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

[fireproof78]

I think we just view this show in a fundamentally different way. I see Star Trek as a show about exploration and discovery, not military operations. And in almost every episode, the inciting incident or the foundation of the events that follow have something to do with exploring the universe or meeting new civilizations. I see how people can come to the conclusion that Starfleet is military or quasi-military, even if I have mixed ideas about that, but saying Trek is not about exploration, to me, is just confusing. I think we're watching entirely different shows or something. Maybe this show is like a Rorschach test. I don't know.

And quite frankly we're not even discussing something that matters that much. In Wok, it doesn't matter if Starfleet is a military or not. At all. What matters is the story about revenge and friendship and loss and death. So all this hand-wringing about Starfleet's nature feels a little meaningless at this point. I just see it completely differently.

I think the negative stigma associated with calling Starfleet "military" is the head scratching moment for me. Maybe it doesn't fit a contemporary definition of "military" but Starfleet, as a combined service (Kirk's words) allows for both exploration and military operations, at the same time even.

Is Star Trek about exploration? Sure, but often times there is a military facet as well, and the changes the changes go through in exploring themselves.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

I think the negative stigma associated with calling Starfleet "military" is the head scratching moment for me. Maybe it doesn't fit a contemporary definition of "military" but Starfleet, as a combined service (Kirk's words) allows for both exploration and military operations, at the same time even.

I sorta agree with this. "Military = negative" definately seems to be the problem here as while it is arguable what the 24th Century (or even posssibly the 22nd Century) defination of "the military" is (given the typical context, dedicated ground forces seems to the most obvious), Starfleet is a dual-role military organisation - by any reasonable 20th to 21st Century definition - with a exploration/diplomacy focus (similar to the US Coast Guard as I noted above), rather than a civilian uniformed organisation like NASA (ignoring the working in space bit), NOAA or PHSS (although it appears to include the functions of the latter two) due to the fact that it is armed (heavily, torpedoes particularly would be unusual outside a military organisation), and the combat (including warfare with external powers) is a part of the standing role of Starfleet (a "minor purview" during TNG ("Peak Performance") apparently, arguably retconed due to the Fed-Cardassian War taking place in parallel to the events in question).

 

[Balok's Decoy]

I sorta agree with this. "Military = negative" definately seems to be the problem here as while it is arguable what the 24th Century (or even posssibly the 22nd Century) defination of "the military" is (given the typical context, dedicated ground forces seems to the most obvious), Starfleet is a dual-role military organisation - by any reasonable 20th to 21st Century definition - with a exploration/diplomacy focus (similar to the US Coast Guard as I noted above), rather than a civilian uniformed organisation like NASA (ignoring the working in space bit), NOAA or PHSS (although it appears to include the functions of the latter two) due to the fact that it is armed (heavily, torpedoes particularly would be unusual outside a military organisation), and the combat (including warfare with external powers) is a part of the standing role of Starfleet (a "minor purview" during TNG ("Peak Performance") apparently, arguably retconed due to the Fed-Cardassian War taking place in parallel to the events in question).

Yeah I feel like there's a middle ground that's missing in this thread. Starfleet is a military so long as we understand this 23rd and 24th century military is very different from our 21st century military, because they spend most of their time traveling from galaxy to galaxy, meeting new civilizations, developing scientific knowledge, and helping out the Federation. But they also serve the role of the armed forces. They're all of it at once. They are whatever the Federation needs them to be (and to my mind, they mostly need to be explorers and scientists.) I don't see where this middle ground fails with people.

 

[Nyotarules]

Ok. Starfleet is not a military. Apparently it says so on the tin.

Is it appropriate for a non-military force to be so heavily armed? My gods man, they can take on the Klingons AND the Romulans!

They are engaging in their Federation constitutional right to bear arms.... er bear photon torpedoes

 

[Nyotarules]

It might be instructive to compare Starfleet's mission statement as we know it with that of the US Coast Guard, a real world organisation is both military (under the Department of Navy) and a "non-military" security/safety organisation (for most of the "Star Trek"-era it was under Transportation, since '03 it's been under Homeland). Which is broadly consistent with UFP Starfleet's approach (military when needed, otherwise "not" but retains the ability to engage in military activity at short notice).

