Why the Resistance to Starfleet as a Military?

[Stoek]

Let's be fair and remember the greater context: In "Neutral Zone" Picard had to deal with a potential Romulan Invasion, and the rest of the crew were nice to the 20th Century folks except the businessman (who was a jerk anyways). In FC he had to deal with the Borg, he had to explain their differences very quickly so they could continue, you know, avoiding the Borg.

And frankly, any folks from their present time will always consider themselves superior to any of their earlier counterparts. If a bunch of 20th Century folks ran into guys from the Middle Ages surely they'd think that they were the superior bunch, that's just being human.

Agreed. And while it made me want to punch Picard in his nuts it is realistic, and probably will be one of the last prejudices to be excised.

 

[Kezersoze]

I've always seen Starfleet as a military. In fact, it seems completely obvious given the propensity for Starfleet to act like a military in most every way, up to and including the use of military force. During the depictions of military conflict, Starfleet is shown to act as the Federation's military arm. So I never understand why at points in the different movies and series a certain insistence at times for characters to view Starfleet as a military, while most of the time characters will even refer to themselves as soldiers rather than diplomats. I see the most resistance from Star Trek fans, though, so I am curious to see where this resistance comes from.

Whether Starfleet is military or not, is really horribly inconsistent. Even in DS9, which showed Starfleet to be intensely military, the depiction of Starfleet at the beginning of the show is vastly different than at the end of it, and not due solely to the Dominion war. Look at Star Trek Insurrection, where the most advanced and heavily armed "warship" starfleet has is sent on some b/s mission in an era when there are still serious threats. The Undiscovered Country made it appear as if the only reason Starfleet existed was to oppose the Klingons. The Soviet Union no longer exists so why do we still have a military? lol The War on Terror is over! Now lets disband the military! lol

Overall, It changes as much as Star Trek has had different writers, some writers preferred Starfleet to be exactly like a modern military force, while others preferred Starfleet to be a "benevolent" peaceful, research organization, full of scientific geniuses, that can defend itself. Too make what ever story of the week work writers take Starfleet wherever they need it to go. I mean, in one episode of DS9 the Defiant has to escort 30,000 federation troops! Now who the hell are these people? Federation troops? lol Why doesn't Kira just call them Starfleet Marines! At least that would make more sense than landing 30,000 Starfleet "Security".

And another thing, I actually like the Maco/Starfleet rift, as it seemed the Maco's are what you would really need if your going to fight the Klingons, Cardassians, or Jem Haydar! No, lets get lame ass Starfleet Security to protect us. Of course it the same way in space, Starfleet can build the Defiant and the Sovereign, ships that can kick anyone's butt, but they choose to role around in 80 to 100yr old starships! I just think that Starfleet has an identity crisis cause they don't want to look like an imperialist force, like the U.S. military appears to a lot of people around the globe today (and not too unjustly). I like the example of the J.S.D.F, as that is only force that I know of that has something of a prime directive attached to it and is not considered a military in the sense that we usually think of it. lol

Lastly, has anyone else noticed that it seems like EVERYONE in Starfleet has more intense military training than even the modern military lol. Doctors, science officers, f*&ing counselors know who to fight hand to hand, use phaser rifles, and have knowledge of tactical systems. I mean what the hell is Ezri Dax, the goddamn counselor, doing on the bridge of the Defiant? lol Jadzia began DS9 as a "simple" science officer and over the course of the show turned into a commando who can apparently fly expertly the most devastating warship the feds have. See, its crap like this that illustrates my point. By the way, I always liked how the whole command staff of DS9 would go on the Defiant when some mission would come up, leaving DS9 with absolutely no command officers! I guess its lucky that they never took any serious casualties.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ you think Ezri was unrealistic on the show? Look at what she's done in the novels:

Spoiler: Ezri

She is a Captain and has command of her own ship, the Aventine.

 

[T'Girl]

I like the example of the J.S.D.F, as that is only force that I know of that has something of a prime directive attached to it and is not considered a military in the sense that we usually think of it.

