Whether Starfleet at some point actually goes to war or not is rather immaterial to its militarism. It exists on basis of the potentiality; it exploits that justification for existence without shame; and absent another, perhaps more objective viewpoint to the Star Trek universe and the UFP, it really appears to run the whole show, down to writing its own laws on the spot and then bragging about them in official logs.
I don't want to insert something as a counterargument that isn't explicitly established as canon. Still, can't we reasonably wonder, as has been done on countless threads before, that there is a civilian authority, at least on Earth, that has the capacity, if not responsibility, to make substantive contributions to Federation policy and protocols, that would naturally have an impact on how Starfleet operates, at least nominally? Admittedly, being in a deficient position to cite what has or hasn't been fleshed out about such a body, I would ask you to let me know if such as been categorically ruled out as existing, or if it does, has been shown to deal with only "local", parochial matters.
You're saying that essentially Starfleet rules Earth, as an example, which I don't believe has ever been stated, or likely inferred. Further, that it does so in a way that defines Earth as being a militaristic entity, the foundations of which may be drawn as a means to make the population submissive
or aggressive handmaidens in support of a supremacist planetary identity and to eliminate the possibility of any thoughtful dissent. Alternately, the purpose could be to effectively make the raison d'etre of the civilization to be a perpetual war making enterprise, justified by any number of rationales, ranging from actual existential threats to the most capricious of whims of individual commanders, that will always find sanction under the umbrella of the prevailing power structure.
We certainly observe more than a little of life on Earth, though skewed to the locale of Starfleet Command and its local environs. It's hard to make sweeping characterizations of the underpinnings of society based on these fragmentary views, but IMO they don't strike me as being redolent of being highly regimented, that openly militates dogmatic positions of the supremacy of the state, or whose populace has been cowed, whipped into a frenzy, or is just oblivious. I remarked on an actual historical example of a militaristic society that developed in Japan in the latter parts of the 19th century through WWII. One could also point to post-Bismarckian Germany that also essentially formed the character of the society towards that same conflagration. Would you characterize what we see of Earth during Trek as being similar to those constructs, or are there other real world milieus that strike you as reasonable models therein? Honestly, I just can't see such comparisons bearing the weight of an objective examination based on the evidence we see, however limited.
2) Military vs. Navy is an old distinction that could well be resurrected for the simple and single purpose of explaining why two characters in onscreen Star Trek (Admiral Forrest in "The Expanse" and Captain Picard in "Peak Performance") claim that Starfleet is distinct from the Military. This has extremely little to do with militarism at any level: even the organization that Forrest suspected might rub badly on Captain Archer was not qualitatively different from Archer's own organization (a bunch of rifle-toting specialists helping a starship with onboard and planetside combat, neatly following if not a single then at least a shared chain of command). It's just a convenient excuse for those two bits of dialogue.
There is a difference in citing distinctions to a strictly military component and using that to claim that in either of these instances, Starfleet is being typified as a naval organization that in your earlier comments you referenced as being separate from the active aspects of a functioning war machine, one that is necessary to maintain during peacetime. You still don't really address what justifies that ongoing need for one and not the other, and in fact unless I'm misunderstanding the intent of the first line above, you seem to be stepping back from that reference, as if it's just a neat historical use of semantics to shield Starfleet's true character. The conversation in the Expanse appears to me to simply explain that Enterprise, in leaving for a mission in which there are so many unknowns, ranging from the anecdotal dangers of the area of space they will be entering, to the potential contact with a race that has unilaterally shown malign intent to Earth, would be prudent in including in their complement, personnel whose sole purpose and organization is a military one. The implication of the discussion, as I take it, is that the MACOs wouldn't be a mere amplification of a capability that is already manifestly present aboard Enterprise, but will serve as a distinct element that Archer feels may very well need to be deployed to more reliably ensure the integrity and success of the mission, however that might have come to be defined. Outside this particular scenario, the idea that this nascent version of Starfleet clearly considered itself as a military venture, would seem first to more clearly articulate an assured sense of purpose, that it would seem to me, could only become more lucidly focused with actual real world experience being acquired. Secondarily, the braking mechanism that the Vulcans had placed on the active deployment of Starfleet, would seem unlikely to have been predicated on an understanding and appreciation that Earth was honing their capability to be a strictly, or primarily even, military one.
