• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Starfleet is a Space Navy (military fleet)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christ this thread took off overnight.
The main problem with this argument is exactly the same as the problem with our other favourite argument, Does the Federation use money?
That problem is this - there are clear and unambiguous statements in dialogue supporting contradictory positions. So both sides are well armed with irrefutable arguments, and it comes down to personal viewpoints.

Mine remains that Starfleet is a scientific exploration agency which is paramilitary in structure and armed. Others views will be that Starfleet is a military organisation which also does exploration. Both of us can cite dialogue and other evidence to support our view.
 
Christ this thread took off overnight.
The main problem with this argument is exactly the same as the problem with our other favourite argument, Does the Federation use money?
That problem is this - there are clear and unambiguous statements in dialogue supporting contradictory positions. So both sides are well armed with irrefutable arguments, and it comes down to personal viewpoints.

Mine remains that Starfleet is a scientific exploration agency which is paramilitary in structure and armed. Others views will be that Starfleet is a military organisation which also does exploration. Both of us can cite dialogue and other evidence to support our view.

Which is why IMO, what we see (that Starfleet is not a civilian organisation) but an uniformed armed force which is the primary instrument of Federation operational policy is defining v them being civilian (clearly they are not civilians). So the question becomes whether it is a military force (with a science and diplomacy tasking) or a scientific and diplomatic agency (with occassional [para]military taskings).

Definition of a paramilitary:
1) of, relating to, being, or characteristic of a force formed on a military pattern especially as a potential auxiliary military force. (From Merriam Webster)
2) A group of civilians trained and organized in a military fashion, but which do not represent the formal forces of a sovereign power. (From Wiktionary).
3) denoting or relating to a group of personnel with military structure functioning either as a civil force or in support of military forces or denoting or relating to a force with military structure conducting armed operations against a ruling or occupying power.
(from Collins Dictionary Online)


The Merriam Webster definition might suggest that Starfleet is paramilitary (as politically and ideologically Starfleet is "military last"), but it's existence as a non-civilian agency and the primary formal force of the UFP (a sovereign power) suggests per the Wiktionary definition that it is not. Collins suggests that paramilitaries are either civilians (primarily law enforcement/civil defence but also agencies like the NASA, CAP, NOAA and PHSS), act alongside other militaries (ala modern PMCs) or quasi-military counter-goverment forces (the Maquis and the Cardassian civilian militia in the DMZ) are probably the closest to this.

The only definition that I can find that argues against Starfleet being a military is from Collins:

1) Military means relating to the armed forces of a country. (Starfleet are clearly (one of the) Federation armed forces)
2) Military means relating to or belonging to the army, rather than to the navy or the air force. (This argues against Starfleet as military as they are not primarily ground forces but rather a naval/air force hybrid)
3) The military are the armed forces of a country, especially officers of high rank. (As with (1) this is inarguably true)
4) Military means well-organized, controlled, or neat, in a way that is typical of a soldier. (Inconsistent on an individual level, but strongly implied as desirable).

Even with (2) Starfleet is still a military in the broad sense of the word (a uniformed armed force), but we could perhaps speculate that the narrow "ground forces" definition (particularly as this would fit the "MACOs are, Starfleet aren't" statements from ENT) became popularised in-universe (possibly due to the actions of Colonel Green and similar) and this the reason for the "Starfleet is not a military" statements.
 
The Merriam Webster definition might suggest that Starfleet is paramilitary (as politically and ideologically Starfleet is "military last"), but it's existence as a non-civilian agency and the primary formal force of the UFP (a sovereign power) suggests per the Wiktionary definition that it is not. Collins suggests that paramilitaries are either civilians (primarily law enforcement/civil defence but also agencies like the NASA, CAP, NOAA and PHSS), act alongside other militaries (ala modern PMCs) or quasi-military counter-goverment forces (the Maquis and the Cardassian civilian militia in the DMZ) are probably the closest to this.
If we're going to depend on word usage, we've got to consider the word 'civilian'. Certainly in this country it is common to use 'civilian' in a police context (a civilian as opposed to a warranted Constable) as well as a military one. Starfleet officers are referred to as 'sworn' and as having taken an oath of office, so the usage fits the organisation whether they are a military or not.
 
If we must have another "Starfleet Is/Isn't the Military" thread--a topic that I'm surprised people can still get so worked up about considering it's been argued to death with no hope of resolution--let's at least stick to the topic at hand. Tangents about things that have no clear connection with the topic at hand, like these...

