Speaking of Pegasus - is Terry O'Quinn the only Lost actor who's done Trek?
Why is there resistance to the idea of Starfleet being military?
- Thread starter The Wormhole
- Start date
- Status
Daniel Dae Kim was on Voyager and Enterprise.
OK my memory is a bit foggy. What was the Pegasus incident?
Wasn't that when Lloyd Bridges showed up with his own Battlestar? Or was that Ensign Ro?
The Pegasus incident was that episode where Riker kept mysteriously sneaking off to the holodeck.
Also Sam Anderson, Fionnula Flannigan, Alan Dale, Kevin Tighe, Susan Gibney, April Grace, Greg Grunberg, Michelle Forbes, Saul Rubinek, Daniel Roebuck, John Pyper-Ferguson, Dan Gauthier, James Horan, Nick Tate, George O'Hanlon, Tim DeZarn, Titus Welliver, Jeff Kober, Bruce Davison, Vanessa Branch, Galyn Gorg, Ronald Guttman, Lindsey Gintner, Tracy Middendorf, Brett Cullen, Jeanetta Arnette, Brandon Molale, Amanda Carlin, Colby French, Tim Halligan, Brad William Henke, Faran Tahir, Marlene Forte, Lynnane Zager, Jonathan Dixon, Clancy Brown, Sean Whalen, Paula Malcomson, Patrick Fischler, Stephanie Niznik, Mary Mara, Dayo Ade, Aisha Hinds, and Todd Bryant.
Things to point out.
1: We don't know what the Federation Starfleet Charter says. So we can't be sure that Section 31 is or is not in there. We only know of the Earth Starfleet Charter, which lists it. But no information on the Federation one at all.
2: Admiral Leyton's coup was also when Odo want to Starfleet Medical and was infected with the illness that would threaten his whole species.
3: The information about a spy in the President's cabinet may have been a trap to kill Bashir inside Sloan's mind. Also I am not certain such a thing is out side the operation of real world intelligence agencies. All the CIA or some group like that needs is someone in the President's cabinet willing to talk with them about the minutes of their meetings.
4: We are seeing a very narrow few of Section 31....a view from a Doctor that is at best a Lieutenant in Starfleet. All DS9 episodes about them are Bashir POV episodes. There could be a lot more too it than what we are seeing on the level of Admirals and Captains.
1: We don't know what the Federation Starfleet Charter says. So we can't be sure that Section 31 is or is not in there. We only know of the Earth Starfleet Charter, which lists it. But no information on the Federation one at all.
2: Admiral Leyton's coup was also when Odo want to Starfleet Medical and was infected with the illness that would threaten his whole species.
3: The information about a spy in the President's cabinet may have been a trap to kill Bashir inside Sloan's mind. Also I am not certain such a thing is out side the operation of real world intelligence agencies. All the CIA or some group like that needs is someone in the President's cabinet willing to talk with them about the minutes of their meetings.
4: We are seeing a very narrow few of Section 31....a view from a Doctor that is at best a Lieutenant in Starfleet. All DS9 episodes about them are Bashir POV episodes. There could be a lot more too it than what we are seeing on the level of Admirals and Captains.
Then they would have no choice but to solve all of their problems with starships named Enterprise.
Lots of them.
Hmmm what's the plural of Enterprise?
Enterpri?
That sounds so wrong lol
Enterpriseses.
All those actors appeared in Lost & Star Trek?
Yes
Umm... well, no.
The Pegasus said:
Nothing is mentioned about the head of Starfleet Intelligence. Heck, we don't even know if anyone was ever formally charged.
After reviewing a transcript of the episode I see I am conflating things a little. Pressman claims to have the support of an Admiral Raner, the chief of Starfleet Security. Also, Admiral Blackwell tells Picard the head of Starfleet Intelligence is personally monitoring their mission.
Still, it's not too much of a stretch to assume Admiral Raner was one of "the others" Picard spoke of in your quote. After all, a year later on DS9 it was Admiral Toddman who was head of Starfleet Security.
Still, it's not too much of a stretch to assume Admiral Raner was one of "the others" Picard spoke of in your quote. After all, a year later on DS9 it was Admiral Toddman who was head of Starfleet Security.
Sloan's mind held a file on the former president, Bashir interpreted that as meaning a S31 spy.
