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

[Sci]

They need to protect themselves and their crews. Its only a coincidence that the weapons needed to take out an enemy ship's shields, weapons and engines and more if necessary are also able to cause that much damage to a planet. That isn't there intent.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean it's not a military. A military is not "any organization with the intent of starting a war."

A military is a state's armed forces. That's it. If a state goes to that organization to defend the state in a time of conflict, then that organization is its military. It's a legal status, not a value judgment or ideological statement.

Militaries can be large or small, powerful or weak. And they don't have to be militant or war-mongering. The Canadian Forces may be Canada's military, but I don't think anyone's ever accused the Canadian Forces of being particularly jingoistic.

And, yes, militaries are also often given other tasks. The United States Armed Forces were tasked with delivering humanitarian aide to Somalia in the early 1990s and to Indonesia in 2005. The Royal Navy often served as an exploratory agency and de facto diplomatic agency-slash-ad-hoc-mobile-Foreign-Ministry for the United Kingdom in centuries past. The US Navy to this day continues to use ships that conduct research missions.

And besides, Starfleet has been referred to as a military in the shows. Starfleet tries its officers in courts-martial. When the Federation President declares martial law, it's Starfleet that enforces it. When Leyton tried to overthrow the Federation government and establish himself as absolute ruler of the Federation, Sisko called the idea a "military dictatorship."

Starfleet is a military. It's just not militaristic.

 

[Christopher]

They need to protect themselves and their crews. Its only a coincidence that the weapons needed to take out an enemy ship's shields, weapons and engines and more if necessary are also able to cause that much damage to a planet. That isn't there intent.

Heck, just having impulse drive gives a starship the potential to destroy a planet. Accelerate a ship-sized mass to a high fraction of the speed of light and its kinetic energy (which increases as the square of the velocity) becomes comparable to an extinction-level asteroid impact. Trek and other SFTV tend to overlook what's called Jon's Law in prose-SF circles: Any space drive powerful enough to be interesting is potentially a weapon of mass destruction. You don't even need dedicated weapons systems. Sure, using impulse or warp power to slam your ship into a planet is kind of a single-use tactic, but the same power could be directed in other ways, such as using a tractor beam to accelerate an asteroid to devastating velocity, or generating a remote gravity well to tear apart an enemy ship or base, or beaming an antimatter fuel canister onto an enemy ship and releasing the antimatter. For that matter, a transporter beam is itself an immensely powerful disintegrator ray -- all you have to do is leave out the "rematerialize" part and it's one of the most devastating weapons ever invented.

So you're right that having the power to destroy isn't the same as having the intent to destroy. Destruction is pretty much a consequence of the abuse of power. The more powerful your technology is, the more destructive it becomes when abused. Which is why the more powerful a society becomes, the more imperative it is that that society grows beyond its destructive impulses and wields its power responsibly and constructively.

 

[DimesDan]

Dayton3, Starfleet is not the Imperial Navy, nor is it Earthforce, both of which from Star Wars and Babylon Five, the viewer knows they build warships, where as Starfleets mission has always been a mission of peace. So what if they have Phasers or Photon/Quantum Torpedoes or weapons that could theoretically render a Planet unhinabitable? They are for defensive means! Hell, even the British and American Armed Forces (and pretty much every legistlative body that monitors Armed Forces around the world) come under the Ministry of Defence and Department of Defence, not as you seem to be of the (de)lusion that they are called the Ministry of War or the Department of Agression!

Starfleet builds Starships that have weapons to defend against what may or may not be out there. They may not be going out to give some one a bloody nose first, but if they need to, they will give someone that bloody nose.

Oh and I'm sure if the Shuttle was aimed right into a populated area there would be one almighty boom. How much force was the explosion of Challenger when she blew up?

 

[Sci]

Dayton3, Starfleet is not the Imperial Navy, nor is it Earthforce, both of which from Star Wars and Babylon Five

That may be, but Starfleet is the Federation's military, just like EarthForce is the military of the Earth Alliance and the Grand Army is the military of the Galactic Republic.

 

[Silversmok3]

Dayton3, Starfleet is not the Imperial Navy, nor is it Earthforce, both of which from Star Wars and Babylon Five

That may be, but Starfleet is the Federation's military, just like EarthForce is the military of the Earth Alliance and the Grand Army is the military of the Galactic Republic.