The Japanese JSDF has the second largest Asian navy. And the Japanese enlisted personnel who maintain their aircraft certainly consider themselves military.

A big part of the JSDF's "prime directive" was the part where they don't get involve in foreign wars. Which was put aside went Japanese troops deployed to Iraq in 2003, largely for administrative and reconstruction purposes, they were only there for a couple of years.

In fact there was a bit of a stink when some of the guys in my older brother's unit took a Japanese sergeant on a foot patrol sweep with them through a fairly quiet neighborhood in eastern Baghdad in 2005. They took reporters, VIP's, etc. all the time and hadn't gotten the right permission, the was a problem that this guy had been "in combat," no one even shot at them.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Kezersoze hit the nail on the head .

In Descent TNG, Picard left the Dr. Crusher in charge of the Enterprise during a hostile encounter with the Borg..

Wesley got to pilot the ship and was even put in charge of academy graduates.

BEl'ana is put in charge of engineering over the senior most commissioned engineering officer.

And in certain episodes, there seems to be a remarkable pacifist attitude even in tense military situations.

Starfleet discovers during negotiations with the Dominion that they wanted a planet on the Fed side that had elements so they could make Ketrecel White. (They were running out).

At first Sisko is glad they discovered that as he was about to give them the planet, but now realizes it would be a mistake.

Julian recommends that they should actually give them the planet - because if they don't, the Dominion may 'be forced to attack and that would cause massive casualties'.

Once again, it the "whaaat"?? reaction-

They're already at war- Supposed they do get the planet and produce all the white they need for their soldiers; Won't the Dominion end up launching a massive attack anyway?

Even later, Julian seriously recommends that the Federation should just surrender -based on future guesses that never happened.

Now Kirk's era was pretty straight forward;

ROJAN: We do not colonize. We conquer. We rule.

There's no other way for us.

MCCOY: In other words, the galaxy isn't big enough for both of us.
KIRK: The Federation has handled foreign invasions before.

 

[Kezersoze]

Hey, Night Diamond, don't forget that Major Kira got to command the Defiant on several occasions too! And in "Tears of the Prophets" during one of the most important battles of the war she takes command a head of several more experienced Starfleet officers. As for civilians its clear starfleet is lenient as hell; Wesley gets to pilot the federation flagship, Nog and even Jake Sisko early on started to be "apprenticed" as starfleet cadets with responsibilities around the station. Its rather fascinating now that I think it, the relationship between starfleet and the civilian world at large. "Oh, you want to take your son into battle Commander Sisko, no problem!" Like Jake is going on a field trip! Actually Jake probably got more combat experience than most cadets.

 

[Jonas Grumby]

I've got a feeling that reconciling TOS with the later Treks as to the "military-ness" of Starfleet is going to require even more pretzel logic than usual.

Of course, the differences can be glossed over by just assuming a widespread change in Starfleet's attitude sometime between TOS and TNG, but that's not as much fun!

 

[The Wormhole]

Major Kira got to command the Defiant on several occasions too! And in "Tears of the Prophets" during one of the most important battles of the war she takes command a head of several more experienced Starfleet officers.

Kira taking command of the Defiant in Tears of the Prophets made no sense. Worf was there. There were plenty of times Worf commanded the Defiant with Kira on board, and she had to take orders from him. I just never understood that bit in Tears of the Prophets.

As for civilians its clear starfleet is lenient as hell; Wesley gets to pilot the federation flagship, Nog and even Jake Sisko early on started to be "apprenticed" as starfleet cadets with responsibilities around the station.

Huh? Aside from that second season episode where Jake was job shadowing Chief O'Brien, Jake never really had to do anything around the station. And Nog never did anything outside of Quark's bar until he went to Starfleet Academy and returned to the station wearing a Starfleet uniform, so how exactly was he "apprenticed?"

