Starfleet Is Clueless About the Military

[T'Girl]

you have to be exactly like a 20th Century one

Or the 21st century, or the 19th century, or the 18th century, or the 17th century ...

Weapons and tactics do change over time, but the basic role of the military doesn't. A military is an organization authorized by it's nation/society to use violent force (or threat of) to protect and in some cases advance its nation/society. Now they can do other things too, even spend more time doing the other things. But the other things are not their primary job.

When the Dominion War broke out, Starfleet largely stopped exploring. Because when it comes right down to it, exploration isn't their primary job. Protection is their primary job.

 

[CoveTom]

It still boggles my mind how anyone can see Starfleet's role in the Dominion War and then claim that Starfleet is not a military...

 

[7thsealord]

Tossing the following in as some food for thought.

(Please don't yell at me )

1) Tactics and technology are not the only things to have changed within militaries over the last few centuries. For example, there was a time when press gangs and flogging were not just the standard in the Royal Navy, they were seen as right and proper. When flogging was finally completely done away with, there were a few dire predictions about how all discipline in the RN would break down and only disaster could result.

There was also a more recent time when the only non-Caucasians found in a USN or RN or RAN vessel's wardroom were stewards and very few people (if any) questioned this. This too changed.

Guess what I am trying to say is that we are evaluating a futuristic (and, face it, imaginary) organization by standards that may not necessarily be as close as we choose to think. Reminds me, somewhat, of an old tale about a very elderly Admiral inspecting a RN steam-powered warship - he gets very very put out upon discovering that none of the officers or crew have cutlasses. How are they supposed to repel boarders if they are unarmed?

So saying "that" shouldn't be how Star Fleet does certain things because "that" isn't how WE (apparently) do (allegedly) similar things is not necessarily a clinching argument. IMO.

2) Lee Correy wrote a fairly good Trek novel called 'The Abode Of Life'. One particular quote worthy of attention:

"You musr remember," the military historian had told him, "that all military, paramilitary or police organizations do not necessarily have to be instruments for the application of physical force to coerce desired action. They can be much like the classical model upon which much of Star Fleet is based: the old United States Coast Guard...".

Service that uses naval-stle ranks, but with noticeably less formality overall.
Check.
Fights when required.
Check.
Routinely handles border protection, exploration, survey, rescue, disaster relief, safety inspections, scientific study, expedition support and even police work.
Check.

Just sayin'.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The creators say that Starfleet is not military. They use that as an out to permit all kinds of non-military behavior.

Those things are true, they're not complicated, and there's no effective debate about them.

 

[CoveTom]

Gene Roddenberry said that Starfleet was not a military. He said that at the same time where he was retroactively trying to claim many things about Star Trek which were patently false. Gene Roddenberry should be flatly ignored, about this and about 99% of everything he said from the 1970's on.

As far as I know, none of the other key people involved (e.g. Gene L. Coon, Robert Justman, Harve Bennett, Rick Berman, Michael Piller, Ira Steven Behr, Jeri Taylor, etc.) have ever tried to claim that Starfleet is not a military.

In any event, it is irrelevant what they say. Starfleet, as depicted on screen, is most definitely a military organization.

 

[T'Girl]

press gangs and flogging ... non-Caucasians found ...

In the Japanese military of the World War Two era, there were no Caucasians in the wardrooms, it was still a military.

... the classical model upon which much of Star Fleet is based: the old United States Coast Guard

Fine with my position, the US Coast guard is a armed uniformed branch of the US military. There are a total of seven branches of the US military, only four (the big ones) are directly part of the Departmant of Defense.

 

[plynch]

7 uniformed services, 5 military, 4 in Defense

 

[captcalhoun]

seven?

jeez and in Britain we make do with three!

Army, Navy, Air Force...so much simpler...

 

[CoveTom]

There are a total of seven branches of the US military, only four (the big ones) are directly part of the Departmant of Defense.

Actually, there are only five that are considered to be part of the military: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines -- which I assume are the "big ones" you mentioned -- and Coast Guard. The other two "uniformed services," the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps, are not a part of the military.

 

[7thsealord]

press gangs and flogging ... non-Caucasians found ...

In the Japanese military of the World War Two era, there were no Caucasians in the wardrooms, it was still a military.

Umm, don't understand your point here.

I was referring to situations that once existed in the USN, RN and RAN. Didn't dispute that they are / were militaries despite these things - just that there were shifts in their cultures as well as technology.

