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

[JD]

I was just trying to point out that the only reason our space shuttles aren't armed only because we have had no reason to do so yet, and that if it became neccessary to we would. I just thought it was a flawed argument, and that was my way of trying to make that point.

 

[captcalhoun]

the Soviet Union stuck a machine gun on one of their old tubs cuz they were afraid the US would use the shuttle to shoot it down.

NEXT!

"I'm a soldier, not a diplomat," James T Kirk.

 

[Sci]

I was just trying to point out that the only reason our space shuttles aren't armed only because we have had no reason to do so yet, and that if it became neccessary to we would.

I don't know about that. We're barely able to make ships capable of going up and coming down again, let alone building accurate weapons systems that wouldn't be damaged beyond all use by launch and/or re-entry.

 

[Christopher]

As an aside,I wonder what kind of explorer a Defiant class ship would be.

Read Mission: Gamma. The Defiant is refitted for a months-long exploration mission which is the focus of the four-book series. (Well, half the focus. The other half is the stuff going on back on DS9 and environs in the meantime.)

 

[Penta]

Two different arguments I see here. Neither of which make much sense, personally.

Argument Primary: That the Luna-class is inappropriate to the setting.

Now, here I'm going to do something heretical and throw any discussion of "ideals" out the window.

Starfleet is an organization. More to the point, it is a bureaucratic organization.

Bureaucracies do not have "ideals", ladies and gentlemen. They do not have higher purposes, or noble causes. They just are. At best, they have roles and missions to perform. From age to age, those roles and missions can change dramatically - new missions being added, old ones being dropped, as times, circumstances, and resources dictate. Along with that comes how an organization likes to see itself.

Now, Starfleet likes to see itself as more "evolved" and "refined" than its antecedents. That does not mean it is really any different.

Up until really the early 1900s, the militaries of the world did a hell of a lot more than simply fight wars. They were explorers (Lewis & Clark's expedition was a US Army mission, for example), policemen, diplomats, scientists, urban planners, civil administrators...you name it, there's likely an example of one of the more recognizable militaries doing it, probably multiple times, just since 1500. The US military and the UK military are prominent examples. It really wasn't until just before the First World War that militaries focused solely on warfighting and tried to get out of the "side businesses" they found themselves handling; it's debatable, given the fact that they went back to doing everything-and-a-half again in the 1920s and 1930s, whether they ever succeeded.

How does this relate? By charter, Starfleet seems to be tasked as the 'miscellaneous' branch of Federation governance. They do *everything*, from warfighting to internal security to exploration to diplomacy to science to colonial support, and on we go.

Funny, that sounds...exactly like a military of up til about 1903.

In short, "inappropriate" is a horrible word to use - it's only inappropriate if you ain't been ordered by competent authority to do it, presuming it isn't a blatantly illegal order.

Argument Secondary: Starfleet is/is not a military.

Here, I'm going to just laugh.

I don't care what some scriptwriter was drinking, or even if he was cold sober, when he tried to pull the trick of proclaiming "Starfleet isn't a military" or "Starfleet's mission is exploration" or whatnot. Or how often it was proclaimed.

Exploration is one of Starfleet's many, many missions. Starfleet's mission is, in any really practical sense, to do whatever the hell the Federation Council tells it to. (And, oh yeah, gives it the resources to do.)

It may not like to think about its warfighting mission, but it's been ordered to do that, too.

In peacetime, the navies and armies of the world would often undertake exploration missions, historically. These may not have been institutional priorities, but that's in a lot of cases because they just didn't think in those terms.

So what defines a military? Posts upthread have made this point well, in my estimation: A military is that force established by a sovereign to have the sole legitimate use of violence within the state. The US Army is a military. Your friendly neighborhood police force, in a sense, is a military, operating under delegated powers at least. (Most US state police forces were actually set up as the State Militias in the 1700s and 1800s (and earlier), for example.)

Now, the Federation is Federal, so there are multiple sovereigns at play here, but the point remains.

Starfleet is a military. Even more to the point, it consciously adopts the language, structure, customs, and habits of the military.