"Oh, you want to take your son into battle Commander Sisko, no problem!" Like Jake is going on a field trip! Actually Jake probably got more combat experience than most cadets.

Jake's presence on board the Defiant during battles was as a Federation news reporter. There are such things as battlefield reporters who accompany the military in combat situations in war. This happens in the real world, it isn't so odd to see it on Star Trek.

 

[Destructor]

Kira taking command of the Defiant in Tears of the Prophets made no sense. Worf was there. There were plenty of times Worf commanded the Defiant with Kira on board, and she had to take orders from him. I just never understood that bit in Tears of the Prophets.

Ron Moore acknowledged that as a production mistake, we probably shouldn't hold it up as 'evidence' of the chain of command- more Kira's leadership instinct kicking in without her thinking about who 'should' be in command.

 

[Sci]

On what basis? The United Earth Starfleet exists to serve United Earth; that can't just change.

Why not? Joining the Federation means a partial surrender of sovereignty, doesn't it? Wouldn't direct control of ones interplanetary space agencies be part of the deal?

Because the charter is still in effect, period. The UESF Charter would have to be nullified, and the act of nullifying that Charter would dissolve the United Earth Starfleet as a legal entity, just like creating the Federation Starfleet Charter would create the Federation Starfleet as a legal entity. These legal entities live and die by their charters.

There's a United Earth Starfleet Charter already in effect (ENT: "Affliction"/"Divergence"). There would need to be a new charter in order for the Federation to have its own starfleet, and a new charter means it's a new organization.

Semantics, in that case; essentially the same organization reopened under new management.

No, not semantics. Legal status. You are confusing an organization's property (ships and bases) with the organization itself.

There's also basic logic. Why would the Federation continue the United Earth Starfleet but discontinue the more advanced Vulcan, Andorian, and Tellarite space forces?

There's no direct evidence either way, but I personally doubt that they did.

Then they would necessarily have to found a new organization so as not to be accused of marginalizing someone else's space forces in favor of Earth's.

Logically, it would make much more sense to found a new organization and transfer the pre-existing ships under the new organization's umbrella.

I'm not sure I agree. Earth has consistently been the seat of power of both the Federation Council and the Presidency for nearly two hundred years.

Actually, if we want to get really nit-picky, we have no canonical evidence that Earth was the seat of the Federation prior to 2385 (Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home). For all we know, Tellar might have been the Federation capital until then.

However, yes, the novels (which I tend to go by) have made it clear that the Federation government has been seated in the Palais de la Concorde (the Federation's "capitol building") in Paris, Earth, since the 22nd Century.

There has to be a specific reason for that other than sheer astrographic convenience.

Does there? If we go by Star Trek Star Charts, Earth is fairly central to Andor, Tellar, Vulcan, and Alpha Centauri.

It's possible that United Earth was the only government willing to put its space program entirely at the Federation's disposal,

More likely, I should think, that Earth was chosen because of United Earth's role in serving as a mediator in Vulcan-Andorian-Tellarite conflicts.

(the ambassadors in "Babel" certainly seemed to think of Starfleet as a neutral party to transport them all to the conference).

I'm wary of taking anything from "Journey to Babel" as evidence of how the Federation normally functions. "Journey to Babel" made it very clear that the Federation was in a horrible political crisis and coming close to civil war over the entry of Coridan as a Member.

The other possibility, often overlooked, is that the Federation formed under the auspices of the Coalition of Planets in the first place,

Oh? Did it?

What if the Coalition collapsed early into the Earth-Romulan War, years before the Federation was founded? (Which is what the novel The Romulan War: Beneath the Raptor's Wings seems to be bringing the Coalition to by early 2156.) We have no information on whether or not the Federation was founded under the auspices of the Coalition.

which was largely forged by the efforts of Earth Starfleet.