As for Picard, it's been said many times, that it's clear that his Enterprise's brief was often one defined by the diplomatic realm, and that by this time frame in Starfleet's development, the use of military force to obtain objectives, was a single element in its toolkit, implicit in its being available, but just as clearly explicit in the falling back to that eventuality to be regarded seriously as a final resort. In the sense that Picard bristles at the suggestion that it is a valid descriptor at all of Starfleet's role. might be his perception that the application of force, when absolutely necessary, does not define the one applying it as a military agency, as such, but simply in that individual case using an instrumentality that is
part of an integrated whole that comprises the package of what Starfleet vessels maintain to most effectively succeed in their missions, but one element that is restricted programmatically and reflexively to be used only in tightly defined parameters. That certain individuals or like minded groups in positions of authority have circumvented these rules to utilize this component as a strictly offensive force to pursue their own imperatives, outside of condoned tactics, doesn't change the paradigm that the organization runs by, it just shows that some of its members choose to emphasize their personal judgement over the corporate dictates that they had previously pledged to uphold.
"Not warranted or justifiable"? Not my words. I simply find Starfleet's warrants and sense of justice alien and even disgusting on occasion.
As recapped, Kirk uses orbital bombardment against local ways of life in "Return of the Archons", "The Apple" and "This Side of Paradise" solely on basis of him personally disliking said ways. There's also an element of self-defense there, but that's all due to Kirk himself provoking the situation - and "Omega Glory" establishes that Starfleet/UFP laws forbid using self-defense as an excuse. For a militaristic organization, laws mean little, though, and evidently Kirk's superiors fully agree, at least in this timeline.
Kirk further uses threat of extreme force in situations of categorically forbidden self-defense in "A Taste of Armageddon", and applies or tries to apply actual force in various other gunboat-diplomacy incidents such as "Corbomite Maneuver" or "Spectre of the Gun".
These are the highlights. What TOS lacks is a counterbalance, a situation where Kirk would step back when he can. "Omega Glory" shows him hypocritically accusing a fellow CO for Kirkisms; "Errand of Mercy" has him backing off under pain of, well, pain. This does not paint a positive picture of the man or his organization.
Right, I used those words rather than repeat what I perceive to be foolish sounding characterizations of Kirk taking destructive actions simply because of his own personal bias or that the offending culture looked at him the wrong way. Those were your words. You've pointed to a few examples that
slightly extend the reach of the ratio that you provided as to such actions taking place. Not that they all actually conform to your contention. There is no planetary bombardment in Archons as I have reviewed it. Actually, Landru is actively attempting to destroy the Enterprise, which Kirk chooses not to confront with an attempt of force from the ship. Kirk also learns that Landru successfully used the same strategy against the episode's eponymously named ship. If you're substituting the challenge Kirk makes to the computer, as making the case for planetary disruption, I would counter that the argument he uses is not mere sophistry and verbal manipulation to save his skin and the ship, but as worked out by Spock and him, reflects a reality, conveniently dropped in I'll admit, that this form of Landru has corrupted what the original meant to maintain, and in so doing has fostered a sterile and inorganically driven society. Albeit without a jury to render the verdict, Kirk's logic is powerful enough to convince the machine that it has deviated from its own Prime Directive (nice touch there) and should forfeit the suzerainty it holds over its subjects. I don't know that you would argue that other Starfleet captains would have chosen to leave the situation as it was, even to the point of the destruction of their command, but I might foresee some using their ship's weaponry, as you claim was the case here, in lieu of expending the effort to intuit the reality of what was really was going on in the society and change the dynamic without violence.
I totally miss your reference as far as This Side of Paradise goes. Your submission, I suppose, would be that he doesn't like the route of development that the colony has taken and feels compelled to express that personal prejudice. In fact, the colony isn't functioning as its members
themselves intended it to, for the simple fact that it was physically impossible to do so without the intervention of the spores. Did Sandoval and the rest, find and struggle with the challenge that they had volunteered to take on? No, they were essentially entrapped in a years long sleep, with the will to recognize and confront the situation taken away by the effect of the spores. Would you argue that the spores are sentient beings? I don't know if that case was made in the episode. Regardless, the attack you are pointing at here, didn't destroy anything, unless we are maintaining that the spores are actually alive in their hosts and not just having caused an effect on them. In any case, we're not shown or given any evidence that the "bombardment" killed any of the plants that were still rampant in the environment. I think we can also take Sandoval's reaction afterwards to represent a positive response to Kirk's action, at least as the leader of the colony, as a recognition of lost time and opportunity in the mission's purpose.
