or "preventive service," which are considered law enforcement bodies by most nations. Hence the distinction I was trying to make in my post above.

Yes, I don't disagree with that.

--Justin

 

The problem with that is that your definition is not legally accurate. "Military" is a legal term with a specific legal meaning that your definition contradicts. It's an inaccurate definition.

None of which is relevant to whether or not the USCG is legally considered a military.

 

^ Well, for what its worth, my USCG ID has "U.S. Armed Forces" clearly labeled in relatively large font on it...

Cheers,
-CM-

 

Well the USCG was part of the Treasury merged with costal lifeguarding services. They were military like a local armed deputy was part of the state's militia because technology until about 1960 was at such a point that a USCG Cutter was just about as combat effective as a naval vessel of a similar size. As such when war broke out the Dept of Navy used those ships and crews as combatants.

 

You've missed my point, which was to draw distinctions between three different kinds of possible Starfleet-precursor organizations, one of which, for purposes of discussion, I called "military." I don't really see what a legal definition has to do with that. The USCG clearly has origins, status and missions which differ from those of the other US armed forces.

The Posse Comitatus Act is not legally relevant? Please cite the law to which you are referring.

--Justin

 

United States Code, Title 14, Chapter 1, §1:

Bold added.

 

It seems to me the main problem is the very low speed of these ships. They were what, warp 2, warp 3? (unless they were later also updated with warp 5 engines) That's quite slow. Not much point in building a warpcapable warship if it can be completely outrun and outmanuevered by pretty much any enemy. Basically all the limitations in regards to their exploration role (though a, say, 1 year long exploration mission to a neighbouiring system is plausible) or SAR role are also there in regards to a military role. Unless they operate just within the Solar system in which case they can also be meant to do SAR and survey just fine.

Yeah, but that's later. You said they had a long tradition of operating heavily armed ships.

I'm pretty sure it was a new weapon at the time. If I recall corectly the one they had was only a prototype at the time, suggesting it didn't really enter service yet. Also, the phase pistol was considered a new weapon, so from that you could conclude that the phase cannons were also new.
Photonic torps were also completely new at the time.

I think they left with their full complement of crew onboard. Nowhere later, even when they do return to Earth do we see a new officer taking Reed's place on the Bridge or in the Armory. Armory officer was just the name used at that point for the guy in charge of all security and combat. The fact that Reed had to be both in the Armory and on the Bridge is probably caused by the fact that the crew was relatively small (some 85 people tops) so at that point he had to do stuff that would on later, larger (and probably more automated) ships be done by other security personell.

 

And we still have cutters that are effective... Heck, we have several of them over in the Arabian Gulf right now. Plus, the acquisition project I'm involved in has one of the most integrated combat systems out there, just a step down from the LCS Program.

Cheers,
-CM-

 

Yes, I have read that before. But it doesn't define the term "military," as you said above. And I still don't see what the legal defintion has to do with the point I was making.

--Justin

 

Good point, I forgot about that difference. Yet the Federation Starfleet owes much to the United Earth Starfleet, with many elements dating back to pre-Fed days, and I'm still trying to figure out how *a *Starfleet became so ubiquitous and much more human-dominated than the influence of the other three founding worlds.

Of course, that could be a topic for an entirely different thread.

 

There was a discussion regarding that in this thread http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=95619.

 

Um, yes it does. "A branch of the armed forces." And several dictionary definitions were used to demonstrate what an armed force is in my earliest post in this thread.

The United States Coast Guard is a military.

It doesn't. I am making the point that you used the word "military" inaccurately and should have used another term to describe an organization whose missions most commonly involve combat.

 

Awww, four pages? [/Homer Simpson]

Well, I guess it's time for me to hunker down a bit...

 

What section is that? The one you cited said "a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States..." That's not a definition, in fact it could be construed as differentiating between "military service" and "branch of the armed forces."

Sure. But you said above that "military" was a legal term with a specific legal meaning. What I'm interested in is the law that defines that specific meaning.

Agreed.

I disagree there. As I generally try to write in the spirit of KISS, I used "military" for traditional armed forces and "police-type" for the Coast Guard. I think most readers were perfectly able to follow the meaning.

--Justin