It may be less war-focused than the militaries we happen to be familiar with, but that's really just returning to the mindset of an earlier age.

Jean-Luc Picard may have wanted to see himself as solely a scientist, not a soldier, but that doesn't mean he wasn't doing a soldier's work.

 

[JD]

the Soviet Union stuck a machine gun on one of their old tubs cuz they were afraid the US would use the shuttle to shoot it down.

NEXT!

"I'm a soldier, not a diplomat," James T Kirk.

Huh, I didn't realize that.

I was just trying to point out that the only reason our space shuttles aren't armed only because we have had no reason to do so yet, and that if it became neccessary to we would.

I don't know about that. We're barely able to make ships capable of going up and coming down again, let alone building accurate weapons systems that wouldn't be damaged beyond all use by launch and/or re-entry.

Yeah, I was really just talking about ideas. I just really doubt that if there was some threat in space, that we would continue to send unarmed ships up there. I'm not trying to be argumentive here I'm just trying to explain my thinking when I posted. If I did a bad job making my point, or if I just don't know what I'm talking about, I'll apologize now so we can just move on.

 

[captcalhoun]

well, to be fair, whether or not mankind deploys space-based weapons to counter a hostile alien force is going to depend on a number of factors including, but not limited to; how'd we 'meet' or 'contact' said HLGMs and how soon they're likely to arrive, the logistics of launching and maintaining any kind of orbital defence platform and what kind of weapons we're going to deploy.

you can't just bolt a few .50 cal Ma Deuces on ISS and expect to hold off an alien invasion force armed with death-rays, FTL travel and defence shields...

orbital nukes like the weapons platform in Assignment: Earth or 'Hercules' in 'Asteroid'? do me a favour! it'd cost billions and take months at least to deploy something like that. that'd only be reasonable if we knew the HLGM were coming at sub-light speed and taking a year or more to cross the system...

 

[Silversmok3]

Two different arguments I see here. Neither of which make much sense, personally.

Argument Primary: That the Luna-class is inappropriate to the setting.

Now, here I'm going to do something heretical and throw any discussion of "ideals" out the window.

Starfleet is an organization. More to the point, it is a bureaucratic organization.

Bureaucracies do not have "ideals", ladies and gentlemen. They do not have higher purposes, or noble causes. They just are. At best, they have roles and missions to perform. From age to age, those roles and missions can change dramatically - new missions being added, old ones being dropped, as times, circumstances, and resources dictate. Along with that comes how an organization likes to see itself.

Now, Starfleet likes to see itself as more "evolved" and "refined" than its antecedents. That does not mean it is really any different.

Up until really the early 1900s, the militaries of the world did a hell of a lot more than simply fight wars. They were explorers (Lewis & Clark's expedition was a US Army mission, for example), policemen, diplomats, scientists, urban planners, civil administrators...you name it, there's likely an example of one of the more recognizable militaries doing it, probably multiple times, just since 1500. The US military and the UK military are prominent examples. It really wasn't until just before the First World War that militaries focused solely on warfighting and tried to get out of the "side businesses" they found themselves handling; it's debatable, given the fact that they went back to doing everything-and-a-half again in the 1920s and 1930s, whether they ever succeeded.

How does this relate? By charter, Starfleet seems to be tasked as the 'miscellaneous' branch of Federation governance. They do *everything*, from warfighting to internal security to exploration to diplomacy to science to colonial support, and on we go.

Funny, that sounds...exactly like a military of up til about 1903.

In short, "inappropriate" is a horrible word to use - it's only inappropriate if you ain't been ordered by competent authority to do it, presuming it isn't a blatantly illegal order.

Argument Secondary: Starfleet is/is not a military.

Here, I'm going to just laugh.

I don't care what some scriptwriter was drinking, or even if he was cold sober, when he tried to pull the trick of proclaiming "Starfleet isn't a military" or "Starfleet's mission is exploration" or whatnot. Or how often it was proclaimed.

Exploration is one of Starfleet's many, many missions. Starfleet's mission is, in any really practical sense, to do whatever the hell the Federation Council tells it to. (And, oh yeah, gives it the resources to do.)