As I said earlier, I don't think one can justify Tracey's decisions as showing Starfleet enlightenment or adherence to policies. He was nominally protecting a society, not even for a warped notion that it was more deserving of it on an objective basis than its enemies were. His whole motivation appeared to be keeping them alive long enough so that he could wrest the supposed immortality element from their biology, being able to do that once another starship showed up as he calculated would happen. Then with his ability to use subterfuge and guile to obscure his crimes, he would be in the position to claim the glory and acclaim that such an epochal discovery would inevitably be bestowed upon him. For the supposed hero of the piece, he illustrated precious little from beginning to end, that would distinguish him with that appellation, at least as I see it, a view that seems to be pretty ubiquitous from the comments of many, many others. Also, I certainly don't think that the Kirkisms you refer to, would have been taken by their progenitor if he had been placed in the same situation. I can't say for sure what course of action he would have taken, but I don't doubt that he would have accepted death in the final instance, before allowing himself to irrevocably compromise Starfleet principles. I must be missing the point, clear to you, that he cavalierly disregarded the protocols regarding the exercise of self-defense, at least to the extent of violating his mission and furthering the cultural contamination that Tracey had no compunction to introduce.
I can't qualify the Corbomite Maneuver as representing a threat, the fact that Balok knew it was a bluff notwithstanding. It was simply a rhetorical device that Kirk came up with as a last resort to buy some time. Such a strategem certainly wouldn't transgress Starfleet precepts in this instance. I might be in the minority in believing this, but I'm dubious that Balok ever intended any harm to Enterprise. He admitted as much when referring to his menacing dummy identity as his own way of bluffing Enterprise into accepting that his was a malevolent character and insuperable powers. I think he was simply testing them with this overwhelming seeming scenario, to gauge how their reactions spoke to a suitability of their civilization being able to provide him with the companionship that he ultimately confessed was his true desire.
Spectre of the Gun? A strictly diplomatic mission that was met with open hostility and then a seeming death sentence. If one interprets it as strictly the Melkotians' means of testing an alien civilization's motivations, methods, and morality, the fact that Kirk chose to ignore the buoy, actually suited what the Melkotians wanted to occur all along. Basically, the method they used to judge the worthiness of allowing first contact. If a particular visitor's intentions weren't strong enough to choose to continue their attempt to approach the planet despite the warning, the Melkotians may simply have deemed them not of particular interest to engage with in any event. I simply don't get your reference to gunboat diplomacy being displayed by Kirk. He didn't destroy the buoy, nor was it mentioned in the warning that it would be obliterated by any further advance. It seems likely that it was the next aspect in the Melkotians' plan; blowing up their own device as a means of warranting the challenge they would be inflicting on the landing party. The application of logic permitted them to pass the test without the use of violence. Kirk's impulse at the end supplying the Melkotians with a point of dialogue that served to further their beneficial impression that this was a race that had mastered the capability of restraining primal impulses even in the face of unrelenting provocation.
Kirk wasn't personally brought to backing off in Errand of Mercy. That was a quadrant wide display of intent by a vastly superior race that would not brook the outbreak of hostilities regardless of any individual combatants understanding or philosophy. But what was so absolutely halted, was not some blithe or capricious contretemps that had no real standing in galactic geopolitics. These were two sides that, at that time in their relationship, had categorical, if not existential disputes that drew them into lethal conflict time after time. That a peaceful resolution could come to pass between them in time, didn't mean that violence of extreme measures would not have to play out for yet some time. This was certainly not an individual resolve or determination that Kirk arrived at in a vacuum.
TNG brings some relief from this pattern as Picard is better equipped to defend himself without resorting to actual use of force (the "speak softly and carry a big stick of dynamite" thing, often ridiculed by the audience as huddling behind shields and not firing back apparently does not meet the criteria of conventional bravery). In DS9, Sisko, a man of lesser means, again vents his anger at civilians via orbital bombardment, though, and seemingly receives nothing but support from his colleagues and superiors. Funny how in a similar situation, the crew of one Garth of Izar reputedly rebelled, and the CO was established as a villain...
