Starfleet: What is it?

[David Brennon]

This isn't as cut and dry as official policy however. For all the cries to the contrary no one has said anything about the points I've brought up considering groups like NOAA and PHS or the Civil Air Patrol in relation to say the Science Division of Starfleet or the massive civilian complement on board the Enterprise-D.

For the hundredth time, I'm not saying they're not a military, I'm saying it is more involved than that. There are aspects of both civil and military groups within Starfleet.

Let's put it this way: When was the last time you saw a family of four cruising around on a US Navy Aircraft Carrier? How often do children get to stand at the helm of a Coast Guard Cutter?

 

[Sci]

This isn't as cut and dry as official policy however. For all the cries to the contrary no one has said anything about the points I've brought up considering groups like NOAA and PHS or the Civil Air Patrol in relation to say the Science Division of Starfleet or the massive civilian complement on board the Enterprise-D.

Because they aren't relevant to the question.

No one's saying that there's no such thing as paramilitary organizations. But the fact that there exist paramilitaries does not mean that an organization that fits the legal definition of a military is not a military.

Similarly, the fact that there exists a science branch of Starfleet is meaningless, because the definition of a military does not preclude the existence of a science branch. Hell, from what I understand, the United States Navy today includes dedicated science branches and science missions.

For the hundredth time, I'm not saying they're not a military, I'm saying it is more involved than that.

That's fair enough. The Federation Starfleet is a military organization whose primary missions also encompass non-combat operations (just as the militaries during the so-called "Golden Age of Exploration" did).

Just remember that whether or not Starfleet is a military is a fundamentally technical question that is only dependent upon it fitting the legal definition of a military and is not invalidated by having additional traits.

 

[T'Girl]

You need to remember what my whole point is though. There are non-military aspects to Starfleet that need to be considered or else the whole point to having an option C is moot. The Science Division of Starfleet, in my thinking is an example. There is a distinction between Uniformed Service and Armed Service. Perhaps what we see as Starfleet is a melding of the two, using one structure but giving a broader scope to look at other than defense.

Science is part of the (US) military, weather research is one example, things like hurricane chasers, also today we launched a military DMSP satellite ( 600th Atlas flight ), a lot of the research in the antarctic is supported by the USAF. Defense is the primary chore, however the military does more war fighting.

Starfleet's primary mission is not the defense of the Federation.

I disagree. It is their primary mission. When the defense of the federation is necessary, Star Fleet drop all their secondary tasks and comes running with phasers hot. It's hard to imagine the opposite happening.

Let's put it this way: When was the last time you saw a family of four cruising around on a US Navy Aircraft Carrier? How often do children get to stand at the helm of a Coast Guard Cutter?

http://heraldnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090405/NEWS01/704059857&template=printart


T

 

[Sci]

Starfleet's primary mission is not the defense of the Federation.

I disagree. It is their primary mission.

I would suggest to both of you that defense and exploration are co-equal primary missions, as befits the Federation's cultural values. To them, there's no point in continuing to exist (defense) if you can't continue to grow and to learn about the universe (exploration), and one of the best ways to ensure the defense of the Federation is to continue to explore. They're mutually re-enforcing, co-equal missions.

(Though, granted, they're both on the back-burner in favor of reconstruction and humanitarian aid in the wake of the Borg invasion. But I digress.)

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Let's put it this way: When was the last time you saw a family of four cruising around on a US Navy Aircraft Carrier? How often do children get to stand at the helm of a Coast Guard Cutter?

The U.S. Navy has Tiger Cruise. It's an opportunity for family--spouses, children, and even parents--to travel aboard ship during the last leg of a deployment.

The Tiger Cruise is seen in great detail in this episode of the PBS docu-series Carrier, "Full Circle":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3c8f8u47tY

Moreover, families were occasionally aboard ships during the Age of Sail, which was part of the inspiration, according to Robert Justman, for families and civilians aboard the Enterprise-D.

 

[David Brennon]

I guess I'll have to fall back on we'll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. As I said, we're not going to come to an agreement about this.

 

[captcalhoun]

Starfleet is a peace-keeping and humanitarian armada.

Pike said so.

oh, wait, that was in that wacky alt-universe...

 

[Christopher]

I guess I'll have to fall back on we'll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. As I said, we're not going to come to an agreement about this.

I don't think we really are disagreeing. You acknowledge that it is a military, but with something extra. But "a military with something extra" is still a military. So your answer to the question "Is Starfleet civilian?" would be "no" -- same as the rest of us. We all agree that Starfleet has differences from the modern military but still meets all the criteria to be defined as a military. So we're only disagreeing over semantics, not fundamentals.

 

[C.E. Evans]

"We're a combined service."
--Captain James T. Kirk, TOS, Tomorrow Is Yesterday

That's my definition too, and I'm sticking to it. Anything else is just splittin' hairs, IMO...

 

[Man of Steel]

Man of Steel thought it was. Overwhelming evidence has been presented to the contrary.

Or, to put it another way, there have been a million threads that someone has started saying "Star Trek books - canon or not?", but that doesn't make it a valid opinion that Trek books are canon. Since, by definition, they aren't.

The poll started through a conversation I was having regarding this question and I started here to see what others thought. I see the poll has turned into a debate...

 

[PaulSimpson]

^ You almost sound surprised by this turn of events... on this board?

 

[ChristopherPike]

It's what Bruce Greenwood's Pike mistakenly described the Federation as. A peace-keeping and humanitarian armada.

