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

[Shamrock Holmes]

The like the bit of fridge logic meets retcon thinking from a recent interview with Simon Pegg that... (Beyond spoilers ahead)

Spoiler

The Starfleet arrowhead derives from the MACO shark logo.

Spoiler

Unlikely, as a similar element was part of both the Starfleet Command patch and the UE Starfleet Flag (the yellow "Semper Exploro" one).

However the elongated star later used for the Command/Helm/Nav/Weapons Division during mid-2200s (and all the TMP & 'Monster Maroons') does appear on the rank patches of the MACOs which might be what they are thinking of.

 

[jaime]

The Baku live a long time, Baku children stop aging after the conclusion of puberty, there are only 600 Baku.

Translation, there aren't very many Baku children.

The Captain's yacht could have removed the children to the Enterprise, or taken them out of the area independently. And the Federation too. The Enterprise was just fine, and not removing the Baku is using them as Human shields.

If you agree with the concept and goals obtained that's you, but they were Human (well Baku) shields.

Nope they were a populace being moved, they can't have been human shields, as the Sona have no problem firing at them. The star fleet officers were the human shields, because theoretically Admiral Whotsisface from License to Kill (what is it with him and head stretching to death anyway) would have more reserve firing on actual federation citizens.
Fortunately, the Baku on the planet were being shot at with non lethal ordinance (transporter tag darts)

The enterprise was not a safe haven as it was about to run the gauntlet of the briar patch, and expected to be fired on. As in fact it was, with sub space weapons. Decidedly lethal and destructive WMDs.

I think you might need to re examine the film, and investigate the concept of human shields...the star fleet crew were the only example of this in this film.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

I think SFDebris sufficiently tackles the Starfleet is not a military thing.

http://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/t147.php

 

[Tallguy]

That summed it up pretty well. It also gave some good reasons for it. Thanks!

 

[dswynne1]

I think the term everyone is looking for is "paramilitary", which is any organization with a military-like structure, such as the police or peacekeepers.

 

[at Quark's]

Except that paramilitary organisations usually aren't sufficiently well equipped to fight a full blown army, only to 'keep the peace' and suppress smaller scale riots and such. Starfleet however is (supposedly) an equal match to, say, the Romulan military (which everybody will agree on is a real , and probably large-scale military). Moreover, they are tasked to defend in case of an invasion.

Which in my opinion simply makes them military. Among a lot of other things, too. And even in our times, many armies are in fact used far more for other roles (such as humanitarian, peacekeeping or evacuation missions) than for actual combat.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Starfleet is not paramilitary. It is military.

What it is not, however, is militarISTIC.

 

[plynch]

To answer the question posed: to many people, military is mean and bad and weapony, and history should move beyond that. Trek, to many, is all lovey and co-operate-y (things I'm for, mind you). Therefore it (nice) cannot also be miltary (mean). Cognitive dissonance and denial for the win.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

To answer the question posed: to many people, military is mean and bad and weapony, and history should move beyond that. Trek, to many, is all lovey and co-operate-y (things I'm for, mind you). Therefore it (nice) cannot also be miltary (mean). Cognitive dissonance and denial for the win.

Like how Earth is a utopia, but people in the DMZ, colonies like the one Tasha Yar was from, and the Maqui all live far from perfect lives.

 

[Tallguy]

To answer the question posed: to many people, military is mean and bad and weapony, and history should move beyond that. Trek, to many, is all lovey and co-operate-y (things I'm for, mind you). Therefore it (nice) cannot also be miltary (mean). Cognitive dissonance and denial for the win.

That may be the most succinct answer yet.

 

[USS KG5]

That may be the most succinct answer yet.

Indeed, though it is hard to get around all the references on the show.

I find a fun explanation is that Starfleet IS military, but it chills out both with it's own people and with other races when peace is the order of the day.

STB posits that post Romulan War, the MACOs were disbanded, some officers put into Starfleet, senior officers given crappy old ships to command, and Starfleet said "we have ranks, guns, warships - but we are not a military" as maybe this suddenly emerging power who go from being a joke to the Klingons to being able to go toe-to-toe with their ships in three years, really NEED to pretend their military isn't everywhere?

It also helps with the 22nd century David Marcus types, Starfleet needs Earth's best scientists in its uniform to do its primary function of exploration and research, so downplaying a military role they like to think is secondary just sort of helps.

However, in times of war and conflict, like in the TWOK era and mid-to-late DS9, suddenly Starfleet very much becomes a military, its people start thinking of themselves as soldiers, and (given the basically zero cost) they replicate new uniforms, more in keeping with a military role.

So Starfleet is the military, when it needs to be, but when it suits them they act like they aren't...