 

[A Little Otter]

In TWOK Starfleet did not send an unfit Enterprise into a life or death situation. It sent the Enterprise off to determine why they lost contact with a science station. True this turned out to be a life or death trap, but Starfleet was unaware of this.

Starfleet sent out a ship that is used to train cadets to investigate a possible problem because the Enterprise was the only ship in the vicinity. It was not properly prepared for a mission (even Kirk said this), regardless if Starfleet knew how bad the problem was.

There are two Starfleet ships which survived encounters with the Borg prior to First Contact: the Enterprise D and the USS Endeavor. The Enterprise D has since been destroyed, and it is the Enterprise E featured in First Contact.

Yes, the Enterprise D was destroyed to be replaced with the E, but it was the same crew. The point still stands that the most experience "ship" (i.e. crew) is sent away on a silly mission when they are needed the most.

Generations does not indicate how long Kirk had been retired. Besides, based on the "78 Years Later" caption when we jump ahead to the TNG portion of the story, the TOS portion takes place in 2293, the same year TUC took place in.

At no point in the movie is the date established (other than a stardate, which tends to be random in the films). The year 2293 may have been determined by fans or Trek historians, but it's not clear in the film. Kirk mentions while being in the Nexus that he spent years with his girlfriend, indicating that it was the time since he retired. However, if what you say is true that the Enterprise B was launched the same year that Kirk and his crew retired, then that means that the A was decommissioned as indicated by the vague dialogue. The point still stands that why would Starfleet decommission a ship that's only three years old?

 

[A Little Otter]

The writer of that blog got so many facts wrong it's pitiful.

Can you explain what facts were wrong and how they affect the points made?

 

[A Little Otter]

That article is idiotic. Anyone who has watched enough Trek can easily debunk most of that nonsense.

Give some details on how the points can be debunked.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Wrong Starfleet

They shut down Starfleet and opened a totally new space force which just happened to also be called Starfleet, headquarted in the same place, with the same ranks, the same positions, the same ships, the same uniform colour-coding....?

Give me a break.

Obviously they used the United Earth Starfleet as the template for the United Federation of Planets Starfleet.

 

[JB2005]

seven?

jeez and in Britain we make do with three!

Army, Navy, Air Force...so much simpler...

Technically we have more than 3 -

The Royal Marines and Royal Fleet Auxiliary are technically part of the Navy, but practically operate seperately - similarly with the SAS! The army operates its own air corps...as does the navy...we have a civilian navy in the form of the merchant fleet...

=p

 

[The Wormhole]

At no point in the movie is the date established (other than a stardate, which tends to be random in the films). The year 2293 may have been determined by fans or Trek historians, but it's not clear in the film. Kirk mentions while being in the Nexus that he spent years with his girlfriend, indicating that it was the time since he retired. However, if what you say is true that the Enterprise B was launched the same year that Kirk and his crew retired, then that means that the A was decommissioned as indicated by the vague dialogue. The point still stands that why would Starfleet decommission a ship that's only three years old?

It is canonical fact that the TNG portion of Generations takes place in 2371, as indicated by the first two digits of the stardate being 48. Therefore, in order for this to be 78 years after the TOS portion (as stated in the caption in the film) the TOS portion has to be 2293.

Kirk's Nexus fantasy takes place at what must have been an earlier retirement he took. This is made clear with various referances to having sold his house years ago, noting that Butler the dog had died years earlier, and most obviously when he says that this was the day he told Antonia he was returning to Starfleet. Since Kirk was still retired when he attended the Enterprise B's launch, it's a different retirement.

For what it's worth, Memory Alpha places Kirk's first retirement as depicted in his Nexus fantasy in 2281-2284.

And finally, we don't know for a fact the Enterprise A was only three years old. It is an accepted (though admittedly fanon) idea that the USS Yorktown was renamed Enterprise.

 

[A Little Otter]

It is canonical fact that the TNG portion of Generations takes place in 2371, as indicated by the first two digits of the stardate being 48. Therefore, in order for this to be 78 years after the TOS portion (as stated in the caption when the film) the TOS portion has to be 2293.

I hate to argue what is considered canon, but the "real" dates were never established at any time within the episodes or movies. This came from others trying to make sense of the stardates.