No,it is not.
Starfleet doesn't exist solely to defend the Federation .It exists to explore the known universe,with its defensive aspects decidedly secondary.

If starfleet were a military power it would cease to be starfleet.It would be the Terran Empire.

Now that that's established,why wouldn't starfleet make Luna class starships?Exploration is the purpose of Starfleet,and its the reason so many billions died between the Borg and Dominion conflicts to defend the Federation.
Besides,history has proven that when a nation re-arms after a war,it re-arms for the wrong fight.

When the United States built up arms for a war with Russia,guess who we actually fought?All that high tech nuclear-war weaponry was useless in the Vietnamese jungle.

And when we in turn re-armed after Vietnam,guess who we fight next?Iraq,where all those guns and vehicles that would have been cool in Vietnam are jamming up and breaking down in the sand.

Massive re-armarments like what the OP proposed tend to cause serious problems when a real fight goes down and all that hardware made to kill the last enemy doesn't work for the new bad guy.

 

[Christopher]

That may be, but Starfleet is the Federation's military, just like EarthForce is the military of the Earth Alliance and the Grand Army is the military of the Galactic Republic.

No,it is not.
Starfleet doesn't exist solely to defend the Federation .It exists to explore the known universe,with its defensive aspects decidedly secondary.

You're overlooking the point Sci made in his previous post, which is a good point: namely, that a military doesn't devote itself exclusively to war or defense. As Sci said, the US military engages in diplomatic missions, scientific missions, humanitarian missions, rescue and relief missions, etc. And there are nations whose military forces are forbidden to engage in combat. The Swiss Army and the Japan Self-Defense Forces engage only in matters of internal security/defense and international peacekeeping or relief missions; indeed, until recent years, the JSDF have been forbidden by Japanese law to be deployed abroad at all.

So even if Starfleet's defensive aspects are secondary (which I agree they are), it's still valid to say that Starfleet is a military organization, at least in terms of its structure. It's just a military organization whose primary mission is science. That's something that doesn't have an exact equivalent on present-day Earth. So trying to define which current category it falls into, using strict current definitions, is kind of missing the point.

 

[Sci]

Dayton3, Starfleet is not the Imperial Navy, nor is it Earthforce, both of which from Star Wars and Babylon Five

That may be, but Starfleet is the Federation's military, just like EarthForce is the military of the Earth Alliance and the Grand Army is the military of the Galactic Republic.

No,it is not.
Starfleet doesn't exist solely to defend the Federation .It exists to explore the known universe,with its defensive aspects decidedly secondary.

If starfleet were a military power it would cease to be starfleet.It would be the Terran Empire.

Again, you are confusing a legal status (i.e., is the organization in question the organization that is armed by the state for purposes of the defense of the state? if so, it is a military) with behavior. To put it another way, you are confusing a military with militarism.

 

[Silversmok3]

That may be, but Starfleet is the Federation's military, just like EarthForce is the military of the Earth Alliance and the Grand Army is the military of the Galactic Republic.

No,it is not.
Starfleet doesn't exist solely to defend the Federation .It exists to explore the known universe,with its defensive aspects decidedly secondary.

If starfleet were a military power it would cease to be starfleet.It would be the Terran Empire.

Again, you are confusing a legal status (i.e., is the organization in question the organization that is armed by the state for purposes of the defense of the state? if so, it is a military) with behavior. To put it another way, you are confusing a military with militarism.

Then the question at hand is what defines a military.

I would say Starfleet is like a military,invoking discipline,rank,boot camp and an ethic,but that doesn't make it a military organization.

To make my point,look at any number of criminal mafias and organizations that have or had the same charachteristics of a military like the aforementioned rank,boot camp,discipline,and work/mission ethic.That doesn't make organized criminals part of a military at all.

As far as whether starfleet is or isn't a military,its a funny question for us,coming from our society to ask.Its like King Leonidas of Sparta asking whether an Army helicopter pilot is a warrior or not.There's no real answer that settles the debate.

 

[Sci]

Then the question at hand is what defines a military....<SNIP> There's no real answer that settles the debate.

Sure there is. It's actually a very simple question.

Is there a state -- that is, the political association possessing the capacity to make binding law over the inhabitants of a set territory and of exercising the legitimate monopoly on violence? Yes, there is -- the United Federation of Planets.

Is there an organization that the state legally uses to defend itself in times of armed conflict? Yes -- the Federation Starfleet.

