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

[Spot261]

I think, this question is pretty far from petty. Basically, it's the question of thought patterns; how should the members of Starfleet (mainly captains) think? More as scientists and explorers, or as soldiers and defenders? How willingly should the Starfleet captains use the force, or threat of force to do things?

No, it's a petty squabble over defining a fictional thing in terms which would no longer apply even if that thing existed. Starfleet is whatever is required for the purposes of the story, it's a device for putting characters in positions where they are faced with dilemnas which make us think about real issues.

 

[Dilandu]

No, it's a petty squabble over defining a fictional thing in terms which would no longer apply even if that thing existed. Starfleet is whatever is required for the purposes of the story.

In that case, what the purpose of this section of forum? If discussions about in-universe details considered as "petty squabble", than I could see no logical reason to discuss any of them at all (Spock would be proud of me...)

 

[Spot261]

In that case, what the purpose of this section of forum?

Absolutely to talk about trek, but some debates have meaningful purpose and hope of an outcome other than "it is", "no it isn't", "yes it is", gerbils wasting their intellect on a spinning wheel.

 

[jaime]

The question is a petty one because:

1. Obviously they are a military, except when they're not, based on the needs of the story.
2. It's a semantic argument over what is the definition of "military"?
3. Starfleet isn't real.

Disagreeing with your first point is why we have this discussion.
The second is what often eventually occurs...but with good reason within the bounds of discussing Trek.
The third means we may as well shut the BBS and go home, but of the three, at least has the benefit of being objectively true. Unless we go into some crazy deep philosophy about the nature of reality.

 

[jaime]

Absolutely to talk about trek, but some debates have meaningful purpose and hope of an outcome other than "it is", "no it isn't", "yes it is", gerbils wasting their intellect on a spinning wheel.

I think both sides wish to convince the other, so that, from a certain standpoint...it becomes true. It also helps inform production. You get enough fans on the military bandwagon, maybe we get a show or book dripping in Maço, HooRah and big bangs. You get enough go the other way, we get a show or book dripping with character based plot and discussing the human condition.
I get my HooRah kicks watching Killjoys....The Warrant is All.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Which basically led to the question: why the protection of Federation is left in the hands of non-professionals, which tactical decisions are always impared by some sort of contradicting directives, or high moral standards, or scientific interests?

And the answer was this: Because most of the things that threaten the Federation DO NOT have military solutions.

Starfleet are professional problem solvers who consider military threats to be just one of MANY problems they have to deal with. From what we've seen, they invariably approach combat situations almost like complex engineering problems:

CMDR: That alien ship is attacking the colony from orbit. We need to stop them.
SCI: They're using gravitic disruptor weapons. We can probably block their emissions by extending our deflector shields around the station and modulating a subharomic band to deflect the signals.
CMDR: Great. That solves the civilian problem. What about the attackers?
SCI: Their ship has three warp nacelles and a maximum velocity of warp seven. I've identified six vulnerable points in their plasma distribution grid where a focussed tachyon pulse could scram their main reactor and force a shutdown. But we'll have to take down their shields first.
TAC: I've set the phasers to match their shield frequencies. We can take down their shields with one shot.
CMDR: Sounds like a plan. Execute!"
<Shields extend, phasers fire, [tech] beam shoots from the deflector and the alien ship shuts down>
CMDR: Great work, team! Alright, let's open hailing frequencies and figure out who the fuck these guys are and what their beef is with the colony...​

And that's fucking TUESDAY AFTERNOON with these people. A real crisis that challenges Starfleet's expertise involves planet-sized godlike entities with incomprehensible motivations, carting around enough destructive power to ACCIDENTALLY vaporize entire solar systems, on a level of technology or otherworldly scariness so vast that any attempt at a military intervention would be met with either laughter, a yawn, or a flick of a finger and instant death.

I fully agree, that military isn't the best force for exploration and first contact missions - but the defense of Federation space hardly would require a lot of scientific traits or pose a lot of moral dillemas.