Not exactly. The United Earth Starfleet -- and specifically Captain Archer -- got the ball rolling by convincing the Andorian, Tellarite, and Vulcan governments to send their militiaries on a co-operative mission to find the Romulan drone ships. But it was United Earth Minister Nathan Samuels -- his exact position within the U.E. government went un-identified in ENT, but the novels have him as United Earth Prime Minister -- who actually did the work of hammering out a permanent defensive alliance with the other worlds. So I'd say more credit should go to the United Earth government itself than to the U.E.S.F.

We may be looking at a sort of chicken-egg situation, where United Earth amended its own laws to place Starfleet at the disposal of the coalition (some sort of NATO-like treaty) which in turn was later codified into the Federation of Planets: The Allies beget NATO which begets the E.U.

The problem with your analogy is that while all NATO members (save France for a long while) have placed a portion of their militaries under NATO administration, at the end of the day, none of them actually answer to NATO and all NATO members retain the authority to remove their forces from NATO's command structure. Their ultimate loyalties still lie with their governments, not with NATO. The British Army does not cease to be the British Army by virtue of part of it being under the command of the NATO Supreme Allied Commander.

Either way, there's no conclusive evidence that they ARE different organizations, and some circumstantial evidence that they are not.

The evidence is in the very nature of how governments function. Just like the English Royal Navy is not the same organization as the British Royal Navy, or the Massachusetts State Navy is not the same organization as the United States Navy. And we know from "Inquisition" that there have been multiple Starfleet Charters, which means multiple Starfleets.

And they weren't militaries, because they were not the organizations created by the state to engage in self-defense. They were, essentially, private contractors -- the equivalent of today's Blackwater.

And yet they were still legally empowered BY those states to engage in warfare;

Any asshole can be legally empowered by the state to engage in warfare. Blackwater has been legally empowered by the U.S. government to engage in warfare; that doesn't make them part of the U.S. Armed Forces. Being the organization specifically chartered by the state to defend it in times of war is what makes a group a military, not the mere act of being authorized on a case-by-case basis.

I guess what I'm saying is there's a progression here in terms of social/cultural development in terms of a nation's fighting forces. Earlier cultures either lacked standing armies or depended on a small corps of professional soldiers to mobilize armies of conscripts tossed into armor at the last minute. More modern cultures have specialized citizen-armies (militias) that take it upon themselves to be ready in time of war and likewise mobilize around the professionals. The most modern cultures currently have large professional militaries with very expanded capabilities and elite training, rarely fall back on conscripts and actually discourage participation by irregular fighting forces.

That's OUR state of the art. Three hundred years from now it would seem to have been supplanted by an even more elite group of which military training is only a niche aspect of their profession.

Maybe, could, possibly. But there's no actual evidence that that is the case. You're making stuff up now.

I wonder if enlisted Starfleet personnel can quit at any time like the officers seemingly can?

That would seem to explain why there are so few of them in the 24th century.[/QUOTE]

As has already been pointed out, Federation member worlds are allowed to keep a certain portion of their militaries to serve purely local matters.

And not just ships, and not just local matters. Cestus Three (Arena) was on the edge of the explored frontier, but it wasn't a outpost of the century old Federation (not by name), it was a Earth observation outpost and colony. So not only don't the member world not hand over all their current goodies, they continue to expand themselves outside of the Federation's purview.

*shrugs* Virginia and New York both tried to expand themselves outside o the borders of the United States in the 18th Century. Doesn't mean the U.S. isn't a sovereign state.

Kira taking command of the Defiant in Tears of the Prophets made no sense. Worf was there. There were plenty of times Worf commanded the Defiant with Kira on board, and she had to take orders from him. I just never understood that bit in Tears of the Prophets.

Ron Moore acknowledged that as a production mistake, we probably shouldn't hold it up as 'evidence' of the chain of command- more Kira's leadership instinct kicking in without her thinking about who 'should' be in command.

Either way, it doesn't mean anything. Starfleet and the Bajoran Militia obviously have some sort of officer exchange program going on, wherever Kira might fit into the Defiant's chain of command.

It all goes back to how Capt Picard reacted with disdain about Starfleet being referred to as the military even though he knows that's exactly the role it will have to fill from time to time.