A military is just the armed forces of a state. They can be tasked with any other job in addition to that, and they can be war-mongers or they can be loathe to ever raise a gun. All of that has nothing to do with the relevant criteria, which is the relationship of that organization to the state and its legal obligation to defend the state.

 

[DimesDan]

Dayton3, Starfleet is not the Imperial Navy, nor is it Earthforce, both of which from Star Wars and Babylon Five

That may be, but Starfleet is the Federation's military, just like EarthForce is the military of the Earth Alliance and the Grand Army is the military of the Galactic Republic.

Sorry, I may have got my point across in a rubbish and uncoordinated way but out of curiosity did you read the rest of my post??

I am fully aware that Starfleet is the United Federation of Planets Military arm, BUT, unlike Earthforce or the Imperial Navy (I meant the Galactic Empire from the Original Trilogy of Star Wars films) Starfleet vessels are, even though fully capable of laying waste to an inhabited planet or blow shit up real pretty, 99% of the time, they do not design them for that sole purpose, never have done (unless pre-warp five ships were just designed for combat) and hopefully never will.

 

[David Mack]

^ And, as Sci has already pointed out, Starfleet enforces an internal code of justice on its members through courts-martial.

There is only one kind of organization that can have a court martial -- a military. No other organization can or does have such a system.

And Silversmok's argument about other groups having some of the same characteristics is irrelevant. The point is that Starfleet meets every single criterion for a military organization.

It is, admittedly, a benign military organization. I would consider it a more evolved military organization than any currently known on Earth.

As for statements on the show that Starfleet is not a military (such as that quoted by RedJack in his sig), there are at least as many and perhaps far more statements in the canon that confirm that Starfleet is a military, so appeals to one episode or line of dialogue are insufficient evidence. The entire body of evidence must be considered. And when viewed objectively, based on the facts and the terminology employed over more than forty years of canonical Star Trek, there is only one logical conclusion: Starfleet is a military organization.

Not para-military, not pseudo-military, not quasi-military. Military. Period.

 

[Marie1]

They need to protect themselves and their crews. Its only a coincidence that the weapons needed to take out an enemy ship's shields, weapons and engines and more if necessary are also able to cause that much damage to a planet. That isn't there intent.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean it's not a military. A military is not "any organization with the intent of starting a war."

A military is a state's armed forces. That's it. If a state goes to that organization to defend the state in a time of conflict, then that organization is its military. It's a legal status, not a value judgment or ideological statement.

Militaries can be large or small, powerful or weak. And they don't have to be militant or war-mongering. The Canadian Forces may be Canada's military, but I don't think anyone's ever accused the Canadian Forces of being particularly jingoistic.

And, yes, militaries are also often given other tasks. The United States Armed Forces were tasked with delivering humanitarian aide to Somalia in the early 1990s and to Indonesia in 2005. The Royal Navy often served as an exploratory agency and de facto diplomatic agency-slash-ad-hoc-mobile-Foreign-Ministry for the United Kingdom in centuries past. The US Navy to this day continues to use ships that conduct research missions.

And besides, Starfleet has been referred to as a military in the shows. Starfleet tries its officers in courts-martial. When the Federation President declares martial law, it's Starfleet that enforces it. When Leyton tried to overthrow the Federation government and establish himself as absolute ruler of the Federation, Sisko called the idea a "military dictatorship."

Starfleet is a military. It's just not militaristic.

I wasn't referring to the military, or the concept of militarism, per se, I'm just saying that just because Starfleet's ships have weapons, powerful ones to defend itself doesn't reflect on its nature. Just because Starfleet has the power to take over planets doesn't mean it does, per your war-mongering example.

Basically, I don't think that there is some nefarious purpose behind the fact that SF's weapons are powerful.

 

[Sci]

They need to protect themselves and their crews. Its only a coincidence that the weapons needed to take out an enemy ship's shields, weapons and engines and more if necessary are also able to cause that much damage to a planet. That isn't there intent.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean it's not a military. A military is not "any organization with the intent of starting a war."

A military is a state's armed forces. That's it. If a state goes to that organization to defend the state in a time of conflict, then that organization is its military. It's a legal status, not a value judgment or ideological statement.

Militaries can be large or small, powerful or weak. And they don't have to be militant or war-mongering. The Canadian Forces may be Canada's military, but I don't think anyone's ever accused the Canadian Forces of being particularly jingoistic.