I strongly disagree. Alot of the real EXISTENTIAL threats to the Federation are posed by things that are threatening not by virtue of their belligerence or political disagreements, but because just by virtue of their PRESENCE. Most of these things (e.g. V'ger, the Whale Probe, the Crystaline Entity) have no belligerent intentions whatsoever and cannot really even be communicated with, which means that conventional military reasoning is completely useless; the logic of deterrence, interception, sovereignty, political autonomy, ALL of those become irrelevant.

Thinking the MILITARY would be the best tool for those jobs is beyond absurd. It would be like the United States being threatened by the aftermath of Zeus' bachelor party (he turned the state of liberty into a real woman and then had sex with her in the middle of Central Park, causing massive property damage to the surrounding neighborhoods) and the U.S. Navy trying to solve that problem with an aircraft carrier. Like... really? What are you gonna do, shoot holes in his thunder condoms?

IMHO, of course, but the most logical solution is to separate Starfleet (which is NOT military) from the Federation military forces.

I don't think the Federation has or NEEDS military forces, not at the tech level we've been shown. It actually appears that the Federation is advanced enough that the business of warfare could be -- and probably is -- completely automated. If even the deeply flawed EP-607 is capable of successfully engaging starships in orbit, I would imagine Federation technology is at least as effective (especially since they probably captured the designs for the EP607 after "Arsenal of Freedom."

This would probably go round and round until some iteration of ST canon would finally establish the existence of a Federation military forces, separate from Starfleet.

They DID, in "Enterprise" with the development of "MACO."

But Star Trek plays to American audience where military fetishism is basically a national passtime, and the fanbase couldn't accept this distinction. This is why we now have the argument being made "Earth Starfleet is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the Federation Starfleet!" followed by "Earth Stafleet is totally the military too because chicken wings!"

Of all of of mainstream science fiction, Star Trek is one of the very few major franchises that goes out of its way to depict a non-military protagonist with government sponsorship. Alot of the fans like Star Trek enough to follow it but still can't buy that basic premise. Partially because it's a rather silly idea from the get-go, but mostly because American viewers are deeply uncomfortable with a version of the future in which "the military" is not a force for good.

Meanwhile, I'm predicting that some time in the future, in a bid to remain relevant to modern audiences, some enterprising Trek writer will retcon Starfleet as the 24th century equivalent of SpaceX.

I get my HooRah kicks watching Killjoys....The Warrant is All.

I'm rather fond of the Mass Effect games for this very reason. Military exploration is a concept unto itself and it's not something Star Trek does particularly well.

 

[Tenacity]

how should the members of Starfleet (mainly captains) think?

Saavik: "I'm aware of my responsibilies."

What's a captain first reponsibility? To be the Federation's military defenders, or to be exploring scientisst?

Saavik's responsibility as a (simulated) captain was to protect Federation lives first. Whatever her previous mission to gamma hydra was it got pushed to the side, treaties came second to protecting Federation lives.

Would she have still gone into Klingon territory if her ship had just been a civilian peacekeeping vessel?

 

[jaime]

And the answer was this: Because most of the things that threaten the Federation DO NOT have military solutions.

Starfleet are professional problem solvers who consider military threats to be just one of MANY problems they have to deal with. From what we've seen, they invariably approach combat situations almost like complex engineering problems:

CMDR: That alien ship is attacking the colony from orbit. We need to stop them.
SCI: They're using gravitic disruptor weapons. We can probably block their emissions by extending our deflector shields around the station and modulating a subharomic band to deflect the signals.
CMDR: Great. That solves the civilian problem. What about the attackers?
SCI: Their ship has three warp nacelles and a maximum velocity of warp seven. I've identified six vulnerable points in their plasma distribution grid where a focussed tachyon pulse could scram their main reactor and force a shutdown. But we'll have to take down their shields first.
TAC: I've set the phasers to match their shield frequencies. We can take down their shields with one shot.
CMDR: Sounds like a plan. Execute!"
<Shields extend, phasers fire, [tech] beam shoots from the deflector and the alien ship shuts down>
CMDR: Great work, team! Alright, let's open hailing frequencies and figure out who the fuck these guys are and what their beef is with the colony...​