And why should it all go back to that line? It was one line from one very bad episode. Why does that single line outweigh the vast preponderance of evidence (in terms of how characters refer to Starfleet, in terms of what functions Starfleet fulfills, in terms of the legal definition of a military which Starfleet meets to a T) that Starfleet is a military?

 

[T'Girl]

On what basis? The United Earth Starfleet exists to serve United Earth; that can't just change.

Why not? Joining the Federation means a partial surrender of sovereignty, doesn't it? Wouldn't direct control of ones interplanetary space agencies be part of the deal?

Because the charter is still in effect, period. The UESF Charter would have to be nullified, and the act of nullifying that Charter would dissolve the United Earth Starfleet as a legal entity, just like creating the Federation Starfleet Charter would create the Federation Starfleet as a legal entity. These legal entities live and die by their charters.

Maybe not nullified after all. If Earth possessed a military force which they referred to as "The Navy," and later the federation formed a different military force which they (in a display of a lack of imagination) also referred to as "The Navy," and you accept that individual members retain seperate miltary forces ... then why would Earth seize to have a force called "The Navy?"

True it might get the tiniest bit confusing, but not overly so.

It all goes back to how Capt Picard reacted with disdain about Starfleet being referred to as the military even though he knows that's exactly the role it will have to fill from time to time.

And why should it all go back to that line?

You need to take in to account that the same Picard who said that Starfleet wasn't a military, is the same Picard who said the Federation/24th century has no money.

Sometimes Picard is a moron.

8).......

 

[Nightdiamond]

So according to Picard and TNG;

There's no money in the 24th century;
The Federation doesn't have a military;
Starfleet is an organization of explorers only;
Men wear short skirts as a uniform;

I think early TNG had a strong Utopian element to it, but it wasn't always practical.

'Having to fight, using money, wearing make up, ewww...'

If the early crew members had to suddenly go to war, or go on an away mission, how would they be able to fight or thrive in harsh environments in those skirts?

Peak performance, Picard doesn't want to participate in war games.

I can understand the feeling, but if Starfleet is charged with the Federation's defense......

War games, if I'm not mistaken, is practice and training in case of real war-time situations so the troops will be ready and coordinated.

Another quote from the episode;

"It's a waste of effort to test our combat skills...."

I agree, they have solved many problems with intelligence, but when the Dominion War happened....

 

[Jonas Grumby]

So according to Picard and TNG;
...
Men wear short skirts as a uniform;

Heh! I'd love to find out that was just something Picard came up with for his own ship...and the admiralty quickly told him to knock it off!

 

[T'Girl]

Likely Picard, in stating that Starfleet isn't a military (or that there is no money) ,was expressing a personal view of how he wanted things to be, Picard simply being a idealist.

Even in today's military, not everyone is in intellectual and philosophical lockstep. The American military, because it is a citizen's military, contains people who hold a wide variety of personal views on government policy, foreign policy and opinions (again personal) on how best to employ the military in a given situation.

They (usually) know when to keep their opinions to themselves, Picard being a fictional character CAN'T keep his opinions to himself, his verbalization's advance the story. But just because he (or others) say something, doesn't mean that statement is factually truthful within the "in-universe" of the Federation or Starfleet.

 

[BK613]

Interesting thread...

I think I am with newtype: calling Starfleet a military is reductionism, akin to calling my computer a typewriter because it has QWERTY keys and can be used to write novels.

Also, when I was a member of the US Navy (1980-1990), I received a great deal of training for a task that I fortunately never had to perform: firefighting. Training began in boot camp and never stopped. It was part of every GQ drill, every duty day, every pre-deployment inspection. The amount and quality of the training was such that I can still recall, two decades later, facts like the classes of the fires and how to fight them, the GPM rating of the portable pumps we used (250 GPM), even the steps to donning and using the OBA.