Here is another questionable Star Trek piece that supports an earlier point:

2vii1s6.jpg

dox5rt.jpg


Notice the DC Comics address at the time (1983) as "666 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY". You can search for "DC Comics location" to confirm it.

The title of "The only good Klingon . . ." is a reference to an infamous saying: "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." This, in turn, was derived from another infamous saying: "The only good Indians I ever saw were dead." The latter, based on many witness accounts, is typically attributed to General Phil Sheridan (1831-1888), although he denied saying it himself. Even without the saying, he was a well-known Native American hater. Also, notice the ellipsis at the end of the title, as if it expects you to complete the sentence.

To add further to this:

"I suppose I should be ashamed to say that I take the Western view of the Indian. I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth."
—Theodore Roosevelt, the future, at the time, President of the United States, at the New York speech of January 1886.

Here's another one:

"My original convictions upon this subject have been confirmed by the course of events for several years, and experience is every day adding to their strength. That those tribes can not exist surrounded by our settlements and in continual contact with our citizens is certain. They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race, and without appreciating the causes of their inferiority or seeking to control them, they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long disappear."
—Andrew Jackson, the U.S. President, at the Fifth Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1833.

There were numerous treaties signed with the natives, and numerous still broken. That is numerous treaties still broken, no matter who is in power in the United States.

On the other hand, US named its top military attack helicopters after some of the bloodiest native tribes, like the Comanche and the Apache. See Top 10 Deadliest Native American Tribes.

Enter dehumanization:

dehumanize

to treat (someone) as though he or she is not a human being​

Remember that Klingons were portrayed as aliens, not humans on the show.

On the subject of lighter-skinned Klingons shown on screen, see Memory Alpha: Depicting Klignons:

"The second time [the Klingons appeared], something went wrong. I didn't see them in their makeup before they were photographed, as I usually did. The first time I saw the Klingons revisited, I was horrified. They were much paler and didn't match what we'd done before. I blew a gasket, but in television, unless it's a total disaster, you can't afford to reshoot. The third outing, we went back to them being darker." (Star Trek: Communicator issue 114, p. 24)​

Manifest Destiny, anyone? It's the term used to justify colonial conquest of America and slaughter of the indigenous population because it was all the colonizers' "destiny" to "civilize the savages".

By the way, the Berlin wall was built by the United States, not Soviet Union!

Furthermore, there's evidence to support that the franchise has never moved on from the original propaganda.

Memory Alpha: Rurik the Damned

Rurik the Damned was a great Klingon warrior, who conquered the Zora Fel and liberated Vrax. A monumental statue of him stands in the Hall of Warriors on Ty'Gokor. (DS9: "Apocalypse Rising")
Encyclopedia Britannica: Rurik Dynasty

Rurik Dynasty, princes of Kievan Rus and, later, Muscovy who, according to tradition, were descendants of the Varangian prince Rurik, who had been invited by the people of Novgorod to rule that city (c. 862); the Rurik princes maintained their control over Kievan Rus and, later, Muscovy until 1598.
This particular episode (DS9: "Apocalypse Rising") has aired five years (1996) after the end of the Cold War (1991). Moreover, Rurik has nothing to do with communism. It's medieval Russia time period.

Memory Alpha: Depicting Klingons

The Klingons of ENT: "Sleeping Dogs" were based on the crew of the Russian submarine Kursk.
This episode has aired eleven years (2002) after the end of the Cold War. Again, it is post-USSR and has nothing to do with communism, yet the allusion is still there.

What does that tell you about Star Trek's true intentions?

The above evidence clearly proves that Star Trek is still stuck in propaganda and that the Federation and Starfleet are still allusions to USA and NATO, making Starfleet a military organization and a liar.

Quod erat demonstrandum. :)

2h4w1t1.jpg

...make me want to just close this thing.
 
I could pose the same question, just ever so slightly altered.

Why does this mean that they MUST be military?
Because when Star Trek started, Starfleet was a military, this was never in doubt. Indeed, as I pointed out earlier, Roddenberry even got after the other writers to write Starfleet with military accuracy. It was only due to latter-day retcons brought on by Roddenberry feeling he needed to discredit his successors when Paramount removed him from authority over the movies, combined with his own unexplained hatred of the military in his later years of life that led to Starfleet suddenly not being military anymore.
 
