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

[jaime]

No, just no. TOS showed Kirk and company as soldiers when it suited the purpose of the story. "Errand of Mercy" and Kirk describes himself as a soldier to Kor, and is ready to fight the Klingons to save the Organians. "Friday's Child" shows a red shirt dying in the first act because he sees a Klingon and immediately draws his phaser. This is off the top of my head. There are plenty of others.
Or TNG, if you like. In "Angel One" the ENT-D is preparing to go to the Neutral Zone as a show of force against a Romulan battlecruiser encroaching upon the Neutral Zone.

Militaries have a many different tools to achieve their goals and missions. The idea that a military just goes around and shoots to achieve its end not only misses the point of a military, but overlooks the humanitarian, research, construction and transportation missions that are part of their duties.

Sorry, your examples are an oversimplification, at best, and indicate a gross misunderstanding of a military organization.

Actually I understand what a military organisation is fine....the SCE is a bit like REME for instance. However we are interpreting things under a broad definition of 'military' in order to go against an on screen definition of Starfleet as explicitly 'not a military'. That's not a value judgement on militaries, and certainly not on modern militaries...however, Trek is very much framed in its relationship to Westerns because of when it was made. Once you allow a similar broad understanding of what 'exploration' is, and frame Trek in its context (sixties television, post war society) then it goes fine with 'Starfleet is not a military' without it being a value judgement. It is what militaries become when that defensive, weaponised force, aspect is so far down the list of priorities because of the nature of Treks utopian world. We jump through hoops...Kirk calls himself a soldier. But a soldier is a very broad term to start off with, and you can certainly argue that Starfleet is still in transition during TOS and even Kirks lifetime. He also says 'we are explorers' the two aren't mutually exclusive....but Starfleet is explicitly stated to not be military. This is not a value judgement, I don't think the military is automatically shooty shooty bad thing! Bad thing! But that reputation is different everywhere in the world depending on experience, to the point that when looking at an international viewpoint...you don't want your heroes to be explicitly military figures. No matter what we as individuals may know about military duties or what moral/value judgement we then come to....on a wider and more simplistic scale, a military is for one thing in the popular imagination, and certainly was when the various Treks were conceptualised. That defensive military aspect is explicit in not defining Starfleet, because it's considered by those people in that future (or those people who made Trek) to not be a large enough part to define them. Did they grow out of military tradition? Sure. So did commercial airlines and even many entertainment groups. Is there anything wrong with being military? No, not from my and many people's perspective. But Starfleet is explicitly stated by on screen reliable narrators to not be one, and the primary creators state as much.
Is this a bad thing? Only if people want to make it into one. The great thing about Trek and Starfleet, is the service people can see an idealised version of themselves, but so can everyone else...particularly scientists, engineers, medics and service people admittedly. But anyone. Including people who maybe don't have a good experience with the military one way or another.

 

[Lance]

One last thought....space the final frontier.
People are usually armed on frontiers because they are usually a long way from the forces of law and order (or indeed, the cavalry)
Starfleet is both frontiersman, and cavalry. It chooses to identify with the frontiersman. Not the cavalry. Because then they aren't at the frontier, they are chasing behind it picking up.

Starfleet is an organized, uniformed service with hierarchy, structure, tactics, training and recourses. The frontiersmen were nothing of the sort.

Besides, if you're a Native American it doesn't matter too much if the one shooting at you is a frontiersman or a cavalry soldier.

Exactly right. Star Trek was never Wagon Train in space. Roddenberry clearly spun that line as a means towards getting the show on the air, but the series format was not about pilgrims making a treacherous journey across the prairies, it was about the Space Navy doing Space Navy type things.

 

[jaime]

Exactly right. Star Trek was never Wagon Train in space. Roddenberry clearly spun that line as a means towards getting the show on the air, but the series format was not about pilgrims making a treacherous journey across the prairies, it was about the Space Navy doing Space Navy type things.

Of course. But that 'frontier' element is front and centre in Trek, from whichever first episode you stand by. It's not until mid next gen that the focus is more known space on a regular basis. And then there's Ds9, the frontier town, and Voyager, which is well and truly out there. The most typical (and not to my enjoyment) pastiche done in Star Trek is the Western, not the war movie. That's moving the discussion away from what military's do or don't do in the real world...because Treks context is not the real world. It's TV and Film.

 

[J.T.B.]

"Wagon Train to the stars" was more about format than genre. The show wasn't set in one place but constantly on the move, so there could be wholly different situations, problems and guest stars each week.

 

[suarezguy]

The ranks are a manifestation of a system of military discipline. Regardless of specialty, a commander has more authority than a lieutenant commander, a lieutenant commander more than a lieutenant and so on, and personnel are responsible to follow orders from those with more authority. That kind of system was in place on TOS from the beginning.

And yet in all the series the characters could, at times did give light punishments or outright overlook breaches of discipline and violations of orders. I think it makes more sense that the system isn't so strictly regimented than that the captains are just bad captains for at times being lax in discipline. It was also the case that in some areas the chief medical officer had more authority than the captain.