1) Ice Operations (consists of scientific observation of environment and safety assessments. Broadly consistent)
2) Marine Resources Management [Fisheries] (no direct parallel, but plausibly consistent)
3) Marine Enviromentmental Protection (no direct parallel, but plausibly consistent)
4) Aids to Navigation (explicitly consistent)
5) Search and Rescue (explicitly consistent)
6) Defense Readiness (explicitly consistent, if plausibly unpopular with many officers).
7) Maritime Law Enforcement (explicitly consistent during TOS, less explicit but examples could be found)
8) Migrant Interdiction (generally not present, but likely consistent across enemy borders?)
9) Ports, Waterways and Coastal Security (infrequently the focus, but broadly consistent).
10) Drug interdiction (generally not present, but likely consistent if and where a problem?)

Seems to hang together reasonably well to me.

You?

If the USA was invaded or a civil war started would the US Coast Guard be expected to defend the nation?

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

If the USA was invaded or a civil war started would the US Coast Guard be expected to defend the nation?

Absolutely. This has already happened twice, in 1917 during World War I, and in 1941 during World War II. I also suggested the comparison to USCG back in page 12:

Starfleet behaves more like (and reminds me more of) the US Coast Guard than the US Navy. So the question is: is the Coast Guard military? The answer is of course, yes. The USCG is a multi-mission maritime uniformed service and also a branch of the United States Armed Forces. It's missions are wide and range from search and rescue and environmental protection to law enforcement and coastal defense.

 

[Nyotarules]

Considering Picard is not getting paid ('We work to better ourselves') I can understand his Starfleet is not military stance, after all who wants to get paid to be shot at????

 

[Tenacity]

It is worth pointing out that the Royal Navy still existed beside Starfleet, meaning there was still a military on Earth.

It's interesting that according to information on screens during TNG, not only did the Royal Navy still exist, they possessed their own starships, and were making interstellar voyages prior to the time of the NX-01.

 

[Nyotarules]

It's interesting that according to information on screens during TNG, not only did the Royal Navy still exist, they possessed their own starships, and were making interstellar voyages prior to the time of the NX-01.

The RN is still there in 24th century Star Trek, sailing the seas for the tourists pining for the good ole days of Empire

 

[J.T.B.]

Yeah I feel like there's a middle ground that's missing in this thread. Starfleet is a military so long as we understand this 23rd and 24th century military is very different from our 21st century military, because they spend most of their time traveling from galaxy to galaxy, meeting new civilizations, developing scientific knowledge, and helping out the Federation. But they also serve the role of the armed forces. They're all of it at once. They are whatever the Federation needs them to be (and to my mind, they mostly need to be explorers and scientists.) I don't see where this middle ground fails with people.

Has anyone said that Starfleet is just like a 21st century military? The point I have been trying to make is that it has been shown to be very much like a 19th century navy. The world was very different then, it was more uncharted, nations had colonies spread around the globe and could come into conflict in minor ways far from home. Battleship fleets stayed concentrated in strategic areas, but cruisers and smaller ships that worked independently were spread all over the place and functioned much like police patrols. This was acknowledged in early Star Trek materials like Roddenberry's series outline, the writer's guide and TMoST.

Some pages back I linked to an 1881 report listing some of the requirements for US Navy unarmored cruisers. How do they line up with what's been seen in Trek?

• "surveying": Mapping in many episodes.
• "deep sea sounding": Mapping and scientific research in many episodes.
• "the protection and advancement of American commerce": Trading agreements opened or negotiated in a number of episodes.
• "exploration": Obvious.
• "the protection of American life and property endangered by wars between foreign countries": Protection of Federation citizens mentioned in several episodes, though I can't recall specifically about protecting them from wars.
• "service in support of American policy in matters where foreign governments are concerned": Obvious.

So I fully acknowledge that Starfleet has more in common with historical military organizations than current. But I don't think anyone seriously considers the US or British navies of the late 1800s to not be military organizations.

If the USA was invaded or a civil war started would the US Coast Guard be expected to defend the nation?

Indeed, one of the first vessels to respond to the Fort Sumter crisis that began the American Civil War was the US Revenue (Coast Guard predecessor) cutter Harriet Lane, though she and her crew had been transferred to Navy Department control.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Perhaps the issue isn't so much with the idea of it being a military, but with the connotation of a society with a heavy focus on its military as being "militarized." And I imagine this is also why the films and the show make a point of saying that Starfleet is not a military (even if it often behaves like one). The concept of militarization has very negative implications for a lot of people. So when I talk about a modified idea of what the term military means (in 21st century standards), and how a military behaves and what its roles are, I think clarifying that Starfleet does not represent the militarization of the UFP is probably more to the point than the semantics of the word "military."

 

[Tallguy]

The concept of militarization has very negative implications for a lot of people.

That is the question of this thread.

I think two things have been apparent from 23 pages and counting. Most people who object to Starfleet being a "military" think that a military is only there to blow stuff up. (Which Starfleet does a lot.)