Yet it was not my job (I was an electrician): everyone received this type of training to some degree and so, to call us a ship of firefighters (and the Navy a fire department) would be a misnomer, even if it were factual. Firefighting wasn't the ship's mission, and it wasn't anybody's specific job*; it was just something we trained for that could affect our real mission.

So, to me, it makes sense that Starfleet can be an organization that trains for a military role because such training is a necessary evil in a hostile universe, and yet, still can be an organization that is not focused on being a military and instead focuses on the primary missions of exploration, colonization and science.

YMMV.

*(except for about 20 sailors with the rating of Hull Tech--which is now rolled into Damage Controlman.)

 

[neozeks]

So, to me, it makes sense that Starfleet can be an organization that trains for a military role because such training is a necessary evil in a hostile universe, and yet, still can be an organization that is not focused on being a military and instead focuses on the primary missions of exploration, colonization and science.

Yeah, but as has probably already been said, being focused on those missions doesn't make it any less military, it just makes it an atypical military. Again, just like the US Coast Guard is primarily focused on what one could percieve as non-military missions (law enforcement, SAR, disaster response...) but is still a military organization.

 

[Vincent Law]

All members of the military receive weapons training, yet not all of them are expected to ever have to use a firearm. Yet they are still members of the military, even if they are not expected to act as front-line troops. By the same token, it seems all members of Starfleet are given some weapons training, even if not all of them are going to be security or tactical officers, and even if Starfleet claims to be nothing more than a peaceful exploratory organization. The fact still remains that it has always been shown to act as the uniformed defense organization for the Federation. It is a military. To say that you received firefighting training, yet you did not belong to a fire department is something of a hyperbolic argument. You received that training as a requirement of your posting. You also no doubt received some kind of weapons training, and possibly other training to serve in your capacity as a member of the US military, did you not?

 

[Sci]

Why not? Joining the Federation means a partial surrender of sovereignty, doesn't it? Wouldn't direct control of ones interplanetary space agencies be part of the deal?

Because the charter is still in effect, period. The UESF Charter would have to be nullified, and the act of nullifying that Charter would dissolve the United Earth Starfleet as a legal entity, just like creating the Federation Starfleet Charter would create the Federation Starfleet as a legal entity. These legal entities live and die by their charters.

Maybe not nullified after all. If Earth possessed a military force which they referred to as "The Navy," and later the federation formed a different military force which they (in a display of a lack of imagination) also referred to as "The Navy," and you accept that individual members retain seperate miltary forces ... then why would Earth seize to have a force called "The Navy?"

I don't think it would, actually. But I was accepting the proposal that the Federation Starfleet would use all of the United Earth Starfleet's ships for the sake of argument. I personally see no reason that the UESF couldn't continue to exist alongside the Federation Starfleet -- though, given the presence of Federation Starfleet Headquarters and the Federation government on Earth, I imagine that the UESF's status might be seen as quite redundant. Still, no reason to think that it's not the UESF that does, for instance, interplanetary law enforcement in the Sol system, while larger defense issues are left to the Federation Starfleet. Maybe the role of the UESF has been rendered more akin to that of the United States Coast Guard in the Federation era?

It all goes back to how Capt Picard reacted with disdain about Starfleet being referred to as the military even though he knows that's exactly the role it will have to fill from time to time.

And why should it all go back to that line?

You need to take in to account that the same Picard who said that Starfleet wasn't a military, is the same Picard who said the Federation/24th century has no money.

True. While I certainly have no problem with the idea that the Federation has no poverty and even with the idea that there is no inherited wealth -- that all wealth in the UFP must be earned -- I do indeed reject the idea that there's no money. Though, to be fair, the canon is so full of contradictory evidence on this issue that we can pretty much interpret it however we want.

I just reject the idea that one statement from Picard in a bad episode of TNG Season Two should be given more weight than the numerous other times that statement has been contradicted. I mean, it was only a few episodes earlier that Wesley mentioned that the Klingons had "joined the Federation," which is flatly contradicted by all of their subsequent appearances.