And that's fucking TUESDAY AFTERNOON with these people. A real crisis that challenges Starfleet's expertise involves planet-sized godlike entities with incomprehensible motivations, carting around enough destructive power to ACCIDENTALLY vaporize entire solar systems, on a level of technology or otherworldly scariness so vast that any attempt at a military intervention would be met with either laughter, a yawn, or a flick of a finger and instant death.


I strongly disagree. Alot of the real EXISTENTIAL threats to the Federation are posed by things that are threatening not by virtue of their belligerence or political disagreements, but because just by virtue of their PRESENCE. Most of these things (e.g. V'ger, the Whale Probe, the Crystaline Entity) have no belligerent intentions whatsoever and cannot really even be communicated with, which means that conventional military reasoning is completely useless; the logic of deterrence, interception, sovereignty, political autonomy, ALL of those become irrelevant.

Thinking the MILITARY would be the best tool for those jobs is beyond absurd. It would be like the United States being threatened by the aftermath of Zeus' bachelor party (he turned the state of liberty into a real woman and then had sex with her in the middle of Central Park, causing massive property damage to the surrounding neighborhoods) and the U.S. Navy trying to solve that problem with an aircraft carrier. Like... really? What are you gonna do, shoot holes in his thunder condoms?


I don't think the Federation has or NEEDS military forces, not at the tech level we've been shown. It actually appears that the Federation is advanced enough that the business of warfare could be -- and probably is -- completely automated. If even the deeply flawed EP-607 is capable of successfully engaging starships in orbit, I would imagine Federation technology is at least as effective (especially since they probably captured the designs for the EP607 after "Arsenal of Freedom."


They DID, in "Enterprise" with the development of "MACO."

But Star Trek plays to American audience where military fetishism is basically a national passtime, and the fanbase couldn't accept this distinction. This is why we now have the argument being made "Earth Starfleet is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the Federation Starfleet!" followed by "Earth Stafleet is totally the military too because chicken wings!"

Of all of of mainstream science fiction, Star Trek is one of the very few major franchises that goes out of its way to depict a non-military protagonist with government sponsorship. Alot of the fans like Star Trek enough to follow it but still can't buy that basic premise. Partially because it's a rather silly idea from the get-go, but mostly because American viewers are deeply uncomfortable with a version of the future in which "the military" is not a force for good.

Meanwhile, I'm predicting that some time in the future, in a bid to remain relevant to modern audiences, some enterprising Trek writer will retcon Starfleet as the 24th century equivalent of SpaceX.

I have nothing to add to that...but have to compliment your Zeus scenario. That is a Kaiju movie I could watch. Probably in a double Bill with Ghostbusters 2.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Would she have still gone into Klingon territory if her ship had just been a civilian peacekeeping vessel?

It probably would have been EASIER on a civilian vessel. How do you think the Kobyashi Maru got there?

 

[Dilandu]

From what we've seen, they invariably approach combat situations almost like complex engineering problems:

Which basically means, that the enemy with more simple approach would just slug them before they would be able to reach a solution.

Basically all military history shows, that as soon as commander in military operation started to make overcomplicated scheming, he is doomed to fail. The Japanese in WW2 were the grand-masters of overcomplicated faliures) The engineering approach simply flawed on too many points; the main is, that the engineering - or scientific - approach, used to deal with non-sentient problems. Problems, that could not deliberately work against engineer/researcher.

Basically that's the same problem that Houdini faced, while debunking "mediums" and "mystics" - many of whom sucessfully duped the respected scientists. The scientific approach isn't well-adapted to work in situation when researched object would actively work against researcher.