It may not like to think about its warfighting mission, but it's been ordered to do that, too.

In peacetime, the navies and armies of the world would often undertake exploration missions, historically. These may not have been institutional priorities, but that's in a lot of cases because they just didn't think in those terms.

So what defines a military? Posts upthread have made this point well, in my estimation: A military is that force established by a sovereign to have the sole legitimate use of violence within the state. The US Army is a military. Your friendly neighborhood police force, in a sense, is a military, operating under delegated powers at least. (Most US state police forces were actually set up as the State Militias in the 1700s and 1800s (and earlier), for example.)

Now, the Federation is Federal, so there are multiple sovereigns at play here, but the point remains.

Starfleet is a military. Even more to the point, it consciously adopts the language, structure, customs, and habits of the military.

It may be less war-focused than the militaries we happen to be familiar with, but that's really just returning to the mindset of an earlier age.

Jean-Luc Picard may have wanted to see himself as solely a scientist, not a soldier, but that doesn't mean he wasn't doing a soldier's work.

As established above ,Starfleet is a military.

The problem is,and the reason I argued it wasn't is because militaries change over time.Todays soldier can in one combat run be a lethal weapon,a policeman,a doctor and ambassador.

Taking the clock back to Roman times,a soldier killed people.He didn't do humanitarian missions,he didn't fly medivacs,he didn't assist local governments (unless it was to pillage the conquered ruler's palace).Sure,when he came back to Rome he may take anther trade or join government,but he was a weapon only on the battlefield.

All that is to say that what a 'military' is changes with time.What is defined as a military today may be something totally or slightly different in the future.

Example;Show said Roman soldier a US Marine sniper on patrol and he'll identify that as a 'military' role.

But pluck him on a Navy humanitarian mission at Bandar Aceh after the tsunami and he'll be stumped to identify them as soldiers.

Let me be clear-im not saying Starfleet isn't a military.My point is that 'military' means and becomes different (no matter what definition you assign) as time and civilization progresses.

Hence ,comparing our military and its modern missions to Starfleet is an imperfect comparison.

 

[Christopher]

Up until really the early 1900s, the militaries of the world did a hell of a lot more than simply fight wars. They were explorers (Lewis & Clark's expedition was a US Army mission, for example), policemen, diplomats, scientists, urban planners, civil administrators...you name it, there's likely an example of one of the more recognizable militaries doing it, probably multiple times, just since 1500. The US military and the UK military are prominent examples. It really wasn't until just before the First World War that militaries focused solely on warfighting and tried to get out of the "side businesses" they found themselves handling; it's debatable, given the fact that they went back to doing everything-and-a-half again in the 1920s and 1930s, whether they ever succeeded.

In WWII, my grandfather was with a military unit whose job was to go through Italy in the wake of the liberation forces and help the liberated towns set up viable new governments.


Anyway, the question on the table isn't really about whether a military organization would generally engage in exploration or vice-versa. The original premise was that it was a bad idea for Starfleet to expend resources on exploration immediately after a major war, when they would need to focus on rebuilding their combat capability. I think the best response to that is that there's no reason they can't do both at once, and that devoting some resources to exploration missions doesn't hurt their ability to recover their military strength as well, and actually enhances their security in other ways, as I discussed above.

 

[Sci]

In a lot of ways, the best argument for continuing the Luna-class exploration project is the role of the USS Titan

Spoiler

contacting the Caeliar and ending the Borg threat

. Exploration, in that instance, directly contributed to Federation security.

 

[Geoff Thorne]

Picard isn't speaking for himself and his own perception of his job. He says, unequivocally, what the organization he has spent his life in is and is not. he's either delusional, lying or accurate.

When Sisko unveils Defiant, Quark takes a look at its obviously martial design and says "I thought you Starfleet types didn't go in for warships," or something extremely similar. Sisko's response is something like "the times (Dominion War) dictated we change our normal game plan."

Throughout the various canonical series various characters of various ranks (or no rank at all) express versions of this notion and those officers who behave as if they are in the military, say Shelby or Jellico even Satie, are made to seem out of synch with normal operating procedure or even actually "evil." Herberts, in other words.