It amazes me that this is still argued. Starfleet is a pseudo-military, combined service. It adopts trappings of the military in organization but is generally tasked with multi-mission objectives and is looser is structure. The confusion happens because the mission we see onscreen is somewhat like explorer ships during the age of sail..peacekeeping, exploration, resupply, diplomatic, etc(to be sure, modern military vessels can do some of this like Amphibious warships in the US, which have a shocking amount of adaptability for rescue, disasters as well as strike capability, though in the sail age, these ships were more alone and self-sufficient as with Trek's space exploration). It's all spelled out the Show Bible, circa 1964-65.

In times of emergency, the ships/organization can exchange mission parameters in preference of what it's equipped for. There is no sense here in having a separate military arm of the fleet with distances involved, the same multi-mission ships are converted. In some cases, it means evacuation, in some battle. With later threats, dedicated military ships do appear, but that seems sensible.
 
Incorrect. The wall was built by East Germany.

What did Mixer just say?

Well I'm glad this thread didn't disappoint. It never does, not any of the 100 times we've had it before, anyway.

The correct answer has already been given: there's no way to say for sure, because there are direct statements that contradict each other all throughout the franchise.

And of course, the whole none of this is real part just adds to the ambiguity.

Anyway...enjoy your fruitless arguing!

:techman:
 
The Merriam Webster definition might suggest that Starfleet is paramilitary (as politically and ideologically Starfleet is "military last"), but it's existence as a non-civilian agency and the primary formal force of the UFP (a sovereign power) suggests per the Wiktionary definition that it is not.
"Paramilitary" does not automatically imply "civilian," though. Under the Geneva conventions, for example, a lawful combatant in a paramilitary organization is not considered a civilian.

In modern precedent: statement militias like the Hezbollah, the Tamil Tigers, the Irgun and the Hagannah were considered to be parmailitary organizations, but due to their direct involvement in armed conflict were NOT considered to be civilians and therefore could be subject to the uniform code of military justice. This is equally true of the Kurdish Peshmerga, who are also considered to be lawful combatants even though they don't answer to any recognizable state.

It's kind of ironic that it's actually political correctness, of all things, that seems to drive your aversion to the term.
 
Because when Star Trek started, Starfleet was a military, this was never in doubt. Indeed, as I pointed out earlier, Roddenberry even got after the other writers to write Starfleet with military accuracy. It was only due to latter-day retcons brought on by Roddenberry feeling he needed to discredit his successors when Paramount removed him from authority over the movies, combined with his own unexplained hatred of the military in his later years of life that led to Starfleet suddenly not being military anymore.
Well, seeing how it's been at least 30 years since Rodenberry first introduced those retcons, this kind of seems like pissing into the wind.

I mean, it would have made a lot of sense if Starfleet WAS a military organization, and if they'd gone in that direction the show would have looked a lot different than it currently does; as I've said in the past, it would probably more closely resemble the Mass Effect Universe than anything else, and the designs of their starships would probably make a lot more sense. But that's not the direction Star Trek has gone with; it simply is what it is.

It's kinda like how I've always felt that Starfleet should have been explicitly an EARTH organization and that the Federation isn't a superstate so much as it is the Space United Nations. Well, initially that's EXACTLY what was going on, but Rodenberry went in another direction and now it's kind of too late to walk it back.
 
Another point: if Star Trek deliberately uses military-specific terms like JAG and court-martial incorrectly, knowing their proper definitions, then it is lying when it claims that Starfleet isn't a military!

Of course Star Trek needs permission to use the terms correctly: the permission of definition! Otherwise, it doesn't respect the viewer audience.

Moreover, the whole "acting like a military; therefore, paramilitary" argument is betrayed when Star Trek tries to position exploration as an opposite of military.

Remember Picard's quote, "Starfleet is not a military organization. Its purpose is exploration." Try it this way now within the same episode's context: "Starfleet is not a military organization. It's a paramilitary. We don't normally hone our tactical skills." Sounds like nonsense, doesn't it? There goes the whole paramilitary argument down the drain.

That leaves JAG and court-martial. Therefore, Starfleet is a military organization at all times.
 
"Paramilitary" does not automatically imply "civilian," though. Under the Geneva conventions, for example, a lawful combatant in a paramilitary organization is not considered a civilian.

In modern precedent: statement militias like the Hezbollah, the Tamil Tigers, the Irgun and the Hagannah were considered to be parmailitary organizations, but due to their direct involvement in armed conflict were NOT considered to be civilians and therefore could be subject to the uniform code of military justice. This is equally true of the Kurdish Peshmerga, who are also considered to be lawful combatants even though they don't answer to any recognizable state.