 

[Balok's Decoy]

I would call it "quasi-military." Their primary mission is not really defense, although that is sometimes a key component. Their primary mission is exploration and establishing diplomatic relations with other species -- and they are reluctant to use force in general. Plus the scope of their responsibilities is much, much broader than what we think of as "military." They're diplomats, scientists, explorers, peacekeepers, negotiators, liaisons, politicians, philosophers, aaaaand defense forces.

 

[LJones41]

From what I have seen in the movies and television, Starfleet seems like the military arm of the Federation. The fact that most of the main characters in the franchise are military officers seemed to go against the franchise's idea of humanity evolving by the 23rd century . . . or the 24th century. You know . . . putting humanity on a pedestal. So, we're given this explanation that Starfleet isn't really a military organization. Or that it is some quasi- military organization. Frankly, I find it hard to buy.

 

[Tallguy]

I would call it "quasi-military." Their primary mission is not really defense, although that is sometimes a key component. Their primary mission is exploration and establishing diplomatic relations with other species -- and they are reluctant to use force in general. Plus the scope of their responsibilities is much, much broader than what we think of as "military." They're diplomats, scientists, explorers, peacekeepers, negotiators, liaisons, politicians, philosophers, aaaaand defense forces.

I respond to that argument: What priority does Starfleet give to any non-defense role? Defense is the one role Starfleet has that supersedes all other missions.

When the fleet was obliterated by the Borg, after the crises passed people did not say "Our defenses are fine, but we are seriously understaffed with philosophers."

As with the real military when Starfleet is called to actually exercise force it is not considered a good thing.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

I respond to that argument: What priority does Starfleet give to any non-defense role? Defense is the one role Starfleet has that supersedes all other missions.

When the fleet was obliterated by the Borg, after the crises passed people did not say "Our defenses are fine, but we are seriously understaffed with philosophers."

As with the real military when Starfleet is called to actually exercise force it is not considered a good thing.

Their prime role as explorers and diplomats certainly supersedes their military power. They bend over backwards to avoid violent conflict. That doesn't mean they won't use force, but they (in particular Picard) do everything possible before resorting to violence.

 

[STR]

People seem to misunderstand the nature of war, and by extension, what actual militaries do most of the time.

War is a subset of political power and power projection. While militaries use violence to force the will of the state on foreign powers (police force it on domestic entities), that is not the only (or even the best) tool to do that. Diplomacy, trade, showing the flag, cooperation, and building goodwill in general are often less costly, risky ways of projecting power.

What does Starfleet spend most of its time doing? Seeking new life and civilizations. Mediating conflicts. Promoting trade, research and cooperation. It's often the first responder in a crisis. It's also safeguards interstellar space within their jurisdiction. All of this is part of an effort to generate goodwill while promoting Federation values of personal liberty and peace.

Starfleet is simply a military force that is really good at projecting (and given carte blanche to pursue) soft power. But it has all of the authority and responsibility for hard power too. It patrols borders, fights wars, and pursues terrorists and criminals of interstellar importance.

But it's still power projection, and the individuals within it are *not* civilians.

 

[Ithekro]

By the 24th century, perhaps there is a different meaning to the word "military" or Starfleet's definition does not reflect what is a military in 24th century terms. It could be as simple as the late 20th and early 21st century idealist idea of the military is now the actual definition of the word and thus "Starfleet is not a military" is correct.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

By the 24th century, perhaps there is a different meaning to the word "military" or Starfleet's definition does not reflect what is a military in 24th century terms. It could be as simple as the late 20th and early 21st century idealist idea of the military is now the actual definition of the word and thus "Starfleet is not a military" is correct.

I was just thinking this. It really all depends on how one defines "military" and what roles, responsibilities, limits, and standards one ascribes to that term. In a sense, this question is largely one of semantics. Starfleet doesn't meet my 21st century idea of what a military is, even though they fulfill some of those roles.

 

[STR]

I'd like to point out that the US Coast Guard, while not usually assigned to the Department of Defense, is still legally a military service. Of any organization on earth, it's probably the closest analogy to Starfleet.

A better match would be if you combined the USCG with the noncombatant uniformed services (NOAA and Public Health Service) along with the Army Corps of Engineers with the mission (if not the structure) of NASA.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

I'd like to point out that the US Coast Guard, while not usually assigned to the Department of Defense, is still legally a military service. Of any organization on earth, it's probably the closest analogy to Starfleet.

A better match would be if you combined the USCG with the noncombatant uniformed services (NOAA and Public Health Service) along with the Army Corps of Engineers with the mission (if not the structure) of NASA.

Or Seebees rather than ACE if you want to keep the "naval" flair. They also appear to include CGIS/NCIS and ONI at minimum.