Sure, the series' are inconsistent in their depictions of Starfleet and its role vis a vis the Federation but, as the dialog says what it says on the subject so consistently the best conclusion is that, while Starfleet's internal operations resemble what we know of as current military structure, it is some other sort of animal that has been, as yet, unseen. Not a military organization, in other words, but something else that occasionally takes on the chores of a military when pressed.

 

[Silversmok3]

Picard isn't speaking for himself and his own perception of his job. He says, unequivocally, what the organization he has spent his life in is and is not. he's either delusional, lying or accurate.

When Sisko unveils Defiant, Quark takes a look at its obviously martial design and says "I thought you Starfleet types didn't go in for warships," or something extremely similar. Sisko's response is something like "the times (Dominion War) dictated we change our normal game plan."

Throughout the various canonical series various characters of various ranks (or no rank at all) express versions of this notion and those officers who behave as if they are in the military, say Shelby or Jellico even Satie, are made to seem out of synch with normal operating procedure or even actually "evil." Herberts, in other words.

Sure, the series' are inconsistent in their depictions of Starfleet and its role vis a vis the Federation but, as the dialog says what it says on the subject so consistently the best conclusion is that, while Starfleet's internal operations resemble what we know of as current military structure, it is some other sort of animal that has been, as yet, unseen. Not a military organization, in other words, but something else that occasionally takes on the chores of a military when pressed.

Starfleet IS a military.

Sure,Picard says it isn't-right before his date with the Borg.

Picard had never been in a full scale war his entire Starfleet career to that point.

If he's never fired a phaser in an interstellar war,of course he's gonna say he's not a part of a 'military'.And really,what he means by 'military' is that he doesn't kill people for a living.

Not that he's *not* part of an organization established by Federation law exclusively to use lethal force at specified times.

Ill bet after the Borg,The Dominion,and the So'na his answer would be different today.

The reason Quark and pre-war Picard didn't associate Starfleet with martial activity was because its mission was exploration-sometimes to the detriment to defense .Since no detrimental threat to the UFP existed for hundreds of years they had the luxury of skipping the extra phasers.Doesn't change the fact that its always been a military organization from jump.

 

[Trent Roman]

It's entirely possible, if one wants to reconcile Picard's statement to other canonical evidence, that Starfleet genuinely doesn't consider itself "military", even as it retains the structures thereof; perhaps because they have the same notions of negative connotations that I and many others do, particularly if humanity finally learned its lesson re: militarism post-World War Three. Such terms my be reserved for their more belligerent neighbours while they have a different lexicon to refer to their own organization and role, despite its trappings. Of course, if that's the case, we are not privy to such conceptual and terminological innovations and 'military' is as close as one can get.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Sci]

Picard isn't speaking for himself and his own perception of his job. He says, unequivocally, what the organization he has spent his life in is and is not. he's either delusional, lying or accurate.

He's delusional.

Sure, the series' are inconsistent in their depictions of Starfleet and its role vis a vis the Federation

No it's not. It's very clear: The Federation Starfleet is the organization that the United Federation of Planets tasks with exploring the galaxy, defending the Federation, conducting scientific research, engaging in peacekeeping missions, engaging in humanitarian aide, engaging in colonial support, and engaging in diplomacy when in the absence of a dedicated ambassador.

And all of those missions are ones that real-life militaries can be and have been tasked with.

but, as the dialog says what it says on the subject so consistently the best conclusion is that,

The dialogue has consistently indicated that Starfleet is a military. Your citation of Picard is literally the only time the Federation Starfleet is not referred to as a military.

while Starfleet's internal operations resemble what we know of as current military structure, it is some other sort of animal that has been, as yet, unseen. Not a military organization, in other words, but something else that occasionally takes on the chores of a military when pressed.

Um, no.

It's a military. I know you have a personal dislike of real-life militaries and therefore have an ideological reason to not want to call Starfleet a military, but it is, indeed, a military.