Kirk's Nexus fantasy takes place at what must have been an earlier retirement he took. This is made clear with various referances to having sold his house years ago, noting that Butler the dog had died years earlier, and most obviously when he says that this was the day he told Antonia he was returning to Starfleet. Since Kirk was still retired when he attended the Enterprise B's launch, it's a different retirement.

For what it's worth, Memory Alpha places Kirk's first retirement as depicted in his Nexus fantasy in 2281-2284.

Again, there's no reference in any of the movies that Kirk ever retired twice. As far as the continuity of the movies were concerned, he was named Admiral and temporarily took over the Enterprise in The Motion Picture and then again in Wrath of Khan, only to steal the ship in Search for Spock. In Voyage Home, he was given command of the Enterprise A and stayed captain of it until he was "decommissioned" at the end of Undiscovered Country. Since this was the only retirement mentioned, it stands to reason that Kirk met Antonia during this time. His status with Starfleet is not determined when he was at the send-off of the Enterprise B.

And finally, we don't know for a fact the Enterprise A was only three years old. It is an accepted (though admittedly fanon) idea that the USS Yorktown was renamed Enterprise.

There was reference to a three-year time period in that film, so there was at least that amount of time between the fifth and sixth movies. Even if there were a couple more years thrown in, that's still a very short amount of time to decommission a ship.

As to renaming the Enterprise to Yorktown, I have two responses to that: 1) yet again, at no time is it mentioned in any movie, so there's no way that it can be canon and seems to be some fan's desperate attempt to make sense of an inconsistency; 2) renaming a ship just because the senior crew retires makes about as much sense as decommissioning it, though they named the Enterprise A just for Kirk so it's possible.

 

[The Wormhole]

I hate to argue what is considered canon, but the "real" dates were never established at any time within the episodes or movies. This came from others trying to make sense of the stardates.

Actual years have been stated a few times, starting with TNG's The Neutral Zone stating the year is 2364. But more relevant to this discussion, Voyager's Eye of the Needle makes it clear that the year using 48 as the first two digits of the stardate is 2371.

Again, there's no reference in any of the movies that Kirk ever retired twice. As far as the continuity of the movies were concerned, he was named Admiral and temporarily took over the Enterprise in The Motion Picture and then again in Wrath of Khan, only to steal the ship in Search for Spock. In Voyage Home, he was given command of the Enterprise A and stayed captain of it until he was "decommissioned" at the end of Undiscovered Country. Since this was the only retirement mentioned, it stands to reason that Kirk met Antonia during this time. His status with Starfleet is not determined when he was at the send-off of the Enterprise B.

It's clear enough that Kirk is still retired at the Enterprise B's launch. One of the reporters asks him what he's been up to since retiring and Scotty makes the "You finding retirement restless?" crack.

The idea that he had retired earlier is an idea that the movie itself presents. That this is an earlier retirement is made clear by the line about "this is the day I decided to return to Starfleet." Yes, there had been no prior indication that he had been retired, and this doesn't fit into continuity at all. But it's not Star Trek's first or last continuity flub.

There was reference to a three-year time period in that film, so there was at least that amount of time between the fifth and sixth movies. Even if there were a couple more years thrown in, that's still a very short amount of time to decommission a ship.

As to renaming the Enterprise to Yorktown, I have two responses to that: 1) yet again, at no time is it mentioned in any movie, so there's no way that it can be canon and seems to be some fan's desperate attempt to make sense of an inconsistency; 2) renaming a ship just because the senior crew retires makes about as much sense as decommissioning it, though they named the Enterprise A just for Kirk so it's possible.

My understanding behind the Yorktown theory is simply to explain why there can be a new Enterprise in such a short time. It's not really a new ship, just an old one re-named. The theory also suggest that the Yorktown is at least as old as the original 1701, therefore Starfleet is not retiring a three year old ship.

 

[Anwar]

The ENT-A being as old as the original makes sense, because they were the same class of vessel and it was shown that new classes of vessels to replace that class had been completed (Excelsior). And the Enterprise was considered old enough to be retired from active duty and re-designated a training vessel (and later scrapped altogether).

 

[CoveTom]

Is there anything in Generations that actually says the stuff with Antonia happened during a retirement? Isn't it possible that Kirk got together with Antonia while still in Starfleet, then he took a shore leave to spend some time with her, and she tried to convince him to leave Starfleet and settle down with her. The scene in the cabin where he goes to tell her he's "going back to Starfleet" would then mean he's telling her he's decided not to retire.