The other thing is that most of the people who object to Starfleet being a "military" are really more offended by the word than any actions that the word suggests. Uniforms, rank, discipline, combat training, weapons, wars, border patrol, court martials, covert missions, arms races. All good.

As long as you don't say "military".

 

[Balok's Decoy]

That is the question of this thread.

I think two things have been apparent from 23 pages and counting. Most people who object to Starfleet being a "military" think that a military is only there to blow stuff up. (Which Starfleet does a lot.)

The other thing is that most of the people who object to Starfleet being a "military" are really more offended by the word than any actions that the word suggests. Uniforms, rank, discipline, combat training, weapons, wars, border patrol, court martials, covert missions, arms races. All good.

As long as you don't say "military".

This is a simplistic analysis of people's objections. My parents, grandparents, brother, step-brother, and uncle were all in the Navy. I come from a military family. I spent most of my life overseas on base. I'm well aware that the military does a lot more than just "blow stuff up." That is not the basis of my argument at all.

My objection is that when we're talking about military, some of us are interpreting that as 21st century militaries, what is most familiar and apparent in our culture, while others apparently are considering the entire anthropological history of militaries from the time of the Romans through the present, which I find disingenuous. And while I do think it's clear that Starfleet fulfills the role of the military, I also think that calling it a military when they primarily perform functions related to science and diplomacy, rather than the typical functions of the armed forces, I think "military" is a limiting term and doesn't reflect what Starfleet's primary mission is. And now we're really running around in circles.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Perhaps the issue isn't so much with the idea of it being a military, but with the connotation of a society with a heavy focus on its military as being "militarized." And I imagine this is also why the films and the show make a point of saying that Starfleet is not a military (even if it often behaves like one). The concept of militarization has very negative implications for a lot of people. So when I talk about a modified idea of what the term military means (in 21st century standards), and how a military behaves and what its roles are, I think clarifying that Starfleet does not represent the militarization of the UFP is probably more to the point than the semantics of the word "military."

Ok, i think I get what you're saying there.

Practically speaking, Starfleet has most of the capabilities of a military (several of which are exclusively so by modern standards), however it's "rules of engagement" (apart from General Order 24) are generally geared towards a reactive, self-defense or defense of others approach (with force as a last resort, "talk first, shoot ideally never") rather than a standing authority to conduct aggressive, proactive measures approach ala the (preception) of modern military and US law enforcement ("shoot first, ask questions later/never").

As I noted earlier in the thread http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/why-...t-being-military.282470/page-10#post-11691945 this is comparable to the RoE (and general "organisational posture") of the Japanese Maritime SDF (which is a defacto navy, but for various political and historical reasons is not identified as such).

It's also worth noting that historically, it wasn't unusual to separate "the military" (ie the army) and "the navy" (which might include marines if they were feeling generous, >1900 integrated air assests might also be considered). Would it make sense to use that definition? An Exploratory and Self-Defense Force that specifically excludes independent ground forces [though I believe such do exist but are probably found on starships only during declared wars or other states of emergency].

Would that be an acceptable comprimise?

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Ok, i think I get what you're saying there.

Practically speaking, Starfleet has most of the capabilities of a military (several of which are exclusively so by modern standards), however it's "rules of engagement" (apart from General Order 24) are generally geared towards a reactive, self-defense or defense of others approach (with force as a last resort, "talk first, shoot ideally never") rather than a standing authority to conduct aggressive, proactive measures approach ala the (preception) of modern military and US law enforcement ("shoot first, ask questions later/never").

As I noted earlier in the thread http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/why-...t-being-military.282470/page-10#post-11691945 this is comparable to the RoE (and general "organisational posture") of the Japanese Maritime SDF (which is a defacto navy, but for various political and historical reasons is not identified as such).

It's also worth noting that historically, it wasn't unusual to separate "the military" (ie the army) and "the navy" (which might include marines if they were feeling generous, >1900 integrated air assests might also be considered). Would it make sense to use that definition? An Exploratory and Self-Defense Force that specifically excludes independent ground forces [though I believe such do exist but are probably found on starships only during declared wars or other states of emergency].

Would that be an acceptable comprimise?

I think so? I guess my issue is that the Enterprise and Voyager and so on aren't traveling among the stars for the purpose of defending the UFP. They're traveling from galaxy to galaxy specifically to seek out new worlds and new civilizations. That's why they're out there. That's the conceit at the beginning of every episode, regardless of what happens after, whether they're called upon to fight or whatever. So to call an organization with that function a "military" is just inaccurate to me -- sure, you can find examples from hundreds of years in the past of militaries doing something similar to this, but then we're just confusing the issue when we use the same words to mean very different things.