It has a system of courts-martial. It enforces martial law when such has been declared by the President. It obeys the President as their commander-in-chief and is subordinate to the state. It is the organization tasked with defending the state in times of war. When Leyton tries to overthrow the government, it is referred to as an attempt to create a "military" dictatorship. When Kirk deals with the Organians, he calls himself a soldier. When Nog speaks to Jake about Red Squad, he calls himself and everyone else a soldier. When David Marcus objects to getting Starfleet involved in Genesis research, he complains about "the military." Etc.

Starfleet is a military. It is not militaristic, but it is a military, and plainly so. Being a military is a legal status, not an ideological one.

To put it another way:

If the Federated States of Micronesia hired five Buddhists, gave them each a batton, and declared that those five Buddhists were now the Army of the Federated States of Micronesia, then those five guys would be the Micronesian military. They may not be aggressive, and they may not be powerful, and they may not actually do anything, but they remain, nonetheless, a military, because being or not being a military is a legal status that refers to an organization's relationship to the state, not an ideological or behavioral status.

 

[Geoff Thorne]

Picard isn't speaking for himself and his own perception of his job. He says, unequivocally, what the organization he has spent his life in is and is not. he's either delusional, lying or accurate.

He's delusional.

Sure, the series' are inconsistent in their depictions of Starfleet and its role vis a vis the Federation

No it's not. It's very clear: The Federation Starfleet is the organization that the United Federation of Planets tasks with exploring the galaxy, defending the Federation, conducting scientific research, engaging in peacekeeping missions, engaging in humanitarian aide, engaging in colonial support, and engaging in diplomacy when in the absence of a dedicated ambassador.

And all of those missions are ones that real-life militaries can be and have been tasked with.

but, as the dialog says what it says on the subject so consistently the best conclusion is that,

The dialogue has consistently indicated that Starfleet is a military. Your citation of Picard is literally the only time the Federation Starfleet is not referred to as a military.

while Starfleet's internal operations resemble what we know of as current military structure, it is some other sort of animal that has been, as yet, unseen. Not a military organization, in other words, but something else that occasionally takes on the chores of a military when pressed.

Um, no.

It's a military. I know you have a personal dislike of real-life militaries and therefore have an ideological reason to not want to call Starfleet a military, but it is, indeed, a military.

It has a system of courts-martial. It enforces martial law when such has been declared by the President. It obeys the President as their commander-in-chief and is subordinate to the state. It is the organization tasked with defending the state in times of war. When Leyton tries to overthrow the government, it is referred to as an attempt to create a "military" dictatorship. When Kirk deals with the Organians, he calls himself a soldier. When Nog speaks to Jake about Red Squad, he calls himself and everyone else a soldier. When David Marcus objects to getting Starfleet involved in Genesis research, he complains about "the military." Etc.

Starfleet is a military. It is not militaristic, but it is a military, and plainly so. Being a military is a legal status, not an ideological one.

To put it another way:

If the Federated States of Micronesia hired five Buddhists, gave them each a batton, and declared that those five Buddhists were now the Army of the Federated States of Micronesia, then those five guys would be the Micronesian military. They may not be aggressive, and they may not be powerful, and they may not actually do anything, but they remain, nonetheless, a military, because being or not being a military is a legal status that refers to an organization's relationship to the state, not an ideological or behavioral status.

I have no feeling about the military one way or the other. I come from a military family. I consider militaries a necessary evil of our modern world. Star Trek isn't about our modern world. It alludes to it frequently or acts as a metaphor for it but it isn't about it.

Picard's line is NOT the only time that phrase or some permutation of that phrase is uttered. It's just not worth it to go through every episode and lift out the quotes. Not to me, anyway. They're there though. Even in TOS which is, by far, the most aggressively militaristic, despite the Dominion and Borg conflicts of later series'.

The prequel series supports this view also. How many times does Captain Archer describe himself as an explorer rather than a soldier? how many times does he describe his mission, indeed the reason for the existence of his vessel, as exploration? Why didn't the MACOs exist prior to the attack on Earth? because Starfleet was never meant to be a military org. Even if TOS meant it to be, the later iterations removed that, culminating with the birth of the organization in the prequel series.