In your example -

SCI: Their ship has three warp nacelles and a maximum velocity of warp seven. I've identified six vulnerable points in their plasma distribution grid where a focussed tachyon pulse could scram their main reactor and force a shutdown. But we'll have to take down their shields first.

- what if the opposing side knew of those points, and reinforced them? Or, deliberately made decoys that looks like vunerable points, to divert attention from real vunerable points? Wait, we already saw just that: during the "Valiant" attack against Jem'Hadar battleship. They applied the scientific solution, without thinking that the opposing side aren't actually the idiots, and probably knew their own ship better.

The point is, while the scientific approach could really help the military, the scientific approach as basics of military planning would only work against the completely predictable enemies. Against enemies, capable to adapt, this would led only to the overcomplicated schemes that always fail.

 

[jaime]

It probably would have been EASIER on a civilian vessel. How do you think the Kobyashi Maru got there?

Not to mention it's a distress call....any ship would respond to that, unless it specified an ongoing attack.

 

[Prax]

Probably, of course the problem really is that there is no answer, everyone looks at the show slightly differently, everyone draws from subtly different versions of what constitutes a military.

What I don't get is how invested people seem to get in such a petty question.

You mean you don't enjoy this?!

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Which basically means, that the enemy with more simple approach would just slug them before they would be able to reach a solution.

Yep. That's basically what happened to the Enterprise at Veridian III. It's also basically what happened to the Kelvin, and what happened to the Malinche in "For the Uniform." Arguably, it's what happened to the Odysssey too, since none of their countermeasures and adaptations actually worked.

In fact, it seems to me that Starfleet has lost a truly impressive number of ships that way.

Basically all military history shows, that as soon as commander in military operation started to make overcomplicated scheming, he is doomed to fail.

Which is why Starfleet isn't a particularly impressive MILITARY combatant. If you catch them off guard before they've had a chance to sit there and diagram some sort of rube-goldberg technobabble countermeasure, you should be able to wipe the floor with them.

And that's exactly what happens in "Rascals" when the Ferengi bounce them with a couple of old bird of preys. It's also what happens in "Peak Performance" when the Ferengi (again) catch Picard with his pants down. It's what Khan does to Starfleet in pretty much every encounter in every universe. It is, arguably, the reason the Borg are so troublesome: they ALSO beat their enemies with science and gizmos, but they can do it much faster than Starfleet can.

I'd go so far as to say that this is the main reason Starfleet was getting its ass so thoroughly kicked during the Dominion War. They're not very good at conventional warfare, and their attempts to fall back on their science and engineering acumen were hampered by the Dominion making sure the were at least one or two steps ahead of them on that field. The Dominion wasn't able to sustain that advantage indefinitely, which is why they -- in their growing desperation -- reached out to the Breen, who could introduce unexpected new technologies (the energy-damping weapons) and keep Starfleet on their toes.

tll;dr
When it comes to an actual MILITARY contest, Starfleet usually gets its ass kicked. They tend to avoid going into a fight unless they've had time to analyze their opponent and rapid-prototype a weapon system specifically designed to beat them, but if they haven't had time to do that, they're basically screwed.

But this is okay, because with the powerful automated defenses guarding all their planets (defenses that Nero needed access codes to bypass and that even the Romulan Empire is generally afraid of triggering) Starfleet can afford to lose a few fights to the occasional gunslinger in deep space. Their REAL area of concern is the unscheduled visitations by planet-eating clouds, Omnipotent Robot Vagabonds and Eldritch Abominations With Mommy Issues.

When your little island nation is being threatened by a thousand foot fire breathing sea monster, you send sorcerers, not swordsmen.

- what if the opposing side know of those points, and reinforced them? Or, deliberately made decoys that looks like vunerable points, to divert attention from real vunerable points? Wait, we already saw just that: during the "Valiant" attack against Jem'Hadar battleship. They applied the scientific solution, without thinking that the opposing side aren't actually the idiots, and probably knew their own ship better.