He could have pitched it as Little House on the Alien Planet Prairie to get a green light from the executives. That's irrelevant. What we ended up with (and are discussing) was nothing of the sort. The Starfleet we saw was an organized, uniformed service with hierarchy, structure, tactics, training and recourses and not random frontiersmen, settlers and pilgrims.

But the Enterprise-D and I think other Galaxy-class ships, admittedly an exception, did have civilians onboard, I'm pretty sure more civilians than crewmembers, and even some smaller ships seemed to regularly have some civilians (like Jennifer Sisko).

 

[J.T.B.]

And yet in all the series the characters could, at times did give light punishments or outright overlook breaches of discipline and violations of orders.

And yet we also know they can be arrested and court-martialed for disobedience to orders. And Nelson using his blind eye to read the signals became legendary; that kind of thing is good for drama.

But the Enterprise-D and I think other Galaxy-class ships, admittedly an exception, did have civilians onboard, I'm pretty sure more civilians than crewmembers, and even some smaller ships seemed to regularly have some civilians (like Jennifer Sisko).

But the idea there was that the civilians would be sent to safety in the saucer if needed. Also, many US naval vessels today, and pretty much all large ones, go to sea with civilians aboard, mostly tech reps.

 

[fireproof78]

Actually I understand what a military organisation is fine....the SCE is a bit like REME for instance. However we are interpreting things under a broad definition of 'military' in order to go against an on screen definition of Starfleet as explicitly 'not a military'. That's not a value judgement on militaries, and certainly not on modern militaries...however, Trek is very much framed in its relationship to Westerns because of when it was made. Once you allow a similar broad understanding of what 'exploration' is, and frame Trek in its context (sixties television, post war society) then it goes fine with 'Starfleet is not a military' without it being a value judgement. It is what militaries become when that defensive, weaponised force, aspect is so far down the list of priorities because of the nature of Treks utopian world. We jump through hoops...Kirk calls himself a soldier. But a soldier is a very broad term to start off with, and you can certainly argue that Starfleet is still in transition during TOS and even Kirks lifetime. He also says 'we are explorers' the two aren't mutually exclusive....but Starfleet is explicitly stated to not be military. This is not a value judgement, I don't think the military is automatically shooty shooty bad thing! Bad thing! But that reputation is different everywhere in the world depending on experience, to the point that when looking at an international viewpoint...you don't want your heroes to be explicitly military figures. No matter what we as individuals may know about military duties or what moral/value judgement we then come to....on a wider and more simplistic scale, a military is for one thing in the popular imagination, and certainly was when the various Treks were conceptualised. That defensive military aspect is explicit in not defining Starfleet, because it's considered by those people in that future (or those people who made Trek) to not be a large enough part to define them. Did they grow out of military tradition? Sure. So did commercial airlines and even many entertainment groups. Is there anything wrong with being military? No, not from my and many people's perspective. But Starfleet is explicitly stated by on screen reliable narrators to not be one, and the primary creators state as much.
Is this a bad thing? Only if people want to make it into one. The great thing about Trek and Starfleet, is the service people can see an idealised version of themselves, but so can everyone else...particularly scientists, engineers, medics and service people admittedly. But anyone. Including people who maybe don't have a good experience with the military one way or another.

Even though it's presented as a military? And the Federation has no other force to defend them?
Sorry, it feels very disingenuous to not call Starfleet a military when all the indications are that it is.

It may serve other functions but military is definitely one of them.

 

[Spot261]

Even though it's presented as a military? And the Federation has no other force to defend them?
Sorry, it feels very disingenuous to not call Starfleet a military when all the indications are that it is.

It may serve other functions but military is definitely one of them.

Exactly this, we've heard Scotty say SF isn't the military, whilst they are clearly being portrayed as one around him. If he had walked out, pointed to a blue sky and called it green would we accept that statement or try to make sense of why he was saying something blatantly false?

 

[Tenacity]

And yet in all the series the characters could, at times did give light punishments or outright overlook breaches of discipline and violations of orders.

Which lines up with both modern and historical military practice. Nonjudicial punishments and Captain's masts.

For enlisted personnel, most offenses are never heard about above the level of the senior sergeants. With junior officers it stops with their commanders.

Starship captains could be judge, jury and executioners.

Kirk in Court Martial and ST Darkness, his big offense was lying to senior officers in a official report (in Darkness he actually did).

 

[USS KG5]

Funny thing that came to me catching up on this thread.

The show is inconsistent about Starfleet as a military within some episodes. The best example is "Peak Performance", Picard bitches about Starfleet not being military and a bit later him and riker are creaming themselves over clever new tactical moves and thingummy manoeveres.

 

[Anwar]

The big problem is the disconnect between TOS and the later series.

In TOS, the Federation was hinted to be merely a benign Terran Empire (they called it the Earth Federation once) and Starfleet was your typical Space Navy. TOS and the Movies all lean on this.