Sure they're internally inconsistent. Of course they are. Six thousand people had their hands in the batter.

The reason the series' are inconsistent is that they are TV series describing an evolving core concept that was filtered through multiple minds over decades. It would be impossible to find true uniformity under those circumstances and, unsurprisingly, there is none. There is only a veneer of consistency and plausibility within certain agreed upon parameters. those parameters are fairly broad.

Describe, for instance, how the transporter works. Does it deconstruct a body and then somehow project the original cached atoms to some far destination for reassembly? How then do we get the weird episode with the "bugs" that follow Reg Barclay out of the "matter stream?" How is he even conscious "in there" at all?

Or, if you don't like that, how do we reconcile the use of Many Worlds Theory as a basis for some (often excellent) stories while others rest on timelines that can be "broken" and subsequently "fixed?" We don't reconcile them. We simply ignore the inconsistency in favor of fun. The two concepts are mutually exclusive yet we all accept them within the Trek framework because they are plausible within the broad parameters. Because they are fun.

This military/not military thing is the same.

We're each lifting out our interpretations based upon perceptions of inconsistent data. People keep citing real-world institutions and models in support of the Pro-Military side. I'm citing the show. The canonical material. In this sort of discussion that is the only source that matters.

If Captain Picard, presented as a man with an incredibly disciplined and sober mind, someone who has almost literally grown up within the ranks of Starfleet, describes the organization of which he is a member as not being a military organization, we must take him at his word or find some equally canonical reason for him to be impaired or lying. he cannot be incorrect by virtue of his position and personality.

No such reason has been presented, only real-world descriptions of real-world military organizations.

So, in order to line up with the canon, the only interpretation must be "non Military." The best you can really say is that Starfleet has some paramilitary trappings.

 

[Sci]

I have no feeling about the military one way or the other. I come from a military family. I consider militaries a necessary evil of our modern world. Star Trek isn't about our modern world.

You're right. Its setting is actually quite a bit more dangerous than our modern world, since literally every other space-faring society has the capacity to create weapons of mass destruction on a planetary scale.

Picard's line is NOT the only time that phrase or some permutation of that phrase is uttered.

Then cite some.

The prequel series supports this view also. How many times does Captain Archer describe himself as an explorer rather than a soldier? how many times does he describe his mission, indeed the reason for the existence of his vessel, as exploration? Why didn't the MACOs exist prior to the attack on Earth? because Starfleet was never meant to be a military org.

1. The United Earth Starfleet is a totally different entity than the Federation Starfleet, name aside.

2. It was, as you note, a different time. Part of the point of ENT was showing how the roles of "soldier" and "explorer" came to be merged. Yeah, Jonathan Archer says that he's not a soldier and that Starfleet isn't a military, but once United Earth began encountering alien threats, the UE Starfleet became the institution responsible for national defense. The United Earth Starfleet evolved into a de facto military by S3 of ENT; you'll notice that the MACOs didn't stop getting posted to Enterprise after the Xindi threat was ended. It's obvious that the point is to show that the roles of defense and exploration were integrated into one organization.

Sure they're internally inconsistent. Of course they are. Six thousand people had their hands in the batter.

You keep SAYING that but you haven't actually cited any inconsistencies in how Starfleet is portrayed. You have exactly one line in which someone claims that the Federation Starfleet isn't a military, but it's contradicted by numerous other lines, and by the very definition of what a military is.

Describe, for instance, how the transporter works. Does it deconstruct a body and then somehow project the original cached atoms to some far destination for reassembly? How then do we get the weird episode with the "bugs" that follow Reg Barclay out of the "matter stream?" How is he even conscious "in there" at all?

Or, if you don't like that, how do we reconcile the use of Many Worlds Theory as a basis for some (often excellent) stories while others rest on timelines that can be "broken" and subsequently "fixed?" We don't reconcile them. We simply ignore the inconsistency in favor of fun. The two concepts are mutually exclusive yet we all accept them within the Trek framework because they are plausible within the broad parameters. Because they are fun.

You are completely changing the subject.

This military/not military thing is the same.

