Why is there resistance to the idea of Starfleet being military?

A disclaimer before this thread begins: this is not the age old discussion of is Starfleet a military or not. That's been ground into the dirt so thoroughly over the years, we all know where each other stands on the subject. I will reiterate for the purposes of this thread that I am in the camp which believes Starfleet is military and that it was the intent in TOS to depict Starfleet as a military. Anyway moving on.

Ever since Roddenberry summarily decreed while developing TNG that Starfleet is not a military that has become a benchmark regarding Star Trek. That even though Starfleet operates and behaves like a military and is a military by every definition of the word, it isn't military because Gene said so. It has been repeated on the Berman era shows many times. In the Abrams movies, Trek XI tried to dance around the issue by calling Starfleet a "humanitarian peacekeeping force" while STID and Beyond both flat out state Starfleet isn't military.

But why is this idea clung to so strictly? For the most part, a lot of Roddenberry's ideas for modern Trek have been ignored by the shows themselves, the only ones the show really clings to are Starfleet's non-military status and the non-existence of money in the Federation. And in fan discussions, the general consensus is usually "no money doesn't make sense and must be ignored." And yet, in similar discussions many will continue to argue that Starfleet is not a military, with some maybe giving ground to give the weird answers of "it's more than a military" even though there proof is that Starfleet does things militaries do anyway.

So what is so special about Starfleet is not a military that it is the one rule of Roddenberry's that no one, not the writers or producers who have succeeded him, nor their successors, and not even the fans want to abandon that one idea when everything else from Gene, be it no money, even number nacelles only, Love Instructors, has been tossed out the airlock by fans (in the case of no money) or the franchise itself (regarding everything else)? Why is everyone so resistant to the idea that Starfleet is a military?

 

The problem with the 'starfleet is NOT the military' line is that it so clearly IS in so many ways:

1. The organization is organized along military lines with a naval rank structure
2. The organization fights the Federations wars and also acts as a law enforcement organ
3. There is a top to bottom military-style chain of command, a JAG corps, courts martial, and all manner of military trappings.
4. The members wear uniforms, and the uniforms clearly denote rank

Basically, a rose by any other name, and all that.

All the above aside, I will postulate that starfleet is the Federation's military, but also MUCH MORE. There is the exploration facet to it, the science facets, space medicine, first contact missions, and quite frankly, the training starfleet officers receive for the express purpose of 'thinking outside the box' and dealing with not just the unknown, but the unknowable.

A typical military organization would not have been able to cope with V'ger, or the Borg, or being propelled back in time or beyond the known edges of the universe, or solved the communications conundrum with the Children of Tama. Starfleet can and does do all of those things. So is starfleet 'The Military?' No. Is it organized on military lines and serve a military function when needed? You betcha- ask the Cardassians. Starfleet is starfleet- as unique an organization as we've seen in sci-fi. It exists to serve and protect, to seek out new life and new civilizations, and boldly go where no one has gone before, upholding the founding principles of the UFP along the way. It's really the embodiment of the Federation ideal: that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

 

All that and I realize I never really did address the question in the OP: I think the friction comes from people who, for whatever reason, dislike the military (sometimes intensely) and resist the idea that starfleet (which they DO like) serves a military function as outlined in my first post.

 

Clearly Starfleet is military. So the question is why deny it? The less sinister explanation is it is a PR move. The more sinister explanation is it's propaganda like North Korea.

 

GENE'S VISION!!!! UTOPIAN IDEALS!!!! MY STAR TREK!!!!!

 

I have great admiration for Gene Roddenberry. What an amazing individual, in his own right. WW2 pilot, policeman, writer, producer ... and - dare I say it? - visionary! And one of his great "visions" is that STARFLEET not be strictly militaristic and I completely agree with that sentiment.

STARFLEET is the natural progression of what NASA would be like, if there is a Galactic Culture out there and Earth not only got involved, but actually set the tone for the rest of it. Look at the Pioneer and Voyager probes, they all have some kind of message of peace from ALL Mankind, despite being mainly a product of Uncle Sam. NASA's comprised of the very best scientific minds ... who take their role as Intergalactic Ambassadors of Good Will, quite seriously. So, NASA's the perfect symbol on which to base STARFLEET. Gene had the right idea ... all along. Also, STARFLEET not being strictly military allows for things like NuKirk's rapid advancement/promotion to Captain. So the story possibilities are much broader and more interesting treating STARFLEET in this fashion ...

 

^^ Except that Starfleet, as originally conceived by the Great Bird himself, was nothing like NASA or any descendant of NASA. Starfleet was analogous to the navies of Earth's major powers in the 18th and 19th centuries. It was Horatio Hornblower in space.

 

Well, my IMHO is that if the Starfleet were more military, it owuld make things... simpler. Allow more direct approach. In quite a lot of typical Star Trek situations, the "drop photon torpedo on their main military installation and threat to start indiscriminate bombardment if they didn't release our captured men immediatedly" - i.e. direct military approach - would basically allow to solve the plot of the episode in mere seconds.

And also, because we have pretty enough threats of military force in our world... and a lot of peoples wanted to have no such things from Good Guys in utopian future. Which actually make sence. And the military... well, the military is threat of force by definition.