Add exploration to that sentence and it would make perfect sense given its United Earth origins.

I assume in the sequel, he'll have a similar scene in which he describes Starfleet as an alliance of planets...

The crux of this to my mind, is how interchangable Starfleet and the Federation became in conversation on shows set in the 24th Century... especially from enemies on the outside looking in. Klingons verus... Romulan versus... Maquis versus... Then there's Voyager single-handedly representing the Federation because this is no Starfleet around. I expected an earlier century to be less evolved, even to the extend of two humans in a bar recognising a difference between organisations, when recruiting for a subsidiary one.

 

[David Brennon]

I guess I'll have to fall back on we'll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. As I said, we're not going to come to an agreement about this.

I don't think we really are disagreeing. You acknowledge that it is a military, but with something extra. But "a military with something extra" is still a military. So your answer to the question "Is Starfleet civilian?" would be "no" -- same as the rest of us. We all agree that Starfleet has differences from the modern military but still meets all the criteria to be defined as a military. So we're only disagreeing over semantics, not fundamentals.

You may not see the point of disagreement, but I do. It may just be semantics, but to me that point of disagreement is important. The question isn't "Is Starfleet civilian?" it is "Which of these three does Starfleet qualify". Almost every post after my first has been telling me that I am simply wrong or mistaken.

I don't think that if you asked people like Janeway or Picard if they believed themselves to be a member of the Military that they would be able to answer in such black and white terms. I feel that the essence of what they are doing out there, what Starfleet is truly about, matters a great deal more then then "legal definition of a military". My whole point has been trying (and failing) to get this across.

So as I said, I'm going to fall back on agree to disagree and (hopefully) leave it at that.

 

[TheAlmanac]

Think of United Earth's Starfleet, the legitimate precursor to the Federation Starfleet. In the Season 2 episode The Expanse, Admiral Forrest is concerned when Captain Archer agrees to let a group of MACO's onto Enterprise. He specifically asks if the Captain feels comfortable with Military on board.

This is not a matter of opinion. Legally-speaking, if an institution possess the traits that Starfleet possesses -- being legally charged by the state with defending it in times of war, and having a system of courts-martial -- it's a military, pure and simple. Starfleet has these; Starfleet is a military.

The last time this issue came up, I pointed out that the Earth Starfleet of Enterprise is both explicitly described as not-the-military and has a system of courts-martial, so that series was definitely going for the "have it both ways" approach.

 

[Sci]

Think of United Earth's Starfleet, the legitimate precursor to the Federation Starfleet. In the Season 2 episode The Expanse, Admiral Forrest is concerned when Captain Archer agrees to let a group of MACO's onto Enterprise. He specifically asks if the Captain feels comfortable with Military on board.

This is not a matter of opinion. Legally-speaking, if an institution possess the traits that Starfleet possesses -- being legally charged by the state with defending it in times of war, and having a system of courts-martial -- it's a military, pure and simple. Starfleet has these; Starfleet is a military.

The last time this issue came up, I pointed out that the Earth Starfleet of Enterprise is both explicitly described as not-the-military and has a system of courts-martial, so that series was definitely going for the "have it both ways" approach.

Yeah, but that's what's called "irrational writing." You can't have a court-martial if you're not a military. Period.

Now, that does bring up the apparent contradiction. But there's a nice solution that immediately comes to mind:

We never heard reference to courts-martial in the United Earth Starfleet (UESF) until after "The Expanse," when the MACOs were added to the UESF command structure and the UESF became the principle organ of national defense against the Xindi.

To me, the evidence suggests that the UESF was legally re-designated as a military and allowed to institute a system of courts-martial to ensure discipline in its new role as United Earth's space-based defense force.

 

[DimesDan]

Sorry, but what does the legality of a fictional organisation in a fictional universe actually matter? I find it hard to believe that any of the writing staff actually consulted lawyers when creating Starfleet.

 

[captcalhoun]

what does any of it matter? really? when you get down to it? we're all gonna die. civilisation's going to end. why care about anything?

 

[Thrawn]

I love this board.

Pick a minor detail, then argue about it. Then argue about the fact that we're arguing about it. Then mock the people arguing about the fact that we're arguing about it.

And I'm not trying to be mean, I really think it's funny the conversational eddies that all us hardcore fans get into. "Worth discussing" I think has to pretty much be defined as "people are willing to post about it". Why bother arguing about it?

 

[DimesDan]

what does any of it matter? really? when you get down to it? we're all gonna die. civilisation's going to end. why care about anything?

Indeed, the subject matter in this thread doesn't matter to me, Starfleet just is, no more, no less.

I love this board.

Pick a minor detail, then argue about it. Then argue about the fact that we're arguing about it. Then mock the people arguing about the fact that we're arguing about it.

And I'm not trying to be mean, I really think it's funny the conversational eddies that all us hardcore fans get into. "Worth discussing" I think has to pretty much be defined as "people are willing to post about it". Why bother arguing about it?

yeah it is a fun place to hang out ain't it.

 

[Man of Steel]

It's what Bruce Greenwood's Pike mistakenly described the Federation as. A peace-keeping and humanitarian armada.

Add exploration to that sentence and it would make perfect sense given its United Earth origins.

I assume in the sequel, he'll have a similar scene in which he describes Starfleet as an alliance of planets...

Why do you assume Pike's returning?