We're each lifting out our interpretations based upon perceptions of inconsistent data. People keep citing real-world institutions and models in support of the Pro-Military side. I'm citing the show. The canonical material. In this sort of discussion that is the only source that matters.

I've cited both the canon AND the real-world definition of what a military is.

If Captain Picard, presented as a man with an incredibly disciplined and sober mind, someone who has almost literally grown up within the ranks of Starfleet, describes the organization of which he is a member as not being a military organization, we must take him at his word or find some equally canonical reason for him to be impaired or lying. he cannot be incorrect by virtue of his position and personality.

In that same series, Captain Picard and Wesley describe the Klingon Empire as having joined the Federation. Later TNG episodes (to say nothing of DS9) make it clear that this is not the case. Obviously, the TNG writers engaged in some retconning.

In point of fact, it was retconning to have Picard declare that the Federation Starfleet wasn't a military, since previous TOS episodes had firmly established that it was -- most famously "Court Martial," in which Captain Kirk had to undergo court-martial.

Please note the importance of the world "martial." You can't have a court-martial if the organization is not a martial (i.e., military) organization.

 

[Dayton Ward]

So, Starfleet's not a military.

They simply decided they'd be good eggs and fight the Dominion War, even though they'd never really been soldiers, or trained in any sort of weapons or tactics? Why? Nothing better to do that day? Just thought it'd be a hoot? No oaths to defend anything or anybody or any sort of binding agreement of any sort with any official party?

And the uniforms, protocols, general orders, rules and regulations...that's all just role play for wannabes, that doesn't really mean anything (Hey, Joe, when I said I was going to court-martial you for insubordination and disobeying my orders -- which weren't real orders to go and die just like I learned how to do in that holodeck simulation because, you know, this isn't the military -- you know it was just bullshit, right? See you for poker Friday night? Aye aye!)

And you know, since they're not military...why bother with all that icky soldier-type stuff in the first place? They can just ask the bad guys to hang on a minute while they pick up a book or run a holodeck program to teach them about the weapons they've been carrying around in and on their ships, and tactics to properly employ them in combat situations. It's not like they'd ever have done that throughout their time at the Academy, or at intervals throughout their career.

Being a military organization is like being circumcised, pregnant, or a fan of Carrot Top. You either are, or you're not.

Now, that said (and I keep saying that), to equate Starfleet to any present-day military organization is innaccurate, dishonest, and unfair, just as it is to compare today's armed forces with their counterparts from 3-400 years ago. Their mission has evolved; their primary focus is not the conduct of war; the jobs that once were the realm of "support personnel" are now their primary reasons for existing, and the combat arms facets are the secondary concern. No problem with that whatsoever; that's the way it should be in Star Trek. But c'mon, once and for all, let's call a duck a duck, okay?

 

[DimesDan]

once and for all, let's call a duck a duck, okay?

Quack

Although I probably implyed that I thought Starfleet isn't a Military, but the point I was trying to get across was that Starfleet Vessels are not just built for aggressive purposes, they are multi purpose and Aggressive/Defensive roles are not their primary purpose, in most cases, it might not even be their Secondary purpose.

As I originally said:

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.

I was originally responding to Dayton3s original post and how I interrpted it and that apart from ONE time in over 200 years, Starfleet has built one fully dedicated warship, everyother starship though can be used as a warship, but that as I just said, is NOT it's primary purpose.

 

[trekkerguy]

I don't understand what the debate is all about. Starfleet is a multipurpose organization. It has military, exploratory, humanitarian, scientific and diplomatic branches. It is the arm of the Federation and the Starships are simply universal tools for it to use how it sees fit.

So yes, it was appropriate for them to commission the Luna class. As Christopher brought out the use of peaceful duties such as exploration promote the safety of the Federation through show of good intention toward the Galaxy.

And because every single Starship is just as capable in the role of "Warship" as it is in it's regular duties as a vehicle of exploration or diplomacy. No "modern" class of Federation Starship actually requires being built specificaly for defensive purposes because all they need to do is reallocate some energy and raise shields.

 

[Sci]

I don't understand what the debate is all about. Starfleet is a multipurpose organization.

So are militaries.