The Design and Mission of the U.S.S. Titan Seems Inappropriate

[Geoff Thorne]

Militaries only exist to prepare for and fight wars.

How many more times are we going to have to tell you that this IS NOT TRUE?

How many more times do we have to say it and point it out for you TO PROCESS THE FACT THAT THAT STATEMENT IS FACTUALLY INACCURATE!?!?!?

The United States Coast Guard is a military organization. Guess what? It doesn't exist to prepare for or fight wars! Militaries can undertake ANY NUMBER of different types of missions. That they are there for the defense of the state may be their defining trait, the common denominator amongst all militaries that marks them as such, BUT IT IS NOT THEIR ONLY TRAIT.

THIS is the problem, Geoff. Now, I KNOW you are not an idiot. I know you are not thick. I know you are smarter than this.

Why do you refuse to process the fact that militaries are not solely dedicated to warfare and combat?

If you LET GO of that irrational presupposition, then you'll see that your entire argument is fallacious.

The coast GUARD is a tasked with defending our maritime borders in tandem with our Navy which often has other fish to fry.

From thier own web page:

The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is a military branch of the United States involved in maritime law, mariner assistance, and search and rescue, among other duties of coast guards elsewhere. One of the seven uniformed services of the United States, and the smallest armed service of the United States, its stated mission is to protect the public, the environment, and the United States economic and security interests in any maritime region in which those interests may be at risk, including international waters and America's coasts, ports, and inland waterways.

How will they do that? With polite conversation?

From Websters:

1 a: of or relating to soldiers, arms, or war b: of or relating to armed forces ; especially : of or relating to ground or sometimes ground and air forces as opposed to naval forces
2 a: performed or made by armed forces b: supported by armed force
3: of or relating to the army

NONE of those defintions describe Starfleet.

You are bending them to suit your a priori conclusion. I am simply looking at all the facts. Starfleet does not conform to any definition of military.

Some of their vessels don't even have weapons (and I'm not talking about shuttles).

Part of the intrinsic definition of a military is its martial purpose. Starfleet has no such purpose. They're just the only gal in town with a gun when the outlaws show up to make trouble.

I'm not going to keep at this. Tell me how many quotes or excerpts from the Canon material it will take to convince you and I will find them. Or "none" is acceptable too. It would make my holidays easier for one thing.

 

[Mysterion]

2. Starfleet legally convenes and enforces the verdicts of courts-martial and holds its members exempt from civilian law.

They definitely hold courts-martial, of course, but does Starfleet really "hold its members exempt from civilian law?"

The dilemma in "Justice" seems to stem from the fact that they don't, as does the ability to put Jadzia Dax on trial in "Dax." These are the first two civilian-law examples which come to mind, but I imagine there are others...

FWIW, a real-life example: while i was stationed in Germany back in the early '80s, a young PFC in my unit went out and killed a german cab driver (for less than $50 Us as it turns out). The young man spent a little time in US Army custody through the trial, but was tried, convicted and remanded to custody all in the local German system. So while the young PFC was indeed under the jurisdiction/protection of the UCMJ, this seems to have been trumped by the Status of Forces Agreement with the federal Republic of Gemany. Or so I assume, I'm not by any stretch a lawyer. And I'm trying to remember detail from about 26 years ago.

But, my point is that similar circumstances could explain the Dax example given above.

 

[Fireflywyo300]

2. Starfleet legally convenes and enforces the verdicts of courts-martial and holds its members exempt from civilian law.

They definitely hold courts-martial, of course, but does Starfleet really "hold its members exempt from civilian law?"

The dilemma in "Justice" seems to stem from the fact that they don't, as does the ability to put Jadzia Dax on trial in "Dax." These are the first two civilian-law examples which come to mind, but I imagine there are others...

So, David Mack may have been a little off on this point. But not much. I live in a military town and when a military member does something off the base, such as driving while under the influence, he's handled by Civilian authorities who only contact the military and ask for representation. There have even been horrendous acts that were tried in civilian courts. That did NOT mean that offender was NOT military simply because the case was deferred to a Civilian court.

However, the military does reserve the right to create a courts-martial. Same with Starfleet.

 

[KRAD]

Geoff is the author of stories in DS9: Prophecy and Change, VOY: Distant Shores, and a couple of Strange New Worlds volumes, and he also wrote the novel Titan: Sword of Damocles.

 

[Dayton Ward]

^

["Real American Heroes....."]

Here's to you, Mr. Random Biography Provider Guy.







(EDIT: Did somebody ask who Geoff was? If so, call me blind, since I didn't see what this might be in response to. Even so....the thing just popped into my head and I couldn't resist )

 

[BrotherBenny]

Geoff is the author of stories in DS9: Prophecy and Change, VOY: Distant Shores, and a couple of Strange New Worlds volumes, and he also wrote the novel Titan: Sword of Damocles.

And......

 

[Rosalind]

Geoff is the author of stories in DS9: Prophecy and Change, VOY: Distant Shores, and a couple of Strange New Worlds volumes, and he also wrote the novel Titan: Sword of Damocles.

And......

I might as well be the bad cop of the week and close this thread since it hasn't been on topic for the last 100+ posts.