And, yes, militaries are also often given other tasks. The United States Armed Forces were tasked with delivering humanitarian aide to Somalia in the early 1990s and to Indonesia in 2005. The Royal Navy often served as an exploratory agency and de facto diplomatic agency-slash-ad-hoc-mobile-Foreign-Ministry for the United Kingdom in centuries past. The US Navy to this day continues to use ships that conduct research missions.

And besides, Starfleet has been referred to as a military in the shows. Starfleet tries its officers in courts-martial. When the Federation President declares martial law, it's Starfleet that enforces it. When Leyton tried to overthrow the Federation government and establish himself as absolute ruler of the Federation, Sisko called the idea a "military dictatorship."

Starfleet is a military. It's just not militaristic.

I wasn't referring to the military, or the concept of militarism, per se, I'm just saying that just because Starfleet's ships have weapons, powerful ones to defend itself doesn't reflect on its nature. Just because Starfleet has the power to take over planets doesn't mean it does, per your war-mongering example.

Basically, I don't think that there is some nefarious purpose behind the fact that SF's weapons are powerful.

Fair enough!

 

[Silversmok3]

^ And, as Sci has already pointed out, Starfleet enforces an internal code of justice on its members through courts-martial.

There is only one kind of organization that can have a court martial -- a military. No other organization can or does have such a system.

And Silversmok's argument about other groups having some of the same characteristics is irrelevant. The point is that Starfleet meets every single criterion for a military organization.

It is, admittedly, a benign military organization. I would consider it a more evolved military organization than any currently known on Earth.

As for statements on the show that Starfleet is not a military (such as that quoted by RedJack in his sig), there are at least as many and perhaps far more statements in the canon that confirm that Starfleet is a military, so appeals to one episode or line of dialogue are insufficient evidence. The entire body of evidence must be considered. And when viewed objectively, based on the facts and the terminology employed over more than forty years of canonical Star Trek, there is only one logical conclusion: Starfleet is a military organization.

Not para-military, not pseudo-military, not quasi-military. Military. Period.

I stand corrected.

Back to topic,the reason this thread was created was to make the claim that starfleet shouldn't have made the Titan and focused on more 'warship" designs.

I make the point that Starfleet needs an exploration ship more than ever.After 2 deveastating wars more phasers aren't the answer.Starfleet need to return its focus to exploration ,the very reason billions died to defend it.

As an aside,I wonder what kind of explorer a Defiant class ship would be.A small,highly defensive and powerful starship would make an excellent short range explorer,as if the First Contact goes south it'll survive whatever hostile stuff gets tossed its way.

 

[Trent Roman]

Silversmok3, I had the same conceptual difficulty last time this debate came up; my notion of a military is, after all, something that militiates. But there was an example that helped me to see that this is too narrow a definition: the U.S. Coast Guard. They are a branch of that country's overall military infrastructure, but hardly militant; likewise, they perform functions similar to those carried out by what are law enforcement agencies or civilian organizations in other nations. So 'military' is a function of structure, not mission; Starfleet can be thus be military without having warfare as a primary concern.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Geoff Thorne]

One quote and it's like a grenade went off.

My work here is done.

 

[JD]

In case you noticed, NASA doesn't launch each space shuttle with a couple nuclear warheads for use "just in case".

Yeah, but I can pretty much guarantee you that as soon as we run into hostile aliens, or an enemy nation sends up armed space craft we most likely will add some sort of weapons to out space shuttles.

 

[Marie1]

In case you noticed, NASA doesn't launch each space shuttle with a couple nuclear warheads for use "just in case".

Well, with a giant tank of fuel, some fire, a rocket... sounds like something that could be turned into a weapon...

Fair enough!

Thanks, but feel free to call me on these things, as it would appear that since I'm done school my brain has decided it has no need to be coherent... or concise...

 

[Silversmok3]

In case you noticed, NASA doesn't launch each space shuttle with a couple nuclear warheads for use "just in case".

Yeah, but I can pretty much guarantee you that as soon as we run into hostile aliens, or an enemy nation sends up armed space craft we most likely will add some sort of weapons to out space shuttles.

Hostile aliens would make short work of our space shuttles.

And weapons in space are governed by treaty as I understand.

Both of which are irrelevant to the flawed argument that Starfleet needs more weapons.

 

[regemet]

If you look at the nacells I would say that the Luna Class could be an offshoot of the Akira Class. If you look carefuly you will notice quite a few simeralities between the two ships.