Staying within the TOS realm only, I don't find it odd or funny that Garth's orders were disobeyed by his crew and he was taken in charge. One can only imagine it likely that at that earlier time when the injury and impact of his treatment on Antos had only just recently occurred, his ability to mask his delusionary rage was not nearly as honed as the passage of time would allow, so that his crew would have responded to the illegality of his commands as the clear signal of someone who had lost possession of his reasoning and could justifiably and within Starfleet procedures, be removed from command and confined so as to turn him over to the appropriate authorities. Were Sisko's demeanor and means of warranting his subsequent hostile actions, equally obvious in being commonly perceived as the behavior of a madman, to that degree?
Frankly, I don't feel particularly inclined to get involved in a semantical dispute that, as has happened lately elsewhere around these parts, devolves into a tiresome and seemingly endless harangue.
There are two levels to this: debate taking place at TrekBBS, and demagoguery taking place within the Trek universe. I hope the former remains at the "tiresome" level and doesn't unduly offend anybody; my point in engaging in it is to fight the latter, where Starfleet philosophies are generally unquestionably hailed and even advantageously compared to those of militant Earth organizations, IMHO wholly without reason. I guess that fundamentally I want to question the entertainment-inherent concept that heroes can do no wrong - as that very thing is actually at the rotten root of militarism...
Also,
Kirk also didn't seduce women in 1/4 episodes. Maybe 1/10.
That's a welcome correction factor for my hyperbole, too. Please take that as implicit in the near future.
(Although the 1/4 thing really was supposed to reflect those episodes where Kirk actually came to deal with an alien way of life, choosing a live-and-let-live stance in at most 3/4 of the cases. Many TOS episodes would fall outside the scope of that debate. Not as many as one might at first think, mind you. Why did Kirk kill the Doomsday Machine, or the Space Amoeba, or the Dikironide Cloud, say? A Picardian policy of level-headed study would have made it all the easier to later deal an effective comeuppance to these
species of alien life - a quick kill out of disgust and fear just reduced the UFP resources for coping with them.) Timo Saloniemi
It seems like you're saying that both the Log and the Amoeba would have both been rendered inert or destroyed by Picard. but only in a more thoughtful and deliberative manner? If such was going to be the end result anyway, why endanger cumulatively billions of lives in the very near future, just so one could be lauded for thinking comprehensively before coming up with perhaps a less spectacular and definitive way of achieving the deed. Certainly contemplativeness has a place in coming to decisions that are multifaceted in their contemporaneous dimensions and potential future unintended consequences, a place that Kirk unarguably might have fruitfully visited somewhat more often. But these two situations simply don't seem to apply. First, I find it dubious to classify the Log as a species. I don't recall that being done in the episode directly. To our knowledge, it was a machine of epic destructive proportions that didn't seem to make any distinctions as to its objects of attack, other than IIRC, its needing to be fed. One can very reasonably maintain that the quick determination of how to deal with this mass killer was more helpful to Starfleet, than a similarly successful but time consuming tack would've been, even if no other lives were lost, as we are left at the end of the show with the prospect of more of them wandering throughout the galaxy. Having that understanding of its weakness sooner than later, could only be seen as a pure positive. The Amoeba as a species, no question though not likely a sentient one, but it posed the same immediate threat that had to be neutralized and at least in its elimination, all evidence of its existence was not lost for future study, any alleged botched tests put aside!
I don't refuse to concede that Kirk and others in Starfleet committed no errors in judgement, clearly for some of the latter individuals, outright malfeasances and gravely criminal acts. I've often cited Kirk's rashness and foolhardiness in WNMHGB, tarring him with the brush of a rookie coming up, obviously lacking in such a signal trial that demanded patience and foresight. But as a whole, I cannot come anywhere close to judging his actions as a lone marshal, setting an agenda as he arbitrarily and summarily saw fit. I would contrarily say, in fact, that for a leader that valued action, at times impulsively, he was perhaps surprisingly sensible to the arguments that logic, discretion, and wisely proffered counsel were quite often made available to him.