TNG and the Modern series showed the Federation as more a Multi-Species Cooperative and Starfleet not being a typical Space Navy. Problems came from the incompatibility of this with TOS.

TOS: Pure Space Navy.

TNG: More a Multi-Purpose Service, problem being that viewers were more interested in them being just a Space Navy

 

[Ithekro]

Could it be that Starfleet is not the military and those that signed up for it know it is not a military, but circumstances and higher ups seeking power or security are making it more military like over time and those lower down accept some of the changes but not all? Starfleet absorbing the MACO for example post-Romulan War. Large combat deigned ship build up in Into Darkness and possibly the USS Excelsior and the movie era with the more regimented looking red dress uniforms.
USS Defiant is considered a desperate solution to a dire problem that was the Borg, so it does not actually count at first. The build up of other starships, more Defiant-class ships, and the change in uniform to grey likely does.

One wonders if there is a Federation military, or if the Federation intended for each member system to provide for its own local defense (Mars Perimeter, Vulcan High Command, the Andorian Blue Fleet or whatever), with Starfleet being able to be called upon in an emergency clause due to the dangerous nature of exploration requiring heavy arms on starships.

One could ponder if the Earth Starfleet still exists as the military under the Federation Starfleet, and that's were all those "newer" designs came from (Akira, Steamrunner, Norway, and Sabers) since the first time we see them is defending an more prepared Earth. Than later we see them engaged in the Dominion War.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Could it be that Starfleet is not the military and those that signed up for it know it is not a military, but circumstances and higher ups seeking power or security are making it more military like over time and those lower down accept some of the changes but not all?

So not noticing Starfleet doing military shit for about two centuries.

 

[Spot261]

We have seen limited evidence of member worlds maintaining assets on their own terms well into the 24th century, but that in no way precludes SF's military role. In fact the very fact that such organisations were largely invisible during the Klingon, Cardassian and Dominion conflicts would suggest that their scope is pretty limited and totally unsuitable to represent the federation on a galactic scale.

It can't be emphasised enough really, SF are the only body we have seen fighting wars on behalf of the federation. No separate ground based organisations, no tactical command that subsumes SF's explorers in times of crisis. Just SF, acting like a military, holding military ranks, having a military structure, using the same military hardware they use in peacetime.

 

[Ithekro]

So not noticing Starfleet doing military shit for about two centuries.

Slow creep followed by a reversal post-Khitomer and then another slow creep after the Borg are discovered.


As for the rest it is entirely possible that there is another organization that is the Federation's military, but whenever the time comes to use it, it just drafts Starfleet into its service.

 

[Lance]

Of course. But that 'frontier' element is front and centre in Trek, from whichever first episode you stand by. It's not until mid next gen that the focus is more known space on a regular basis. And then there's Ds9, the frontier town, and Voyager, which is well and truly out there. The most typical (and not to my enjoyment) pastiche done in Star Trek is the Western, not the war movie. That's moving the discussion away from what military's do or don't do in the real world...because Treks context is not the real world. It's TV and Film.

Fair point RE: Trek having some element of the Western to it, but I'd argue that the "frontier element" was inherent in the whole 18th Century Navy/Horatio Hornblower thing anyway. 18th Century colonialism (I mentioned the Australian experience earlier) had a very strong pioneer element, people on distant lands battling the odds to survive. Star Trek's original format doesn't focus on them, it focuses on the military space cruiser that provides them protection and support.

But the Enterprise-D and I think other Galaxy-class ships, admittedly an exception, did have civilians onboard, I'm pretty sure more civilians than crewmembers, and even some smaller ships seemed to regularly have some civilians (like Jennifer Sisko).

Indeed. Between the civilians on-board the Enterprise-D, and later the 'distant outpost' of Deep Space Nine and the mission to get home in Voyager, I'd argue that all of the NextTrek era shows had much more of the 'Wagon Train' flavor to them. TOS was by it's nature more like Horatio Hornblower.

 

[The Wormhole]

Of course. But that 'frontier' element is front and centre in Trek, from whichever first episode you stand by. It's not until mid next gen that the focus is more known space on a regular basis.

Not really. In TOS they never stray too far away from Federation space, indeed they are regularly dropping off at starbases and getting crew transfers on and off ship. Plus the Enterprise made two stops at Earth, granted they were both time travel. TNG was pretty much sticking around known space right from the start, and were almost always within range for a shuttle to get to a starbase.

 

[J.T.B.]

TOS was by it's nature more like Horatio Hornblower.

I said this many pages/months ago, but the Hornblower books are war stories, period. Roddenberry apparently had an idea for the captain character to be like Hornblower, but the circumstances are quite different.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

I thought there was a line in one of the two earlier movies that said "Starfleet is a peacekeeping armada"

Isn't that military?

 

[The Wormhole]

I thought there was a line in one of the two earlier movies that said "Starfleet is a peacekeeping armada"

Isn't that military?

That line comes from Trek XI. And yes, anything described as such would be a military.