No, actually: the Jem'Hadar knew STARFLEET better. They know exactly the kind of obscure technical bullshit Starfleet employs to derail their plans, and put a lot of thought and effort into "Starfleet-proofing" their ships and weapons. "Valiant" is, IMO, a great example of Starfleet's shortcomings: when they can't fall back on cleverness and ingenuity, they get CRUSHED.

The point is, while the scientific approach could really help the military, the scientific approach as basics of military planning would only work against the completely predictable enemies.

And the three most powerful military forces in the alpha quadrant build entire space fleets using exactly TWO types of starships whose basic designs and technologies haven't changed in over a hundred years.

Seriously: Is there anything in the universe more predictable than the Klingon military?

Against enemies, capable to adapt, this would led only to the overcomplicated schemes that always fail.

They don't ALWAYS fail. Just 1 out of every 40 attempts.

PICARD: "Remodulate shield nutations!"
WORF: "I did!"
PICARD: "Remodulate them faster, dammit!"
WORF: "I'm remodulating as fast as I can!"

 

[Nightdiamond]

Starfleet not being the military and handling military duties makes sense in a certain way. The logic would be, since you're out exploring and out around the borders, and deliver supplies to places, medical relief, etc, why not just have you handle defense too? Actually, it makes sense. The ships are already out there, just arm the same ships with military weapons for defense.

This also makes sense in peaceful, post scarcity society, where people have time to explore their career desires and curiosities.


On the other hand, it doesn't seem practical all the time, or realistic. How many times would there be a serious military emergency, and there's one only ship available, and that ship is days away?

Even during the TNG period, it was treated naively. It was implied in BOBW that 50 ships made up the bulk of the fleet, and that repairing that fleet would take up to a year.

The impression I get is it's program advertised to people who want to explore and be scientists. Military duties are treated as secondary. Remember, this is a society that is almost pacifistic in behavior. Chains of Command bares this out with the crew's strong reluctance to confront a Cardassian fleet ready to invade a Federation system.

 

[Dilandu]

Crazy Eddie, I quite agree with your post, but we still have important problem: how such situation was made possible (and whose heads should roll for that, as soon as Federation citizens understood how badly they are, actually, protected... )

But this is okay, because with the powerful automated defenses guarding all their planets (defenses that Nero needed access codes to bypass and that even the Romulan Empire is generally afraid of triggering) Starfleet can afford to lose a few fights to the occasional gunslinger in deep space.

I failed to see how this supposed to work, because there is nothing that would stop the opponent, which have a space superiority, to just demand unconditional surrrender of "defended" planets under the threat of indiscriminate bombardment. Which he could launch from lighthours - if not lightdays - away.

The basic military approach is, that the military operations aren't aimed toward taking some territory; they always aimed toward destroying the enemy military forces. This is especially important for naval and air campaigns - and several orders of magnitude more important for space campaigns.

When your little island nation is being threatened by a thousand foot fire breathing sea monster, you send sorcerers, not swordsmen.

Nah, I send cannons. Which would deal with monster much cheaper & reliable than swordsmens.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

On the other hand, it doesn't seem practical all the time, or realistic. How many times would there be a serious military emergency, and there's one only ship available, and that ship is days away?

Hell, once or twice a week at least.

 

[Dilandu]

Starfleet not being the military and handling military duties makes sense in a certain way. The logic would be, since you're out exploring and out around the borders, and deliver supplies to places, medical relief, etc, why not just have you handle defense too? Actually, it makes sense. The ships are already out there, just arm the same ships with military weapons for defense.

The problem is, that with crews and officers who aren't a professional military, they would be whiped out even by technically inferior opponent.

 

[Dilandu]

Hell, once or twice a week at least.