All members of the military receive weapons training, yet not all of them are expected to ever have to use a firearm. Yet they are still members of the military, even if they are not expected to act as front-line troops. By the same token, it seems all members of Starfleet are given some weapons training, even if not all of them are going to be security or tactical officers, and even if Starfleet claims to be nothing more than a peaceful exploratory organization.

Except that it does not claim to be nothing more than a peaceful exploratory organization. Only once in the canon has the Federation Starfleet been called that. There are numerous canonical instances of both Starfleet and non-Starfleet officers calling Starfleet a military.

The fact still remains that it has always been shown to act as the uniformed defense organization for the Federation. It is a military.

Bingo.

Interesting thread...

I think I am with newtype: calling Starfleet a military is reductionism, akin to calling my computer a typewriter because it has QWERTY keys and can be used to write novels.

So why has the Federation Starfleet been called a military on numerous occasions and only once called a non-military?

 

[YARN]

Interesting thread...

I think I am with newtype: calling Starfleet a military is reductionism,

Reductionism, in and of itself, is not a bad thing, which is a good thing, because it is unavoidable. Nor is it a mark of intellectual weakness to embrace reductive accounts. Stephen Hawking, for example, boasts that he is an unapologetic reductionist. It is not enough to accuse an account of being reductive. You have to show how an account is inappropriately reductive. Let's consider your proofs.

akin to calling my computer a typewriter because it has QWERTY keys and can be used to write novels.

The only thing this example does is show how reductive accounts can go wrong, not how the present account of Starfleet as military has gone wrong.

Also, when I was a member of the US Navy (1980-1990), I received a great deal of training for a task that I fortunately never had to perform: firefighting. Training began in boot camp and never stopped. It was part of every GQ drill, every duty day, every pre-deployment inspection. The amount and quality of the training was such that I can still recall, two decades later, facts like the classes of the fires and how to fight them, the GPM rating of the portable pumps we used (250 GPM), even the steps to donning and using the OBA.

Yet it was not my job (I was an electrician): everyone received this type of training to some degree and so, to call us a ship of firefighters (and the Navy a fire department) would be a misnomer, even if it were factual. Firefighting wasn't the ship's mission, and it wasn't anybody's specific job*; it was just something we trained for that could affect our real mission.

So, to me, it makes sense that Starfleet can be an organization that trains for a military role because such training is a necessary evil in a hostile universe, and yet, still can be an organization that is not focused on being a military and instead focuses on the primary missions of exploration, colonization and science.

YMMV.

*(except for about 20 sailors with the rating of Hull Tech--which is now rolled into Damage Controlman.)

And we can stand this example on its head. Even though you were an electrician, you had other duties to perform, and yet this did not change the fact that you were an electrician.

Likewise, in the age of England's naval dominance, a military ship had many duties. An English sea captain might find himself hauling treasure home from the New World, or breadfruit to colonies, or charting strange waters, or keeping fighting pirates away from merchant ships, or negotiating treaties and making first contact with native peoples. And yet for all that, he would still be a military man, serving on a military ship.

 

[Nightdiamond]

PICARD: Starfleet is not a military organization. Our purpose is exploration.

It's that one explicit statement- made by a main character -a Starfleet captain- where he is saying Starfleet isn't the military, it's an exploration force!


I think it falls in whether Starfleet is a totally new concept we misunderstand from our 21 century point of view, or are the characters in utter denial because they consider the military a backwards concept or something.

There are other less direct references like Picard's;

KIRA:I thought Starfleet didn't believe in warships.

PICARD: Children? On the Enterprise... ?
We're at war, Guinan.

GUINAN: No, we're not. I mean, we shouldn't be. This is a ship of peace. Not of war.

I just realized, the whole concept of children on the ship puts a spin on it too, doesn't it .

At some point when the Federation was formed, the members were told "this is the organization that will protect you from invaders"

"Oh, so they are our military?"
"No, they are NOT the military" (depending on who you ask)