Would a S31 spy in the cabinet be to only way to assemble a file on a public figure?
Quite the contrary, I'm pretty sure that the Secret Service (and its international counterparts) have files on virtually senior figure in thier respective goverments and the FBI and Diplomatic Security Service probably duplicate at least a good chunk of them.
In addition to the above, the main antagonist in Star Trek Beyond was a former MACO, an ex-military officer. Evidently, Star Trek has a chip on its shoulder against military in general.
Strange, considering how much Starfleet tries to emulate a military force otherwise. It's as if its purpose is deception:
Warfare is the Way of deception… if able, appear unable; if active, appear inactive; if near, appear far; if far, appear near… attack where your enemies are not prepared; go to where they do not expect.
―Sun Tzu, "The Art of War".
Unless, of course, Star Trek really does think of military as "annoying medieval leftovers".
In fact, this is strongly reminiscent of the United States wanting to disband its Marine Corps; and, perhaps, not only.
For example, see the article titled, "The Future of the Marines Corps; They've Fought This Battle Before":
As I read the news reports [. . .] on the future of the Marine Corps, I recalled a recent conversation with some department of the Navy types who expressed just how bad the relationship is between the sea services. Like most troubled relationships, the soured feelings revolve around money, or the lack thereof.
Here is another example titled, "USMC: Under-utilized Superfluous Military Capability":
The Marines as currently organized and equipped are about as relevant as the Army’s horse cavalry in the 1930s and the Marines are not alone. They have company in the Army’s XVIII Airborne Corps.
And finally, "4 Urgent Questions for the U.S. Marine Corps":
In theory, any army or navy can train and equip landing troops without constituting a separate service.
The MACO being disbanded and absorbed into Starfleet feels like a subliminal message of the USMC possibly being disbanded in the future and absorbed into the U.S. Navy. This might concern other branches too.
This would not be the first time television and Hollywood implanted subliminal messages into their shows.
Buh-bye.
The USMC is the smallest, and cheapest, and debatably most useful, of the US aired forces. Dissolving the corp is a foolish idea.
I would argue that the USCG is smaller, cheaper and useful for a wide variety of things.
But as far as the DoD services, you're right.
The "resistance" stems from how the public has come to view the military during the late 20th and 21st century, particularly in the United States. Up until WW2, the American military was seen as a necessary vocation during a time of crisis, only to be "disbanded" and downsized when the crisis has been resolved. In fact, the Founding Fathers purposely prevented the creation of a "professional army", relying up the states to come up with volunteers from those states (hence the term "citizen soldier" or "militia"). After WW2, this idea changed. With the shift towards the Cold War, and the rapid decolonization efforts of the so-called "Third World", there was a need to have a standing army to oversee the transition from a Euro-centric power-structure to a bi-polar power-structure, with the US on one side, and the Soviet Union on the other side. Unfortunately, the Third World was caught up in this struggle of ideologies, with both the US and the Soviet Union engaging in unfortunate activities, whether it is a "police action" or a "hot war", with the military being used along the way. As a result, the negative aspects of the military was highlighted, particularly with the Vietnam War as the backdrop. But, long after that conflict, the military's "negative" aspects have infected the cultural mindset of the American people, even though many reforms have been made to make the military more accountable. Thus, many fans, IMO, feel that "Starfleet" being "military" is the antithesis of the Utopian message of STAR TREK, based on the reputation of military of the 20th and 21st century, never mind the fact that people forget that the military is answerable to the civilians in government, and it is they who set the mission parameters of today's armed services. Go figure.
Personally, I do wonder how STAR TREK would turn out if the Federation did not have a "Starfleet", and that a 'Trek show simply features a team of explorers in uncharted territory, kind of like a cross between LOST IN SPACE and FARSCAPE meets STAR WARS cross between GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, minus the comic book nonsense. You know, like the ALIEN franchise without the horror.
Personally, I do wonder how STAR TREK would turn out if the Federation did not have a "Starfleet", and that a 'Trek show simply features a team of explorers in uncharted territory, kind of like a cross between LOST IN SPACE and FARSCAPE meets STAR WARS cross between GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, minus the comic book nonsense. You know, like the ALIEN franchise without the horror.
- Status