Well, I must point out - this happens usually on frontier, not near the Federation "core worlds". They are usually attacked only by very major threats. The core worlds (like Earth, Vulcan, Andoria) probably have enough dreadnoughts hanging nearby, so any lone hostile Klingon/Romulan ship would not dare to pull such tricks here...

 

[Spot261]

I think both sides wish to convince the other, so that, from a certain standpoint...it becomes true. It also helps inform production. You get enough fans on the military bandwagon, maybe we get a show or book dripping in Maço, HooRah and big bangs. You get enough go the other way, we get a show or book dripping with character based plot and discussing the human condition.
I get my HooRah kicks watching Killjoys....The Warrant is All.

This is the problem though, there is no answer, people just don't like to be seen to lose, so they spend months and years trying to get the last word.

Whatever a story requires Starfleet to be they become, the next series or episode they are something ever so slightly different.

Pedantry works in the real world because typically there is a correct answer, a literal reality which that pedantry can serve to identify. A fictional universe which has existed under dozens of writers for fifty years is by its nature inconsistent.

There are themes, sure, but the details frequently don't fit. Sometimes Starfleet is exactly a military (DS9, the Maquis crisis) sometimes it is specifically stated not to be(Picard's take on matters), sometimes the concept is meaningless because it makes no sense in the context, much like the money issue.

You mean you don't enjoy this?!

Bursting the bubble on whether the question matters or actually has any real potential insight to offer regarding the message or purpose of the show?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Crazy Eddie, I quite agree with your post, but we still have important problem: how such situation was made possible (and whose heads should roll for that, as soon as Federation citizens understood how badly they are, actually, protected... )

Considering the number of Giant Scary Things that have been prevented from eating Federation planets, I'd say they're protected pretty well.

I can, however, imagine a push for increased militarism in the aftermath of the Dominion War. The Kelvinverse and TNG canon both indicate there's a strain of thought that is always pushing for this in Starfleet's internal politics and it probably waxes and wanes from year to year. It would certainly be interesting to see how those competing interests play out in the post-war years.

I failed to see how this supposed to work, because there is nothing that would stop the opponent, which have a space superiority, to just demand unconditional surrrender of "defended" planets under the threat of indiscriminate bombardment. Which he could launch from lighthours - if not lightdays - away.

If starships had that kind of range -- which as far as we can tell, they don't -- then so do the defense systems. And as was basically demonstrated with Deep Space Nine, you can always pack firepower and better shields onto a fixed installation than you can on a mobile one. This makes the complete inversion of what we would consider conventional military wisdom: fixed fortifications are THE SHIT in the Trek universe, and nobody tries to breach them unless they're crazy, desperate, or very very clever.

The basic military approach is, that the military operations aren't aimed toward taking some territory; they always aimed toward destroying the enemy military forces. This is especially important for naval and air campaigns - and several orders of magnitude more important for space campaigns.

And historically, the best way to destroy the enemy has always been to lure him into a chokepoint and mow his forces down where they have no room to maneuver. This is basically what the Spartans did at thermopoylae, it's what the U.S. Navy did at Midway and the Battle of Savo Island, and it's why the Japanese got so thoroughly FUCKED in the Marianas Turkey Shoot.

If your entire fleet is dedicated to invading a particular planet, your enemy can drop a thousand satellites in orbit with a thousand photon torpedoes on each and hit you with a wall of flaming death before you even get to the edge of the system. Even assuming they even bother putting those weapons in orbit; if you factor in ground-based defenses, and the compact size of photon torpedoes, that planet can launch a MILLION torpedoes at you before you even get into transporter range. No matter how big your fleet is, you will ALWAYS be outgunned.

Which is why, as far as I can tell, warfare in Star Trek usually involves fighting over small, poorly-defended outposts, with battles over major worlds being possible ONLY with a sizeable ground force already present to help neutralize local defenses.

Nah, I send cannons. Which would deal with monster much cheaper & reliable than swordsmens.

Yes, you attack a thousand foot tall fire breathing sea monster...

with cannons.

Good luck with that.