Sure, but they didn't commit to that, they pick and choose. People say it's not like a real-world military, then they write/produce stories where people pull rank, complain about lack of promotion, get court martialed for not obeying orders, follow orders to certain death etc. Those situations carry with them certain implications about the larger system and hierarchy. I find the inconsistencies make it harder to suspend disbelief. If you do not, I have no problem with that.
I don't follow that all-or-nothing logic. Just because it isn't
exactly like the modern military, that doesn't mean it has
nothing in common with it. I mean, a giraffe has a lot in common with a leopard -- four legs, a head, a tail, spots, body hair, giving live birth, being warm-blooded -- but it also has a lot of major differences.
And of course there are going to be inconsistencies in a franchise consisting of nearly 800 distinct stories created by hundreds of different writers and directors. That's hard to avoid. I'm not saying I love it, but it would be unrealistic to expect perfect uniformity.
Yeah, but I don't buy it. One, when you are in the military, it is pretty much wired into your brain that you do what your superiors think is best for the organization.
When you're in the
present-day military. Again, we can't assume Starfleet is exactly like that. It's as much a scientific organization as a defensive one, so naturally it would encourage independent thought in its members.
Two, real people just don't act that way.
Of course they don't. But these are fictional characters. Again, what alternative do you propose? How could they have continued telling action-adventure stories starring William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, and the rest under the scenario where Kirk went back to a desk job and stayed there? You want to talk about reality -- the reality is that these were movies made for the entertainment of the audience, and Shatner was their primary star. That's the reality that everything else has to bend to.
People who are motivated (and competitive) enough to reach command of a ship don't shy away from greater responsibilities and challenges. Just because TV shows have made it a trope that "desk jobs" are for losers doesn't make it believable, because the organization would fail if the best and brightest avoided the greater responsibilities that went along with the desk.
On the other hand, it can be argued that there is no greater responsibility than starship command. TOS was based on things like the British Navy in the 19th century, when ship captains would be out of touch with their home bases and completely on their own, unable to call home for instructions, and thus would have the sole responsibility to make crucial diplomatic, military, or political decisions. We often saw in TOS how it would take days or weeks for Starfleet to receive Kirk's reports, so that the weight of the decisions fell solely on his shoulders. In "Balance of Terror," he had to make the choices that would decide whether or not a new war with the Romulans began, and Starfleet's approval of his plan didn't come through until after it was all over. So in that case and others like it, he had
more responsibility than any admiral back home, because his choices actually shaped events, while his superiors back home could only try to deal with the consequences.