 

Resistance to the notion of Starfleet as a military obviously comes from a feeling that militarism contradicts their stated doctrines of peaceful coexistence and exploration.

I don't know about peace, but a fair bit of exploration has been done by the military. Captain Cook is the probably greatest example: charting unknown seas and discovering new landmasses for the British Admiralty. Combine this with the way the British empire would impose peace on otherwise warring colonial subjects, and you have something that looks not entirely unlike Starfleet.

So maybe Starfleet isn't a military, maybe it's the Church of Scientology by a different name?

 

You mean that there is common simplification, that "having a large military" mean "being militaristic"? Yes,. unfortunately. Those who think so, obviously never heard about Switzerland, which is tremendously overmilitarized by the European standards, but never started the agressive war in her history)

 

Stop making me laugh

Also, I find it so odd that Starfleet is treated as being "the military" means "no exploring." As pointed out, what was the Royal Navy doing?

As for Pike calling Starfleet a "humanitarian and peacekeeping armada" that doesn't automatically mean that they don't treat Starfleet as military. "Armada" is a pretty specific term that, generally, is used regarding military fleets. At least, in my experience ("Where's that merchand armada?" doesn't have the same ring to it).

Military apparently conjures up specific images of soldiers, warfare and the like. Never mind the fact that the US Navy repeatedly engages in *gasp* humanitarian missions, and the Air Force works closely with NASA.

 

There may be probably in-universae reason: it's far simpler to obtain resources from democratic Federation goverment for "lonmg-range explorer", than for "battleship") Even if they are actually the same thing)

 

Starfleet is military. But it is also a scientific organisation like NASA.

There is no real-world comparison for such an organisation right now.

Not everything in science fiction can be directly compared to real life. The closest thing we probably have to Starfleet is NASA, but they have no defensive duties whatsoever - Starfleet does. They keep astronauts fit as hell. They are educated in science and engineering. Their primary goal is research. But in Star Trek, they also take on elements of a traditional military arm at some point; almost like UN Peacekeepers.

 

This is likely a big part of the "Starfleet's not a military" despite what is shown on screen. If you are neutral or positive on the present day military in general, then it's pretty obvious that Starfleet is overtly a military organization.

Partially, but historically the military is also exploration, "first contact," creating political treaties, protecting trade, assisting colonies. Modern day the military are often the first to arrive when natural disasters occur, and they support scientific research.

To this day, many pilots and commanders on NASA missions are active duty (or prior duty) military. The space shuttle's design was based (in part) on military requirements, ie a 60 by 15 foot cargo bay to handle military missions, NASA originally conceived a much smaller cargo bay. And of course the shuttle would on occasion fly purely military missions.QUOTE="Dilandu, post: 11676592, member: 72725"]Switzerland ... but never started the agressive war in her history[/QUOTE]Not for the last two centuries, but it's false that Switzerland has never started a aggressive war in it's long history[/QUOTE]

 

I must confess to never having read the adventures of "Horatio Hornblower." The authors I enjoy reading are John Steinbeck, Ernest Hemingway, H. Rider Haggard, Raymond Chandler and the like ... but I do know that the main element(s) from "Horatio Hornblower" that defined STAR TREK were the fact that Horatio was often First Contact with other cultures his ship and crew encountered and that he was often cut off, actually, from most contact with home and had to use his own judgment and wits, to decide the proper course of action, whether it be in combat, or establishing treaties. Again, I never read it, but my understanding is that much of what was inspired by the book was embodied by Kirk, himself, and his situation - that of being on his own, out on the frontier - rather than the actual organisation he personally represented.

 

(I double-posted, accidentally - I'm just modifying it, instead of deleting it)

The best - and most obvious - reason to resist the idea of STARFLEET being military is that it allows overweight, flabby officers, several of whom are actually too elderly for the Service, at all.

 

Because some people don't like the idea that the Federation is just your typical Space America and that Starfleet is just your typical run of the mill Navy with nothing new or unique about it.

 

How many characters quite clearly stating that starfleet is not military does it take?

For me personally - I could care less about anything 'established' in TOS - and I care more about the statements of the many more characters who actually serve in Starfleet(post-tos) and their perceptions of the organisation than I care about people inferring things from the structure of the organisation.
Though quite honestly - its a dumb argument - there is no organisation on Earth today that are anything close to Starfleet. It can be whatever it wants(which is why I put more weight on the utterances of characters). Hell - there's not even anything like Earth on Earth when we're talking about Trek.

 

A "quasi-military/exploratory arm of the United Federation of Planets".
Giving the Enterprise and her crew ranks and use of naval parlance made TOS relatable to the 1960's television audience; Marshal Dillon ran Dodge City, Dr. Kildare worked at Blair General Hospital, and James T. Kirk was captain of the U.S.S. Enterprise.
A believability factor for the general audience.
Much better than spaceship X-19 commanded by Lord Thratal of the Northern Provincial Republic of the planet Zahtrana (or some such notion).
Even Forbidden Planet followed ranks and naval parlance for audience identification. It was a great film.