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

[Crazy Eddie]

The Alliance in Firefly is as militant as they come, and they keep families on their warships.

That's because Alliance cruisers are essentially mobile cities/fortress/police stations and not even proper "ships" as such. I would hesitate to call them "warships" since the combat vessels the Alliance uses have a very different design.

Retcon, yes. Making it fit, yes. Why? Because families aboard starships was established as a novelty on the Galaxy class.

It was a novelty for PICARD, who wasn't used to being in that position, and yet he was already familiar enough with the realities of commanding such a vessel that one of the first things he does is talk to Riker about "I'm not comfortable with children... please keep me from making an ass of myself in front of the civilians." It's not something Picard is used to, but it's not an unknown quantity either.

I gave two very good ways to explain this.

No explanation is necessary. It isn't a novelty to anyone but Picard.

Yeah, you ignored my two key examples. The most important being the Enterprise E, which is the direct successor to the Galaxy class.

Why do you think the Enterprise-E is a successor to the GALAXY class? From most backstage sources, it actually appears to be the excelsior's successor (say THAT three times fast!) It's also never made entirely clear that the -E has an absence of families aboard; that's still "absence of evidence" fallacy which is why I didn't bother to address it.

As far as I recall, we don't ever see families on board starships again.

"Argument from absence" ad nauseum.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Battle cruisers or cruise ships? Battle cruise ships? Exploratory battle cruise passenger liners?

This is where Star Trek Idealism confuses reality.

If I had TNG to do all over again I'd make the saucer section and the battle section completely separate both in command structure and function. Same with Starfleet. Make it a "combined service" where all the yellow shirts are active or reserve military, the blue shirts are academics from universities, national laboratories, government research programs and such, and the red shirts are UESPA astronaut corps. Red shirts go everywhere, blue shirts work only in the saucer section and yellow shirts run the battle section.

 

[Tenacity]

on

I believe that was only the Enterprise D, and possibly the few other Galaxy class ships.

And the Saratoga.

When Captain Jellico took command of the Enterprise, He (iirc) decorated the Captain's ready room with children's art work. This leads me to think that the Cairo had Jellico's child/children aboard.

So, add Excelcior class to the list of family carrying starships.

Battle cruisers or cruise ships? Battle cruise ships? Exploratory battle cruise passenger liners?

Battleships have in the past have carried civilian passagers, passager liners on the other hand (actual passager liners) aren't sent to engage foreign battleships.

Warships have gone deployments and even into battle with civilian contractor workers onboard.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Warships have gone deployments and even into battle with civilian contractor workers onboard.

My google skills are admittedly weak, but I am unable to locate an example of a warship being equipped with a kindergarten.

 

[Tenacity]

They're aboard the US Navy ships that go on five year missions.

 

[GabyBee]

passager liners on the other hand (actual passager liners) aren't sent to engage foreign battleships.

Except when they have.

In multiple cases.

During more than one conflict.

By more than one country.

And were largely manned by merchant crews.

(Also, it's spelled 'passenger' liner.)

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

This thread has gone on for so long that I really and truly hope some Discovery writer makes explicit references to Starfleet BEING military, just to mess with people's heads.

"Yeah, sure Starfleet's military...When it has to be."

 

[Crazy Eddie]

They're aboard the US Navy ships that go on five year missions.

That's interesting, because they're not aboard Starfleet ships that go on five year missions.

This thread has gone on for so long that I really and truly hope some Discovery writer makes explicit references to Starfleet BEING military, just to mess with people's heads.

"Yeah, sure Starfleet's military...When it has to be."

Burham: Starfleet is NOT a military organization, Captain."
Georgiou: Except on Tuesdays.
Burham: Of course, but today is thursday, which means at night when it's dark we're a law enforcement agency.
Georgiou: What if it's dark at night on Tuesday? What does that mean again?
Burham: That's poker night. Unless it's NOT dark at night. Then Starfleet is a dating service.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ And how do you know that?

 

[Ithekro]

^ And how do you know that?

Starfleet Organizational Documentation based on the Fizzbin Philosophy Principle. Probably the 2240 edition out of Tellar, but it could have been the Wednesday Night Special Edition from Izar printed in 2242. It had more special notations.

 

[Tenacity]

That's interesting, because they're not aboard Starfleet ships that go on five year missions.

In the twenty-fourth century? What makes you say that?

I really and truly hope some Discovery writer makes explicit references to Starfleet BEING military

When Discovery finally makes it on the air, this thread will probably still be running.

passager liners on the other hand

(actual passager liners)

aren't sent to engage foreign battleships..

Except when they have.

From your link; "Converted into an auxiliary cruiser during World War I"

In multiple cases.

From your link; "She was commissioned as an auxiliary cruiser

During more than one conflict.

From your link; "conversion into a raider."

By more than one country.

From your link; " converted into an armed merchant cruiser."

And were largely manned by merchant crews.

From your link; "the German Imperial Navy requisitioned her as an auxiliary cruiser ... transferred naval officers, ammunition and armaments to the liner. She was armed with two 4.1 inch guns and six one-pounder pom-poms, all manned by experienced naval personnel."

(Also, it's spelled 'passenger' liner.)

Wow, a spelling error huh?