It's kind of ironic that it's actually political correctness, of all things, that seems to drive your aversion to the term.

If you ask the military, anyone who isn't in the military is a civilian, however I agree with your above point that many paramilitaries would not be considered such.

Personally, I prefer to use four categories:

Offical Government Forces include:

1) Civilian (Individuals and Non-Armed Agencies)
2) Law Enforcement/Civil Defence (Semi to Fully Armed Agencies, typically focused on internal matters. Usually short-term objectives. Can be allied by Military.)
3) Military/Quasi-Military (Fully Armed Agencies, either focused on external matters only or a mix of external and internal. Full range of objectives and deployments).

True Paramilitaries IMO are very much "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" (Hezbolla, Tamil Tigers etc per your examples, I'd also add ETA, the varous NI paramilitaries, Al Queda, ISIS etc). However, I reject the idea that SWAT-type units are paramilitary, they are law enforcement, regardless of what equipment is because their purpose has not changed and they remain part of the offical goverment structure. PMCs I am less definate on, but I would say that when acting appropriately they fit in as Quasi-Military (like the intelligence agencies) rather than being paramilitaries.
 
However, I reject the idea that SWAT-type units are paramilitary, they are law enforcement
You can reject the idea all you like, but that's the MEANING of the word, and that's how it's used in the literature related to that particular topic. As with those who -- for reasons they have declined to articulate -- are uncomfortable with the idea of "military" having a negative connotation, you seem equally uncomfortable with "paramilitary" having a positive one.

"Paramilitary Police are Changing Law Enforcement in the Suburbs"

"Paramilitary Policing from Seattle to Occupy Wall Street"

That there are lots of political problems with creating and/or using paramilitary police forces doesn't change what the word actually MEANS.

their purpose has not changed and they remain part of the offical goverment structure.
The definition of "paramilitary" does not imply any specific purpose or structure. Only that they aren't designated as the legally recognized fighting force of a government on any permanent basis and do not have statutory authority to carry out an act of war (though they could be authorized to by explicit legislative action).

Put that another way: an "assassination" is generally considered to be a word with a negative connotation, but it also accurately describes one of the most common counter-terrorism tactics used by the United States and Israel against terrorist leadership. The more PC term is "targeted killing," but the two terms are essentially interchangeable much like "paramilitary" and "quasi-military combat force" mean basically the same thing.

PMCs I am less definate on, but I would say that when acting appropriately...
There it is again: the PC wiggle. There's nothing in the definition of "paramilitary" that implies the appropriateness of their behavior.
 
JAG and court-martial

Do you have any other examples to cite, or does it pretty much boil down to those two?

Simply because something has superficial trappings of another organization does not automatically make them equivalent. I once went to a Bubba-Gump Shrimp restaurant in Florida. So I'll just assume I was in Forrest Gump from now on. Now... who stole my Oscar?
 
Triple Canopy or Pinkerton could literally hire a random guy and say "Congratulations, you're the judge advocate general now" and then decide for no good reason to call their internal discipline committees "court martials." Hell, WALMART could decide to start holding internal investigations and call them "court-martials" for some asinine reason.

That's not a good comparison. If a US business were to do such a ridiculous thing, the employees would still have full constitutional rights, and the company could not impose any penalty other than those allowed under the FLSA, or termination. That is far different from US service members under the UCMJ, and likewise far different from the Starfleet courts seen in Star Trek, which can impose capital sentences.

And the plural is courts-martial.
 
Do you have any other examples to cite, or does it pretty much boil down to those two?

Simply because something has superficial trappings of another organization does not automatically make them equivalent. I once went to a Bubba-Gump Shrimp restaurant in Florida. So I'll just assume I was in Forrest Gump from now on. Now... who stole my Oscar?
Trappings? Has anyone proven here that Starfleet functions differently to the Navies of today, or of times past? No one has really attempted to, rather the arguments have rested on terms and trolling tactics
 
You can reject the idea all you like, but that's the MEANING of the word, and that's how it's used in the literature related to that particular topic. As with those who -- for reasons they have declined to articulate -- are uncomfortable with the idea of "military" having a negative connotation, you seem equally uncomfortable with "paramilitary" having a positive one.

Agreed.

And the articles you posted - which couch viciously anti-police retoric in terms of them becoming 'militarised' - do nothing to dissuade me of this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top