So yeah, I think "Exploratory and Self-Defense Force" is more accurate. Memory Alpha describes Starfleet in a similar way: a "deep space exploratory and defense service." That sounds about right to me. Starfleet bears many similarities to what we consider a military. But like so so much of the Trek future, society and customs and organizations have evolved dramatically. I don't really think there's a proper word or contemporary analogue that best fits the Starfleet model.

 

[Tenacity]

I guess my issue is that the Enterprise and Voyager and so on aren't traveling among the stars for the purpose of defending the UFP

In the pilot episode, isn't that exactly what Voyager was doing?

 

[Balok's Decoy]

In the pilot episode, isn't that exactly what Voyager was doing?

Again, I'm not denying that Starfleet occasionally engages in the kind of work one expects of the armed forces. The first episode of Voyager is kind of about that. In any case, that's a singular mission, not the ship's primary directive from Starfleet.

In the very same episode, Janeway states, "And as the only Starfleet vessel assigned to the Delta Quadrant, we'll continue to follow our directive: to seek out new worlds and explore space."

And USS Voyager is a long range science vessel, not a warship.

 

[Romulan_spy]

All space faring civilizations must have some way of defending themselves in order to survive. So a military force for self-defense is a necessity. So it should not be surprising that Starfleet would sometimes serve in a military capacity. The Federation would never survive if it did not have any military at all. And clearly, we've seen Starfleet operate as a military. The difference is that other civs have a space fleet that is purely militaristic whereas Starfleet serves both an exploratory and militaristic purpose.

 

[jaime]

Ok, i think I get what you're saying there.

Practically speaking, Starfleet has most of the capabilities of a military (several of which are exclusively so by modern standards), however it's "rules of engagement" (apart from General Order 24) are generally geared towards a reactive, self-defense or defense of others approach (with force as a last resort, "talk first, shoot ideally never") rather than a standing authority to conduct aggressive, proactive measures approach ala the (preception) of modern military and US law enforcement ("shoot first, ask questions later/never").

As I noted earlier in the thread http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/why-...t-being-military.282470/page-10#post-11691945 this is comparable to the RoE (and general "organisational posture") of the Japanese Maritime SDF (which is a defacto navy, but for various political and historical reasons is not identified as such).

It's also worth noting that historically, it wasn't unusual to separate "the military" (ie the army) and "the navy" (which might include marines if they were feeling generous, >1900 integrated air assests might also be considered). Would it make sense to use that definition? An Exploratory and Self-Defense Force that specifically excludes independent ground forces [though I believe such do exist but are probably found on starships only during declared wars or other states of emergency].

Would that be an acceptable comprimise?

That sounds about right TBH. Doesn't contradict 'we aren't a military' .

 

[KelisThePoet]

Star Trek has a storied history of taking anti-war positions. In some episodes, Starfleet is the embodiment of those positions. In these episodes, Starfleet officers are represented as trained to avoid conflict whenever possible, not just for practical reasons involving the safety of their own, but for ideological reasons. They're trained not to think of the alien other as their enemy, trained to deconstruct the very concept of an enemy. I don't want to caricature militaries as organizations that shoot first, ask questions never and prefer war to peace. But by the same token, I don't think there's ever been a military that shared this Starfleet philosophy, a philosophy perhaps not so extreme to be called pacifism, but a kind of practical non-militance.

But there are other kinds of episodes that portray Starfleet differently. Some of the episodes make their anti-war statements by showing and criticizing a militant Starfleet.

And then there are the episodes that ignore the anti-war ethos of the larger franchise and just uncritically show Starfleet and our Starfleet heroes engage in military adventures, fighting baddies. I like some of these stories. They're fun, and they're sometimes artful and poignant in ways that have nothing to do with political statements. But when I think about these episodes, I think Roddenberry had a legitimate, creative reason for saying Starfleet is not a military, apart from his desire to push an agenda. Particularly in the late 80s, when Roddenberry seems to have adopted this line, basically in the world of post-Star Wars sci fi, there were quite enough shows about intrepid star warriors taking on faceless bad guys. Whatever one thinks of those shows (and of the politics that may or may not stand behind them), Star Trek had the opportunity to offer something different, to bring greater variety to the genre.

So, in short, I come down on the side of those who say that the question of whether or not Starfleet is military depends on the particular Star Trek story under discussion. There's no way to definitively answer the question as though Starfleet were a real organization, which it isn't.