 

[The Wormhole]

This thread has gone on for so long that I really and truly hope some Discovery writer makes explicit references to Starfleet BEING military, just to mess with people's heads.

"Yeah, sure Starfleet's military...When it has to be."

Actually, I'm definitely expecting this issue to be addressed at some point on Orville. Especially with David Goodman involved in the series, as anyone who's read his Captain Kirk Autobiography can tell, he's definitely on the "is a military" side of the argument regarding Starfleet.

 

[Prax]

That's interesting, because they're not aboard Starfleet ships that go on five year missions.

In the twenty-fourth century? What makes you say that?

Oh, he must be arguing from the absence of evidence

dun dun DUNNNN!

Actually, I'm definitely expecting this issue to be addressed at some point on Orville. Especially with David Goodman involved in the series, as anyone who's read his Captain Kirk Autobiography can tell, he's definitely on the "is a military" side of the argument regarding Starfleet.

I'd be willing to wager that every fan debate will satirically show up in The Orville.

And I have been wondering...Why is there no Orville forum on this site yet?

 

[Tenacity]

Oh, he must be arguing from the absence of evidence

Which is strange given the body of evidence.

When Sisko was explaining the shiney new Defiant to Kira, he felt it necessary to mention that the Defiant won't accomidate families. If families were uncommon aboard Starfleet vessels, why specifically mention that the Defiant wouldn't have them? Actually the evidence (when the matter is mentioned one way or the other) point to families being the standard.

Picard: " I'm not a family man, Riker, and yet, Starfleet has given me a ship with children aboard. [snip] And I don't feel comfortable with children ..."

Now that quote doesn't say the there were no families or (separately) no children aboard the Stargazer, only that Picard is uncomfortable around them. There is however a implication that not all starships have children, although there is a possibility that there are starships with couples that include non-starfleet spouses ... without children.

 

[Prax]

My comment was in regards to "five year missions in the 24th century" and I was poking fun at Eddie.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In the twenty-fourth century? What makes you say that?

Because none of the ships we saw in the 24th century were on "five-year missions." The only Starfleet vessel we know of on a limited-duration five year deployment was the TOS Enterprise, and that ship didn't carry families on board.

Enterprise-D, on the other hand, was on an extended/indefinite duration mission; it was equipped with a nursery, a kindergarten and a primary school.

From your link; "Converted into an auxiliary cruiser during World War I

Splitting hairs again? It's an ocean liner fighting in a war. So your statement "cruise ships are not sent to destroy enemy warships" is factually incorrect: Sometimes they ARE.

 

[Spot261]

More advanced ships like the Excelsiors and Galaxy's probably NEVER need to put into space dock.

Except for Baryon sweeps, which apparently Voyager was exempt from (or got off screen at some alien facility)

 

[J.T.B.]

Splitting hairs again? It's an ocean liner fighting in a war. So your statement "cruise ships are not sent to destroy enemy warships" is factually incorrect: Sometimes they ARE.

Auxiliary cruisers were intended to fight merchant ships, not warships. And I believe the statement was that passenger liners "aren't sent to engage foreign battleships."

An armed merchant ship's guns could scratch the paint on a battleship's armor, but it would likely be her last act on Earth.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Except for Baryon sweeps, which apparently Voyager was exempt from (or got off screen at some alien facility)

I like to think that Baryon sweeps are the "toxin cleanse" of the 24th century. You probably don't need one, and the people who say you do are most likely full of it, but we got 75% off on a groupon and there's free coffee so we might as well give it a shot...

An armed merchant ship's guns could scratch the paint on a battleship's armor, but it would likely be her last act on Earth.

Not unlike USS Odyssey vs. the Jem'Hadar

Either way, that hair doesn't split too well. The whole point of having a "professional military" and purpose built combat vessels is that they SPECIALIZE IN COMBAT and nothing else. USS Defiant is the example of this concept put into practice by Starfleet, and Defiant is considered a curiosity for exactly this reason. It's a warship built by people who "don't believe in warships."

If you had a tech level high enough, however, the utility of specialized combat vessels would reach a point of diminishing returns: a ship with 120 VLS missiles might be no more useful in combat than a ship with 1000 of them, and a ship with a pair of single-mount 5-inch guns might be no more dangerous than a ship with 9 of them in triple turrets. When those kinds of weapon systems become portable and scalable to such a high degree, the utility of purpose built professional weapon systems basically vanishes.

WE have not reached that tech level yet, but there was a time in the age of sail when cannon technology was simple enough and affordable enough that private citizens and pirates could arm their vessels just as well as their military counterparts. If anti-ship missiles were as accessible as cannons were in the 16th century, you would likely see a return of the "freebooter" navies and a serious blurring of the lines between civilian and military forces. When even a Somali peasant can form a small navy by lashing some Harpoons to the back of a motor boat (like the Maquis did in DS9) then you've got something analogous to the Star Trek universe.

 

[Spot261]

I like to think that Baryon sweeps are the "toxin cleanse" of the 24th century. You probably don't need one, and the people who say you do are most likely full of it, but we got 75% off on a groupon and there's free coffee so we might as well give it a shot...

Lol, I like you to much to accuse you of picking and choosing your evidence....