Why the Resistance to Starfleet as a Military?

[Kezersoze]

This thread is going in circles. Picard thinks of himself as an explorer because by in large he is. He can obviously fight when he has to, but that is not what he prefers to do or be thought of as. Did Janeway consider herself a soldier? And the strange thing is Starfleet policy pretty much reinforces this. I mean why don't the Feds (writers) just call all their starships "warships"? The Modern Navy wouldn't call a Supercarrier an "enhanced peacetime transportation and humanitarian vessel"! lol The first time I watched the DS9 episode "The Search" and they unveiled the Defiant for the first time I thought, "Now, why in the hell didn't the Feds build super powerful crap like this before!" . I'm probably not going anywhere with this, just ranting. I mean Starfleet unveiling The Defiant is like them finally saying, Ok where officially a military now, and we need f*&king firepower like one. The Romulans have their warbirds, Klingons have....basically all their ships, and the Feds will finally have their Akira's, Defiants, and Sovereigns.

I would expect Starfleet's main roles would be, in order of importance: defense, rescue, reconnaissance, police, deep space exploration/mapping.

See, this is my entire point! if that was true then why not come up with the Defiant/Akira/Prometheus/Soveriegn etc etc. much earlier? could you imagine if the Dominion had to deal with a fleet of Defiants and Soveriegns instead of Excelsiors and Mirandas! The U.S. navy CAN do research and explore but I sure as god hope that their primary focus is whopping some ASS! lol or else what is the point in having a military.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ That is and has been my point as well. The Federation seems to believe they're able to do just fine without an actual military to speak of, and this is probably because of the tech level of Federation citizens means you no longer need to HAVE standing armies specialized in that one field. You can do the same job, supposedly, with a group of properly-equipped generalists.

The theory doesn't hold water and falls apart at the first serious threat, however, and is something that has been simply grandfathered in by previous generations of writers. Only STXI seems to retcon starfleet into something that really IS a mainly military organization with a part-time job as space explorers, much to their credit IMO.

 

[T'Girl]

they classified the Defiant as an escort.

Which is the same as classifying her as a frigate.

In other words, a small warship.

 

[C.E. Evans]

What's in a name? Starfleet can call the Defiant an escort if they want--it's just their classification of a particular ship type that suits their particular philosophy. Another organization might have classified her as a frigate, a destroyer, a gunboat, a perimeter ass-kicker, whatever, but those organizations aren't Starfleet, IMO.

 

[Expo67]

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.

That makes two of us. Starfleet has always used Naval titles and ranks. And in some cases they have used Marine terminology.

So the way I look at it, Starfleet is a military force of the Federation. One whose members are sworn to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United Federation Of Planets.

Nuff said.

 

[Kezersoze]

The Federation seems to believe they're able to do just fine without an actual military to speak of, and this is probably because of the tech level of Federation citizens means you no longer need to HAVE standing armies specialized in that one field. You can do the same job, supposedly, with a group of properly-equipped generalists

But the thing is no other "great" power believes that. The Romulans, Cardassians, and Klingons have strictly militaries in the modern sense. Now further complicating things, the Tal'shiar and Obisidian Order can build and crew starships, have ranks and uniforms, and still not be considered an official military or part of the military. Just as the CIA can employ former military people and use military equipment, and even have a limited military mission without the CIA director being a member of the Joint Chiefs.

 

[The Wormhole]

Now further complicating things, the Tal'shiar and Obisidian Order can build and crew starships, have ranks and uniforms,

Actually the Obsidian Order is supposed to be forbidden from possessing military equipment. It was stated when they built that fleet to attack the Dominion that they weren't supposed to have starships of any kind, and indeed the contruction of the fleet was done in secret.

 

[C.E. Evans]

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.

That makes two of us. Starfleet has always used Naval titles and ranks.

So did the Love Boat.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The Federation seems to believe they're able to do just fine without an actual military to speak of, and this is probably because of the tech level of Federation citizens means you no longer need to HAVE standing armies specialized in that one field. You can do the same job, supposedly, with a group of properly-equipped generalists

But the thing is no other "great" power believes that. The Romulans, Cardassians, and Klingons have strictly militaries in the modern sense. Now further complicating things, the Tal'shiar and Obisidian Order can build and crew starships, have ranks and uniforms, and still not be considered an official military or part of the military. Just as the CIA can employ former military people and use military equipment, and even have a limited military mission without the CIA director being a member of the Joint Chiefs.

Like I said, the theory falls apart at the first major threat from a neighboring race, unless the Federation is already so much more advanced than everyone else that they can afford not to spend money on a "real" military that would otherwise have no equal in the universe.

 

[YARN]

So did the Love Boat.

Did the Love Boat have a brig?

Was any member of the crew threatened with court martial on the Love Boat?

Did the Love Boat have weapons? Did it ever fight off other ships?

Did it have a self-destruct code?

 

[Sci]

I mean why don't the Feds (writers) just call all their starships "warships"?

Does it matter? Whether or not they classify their vessels as "warships" is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they are a legal military.

However, I would infer this is a function of Starfleet's desire to foster a non-jingoistic operational ethos even while performing its national defense function.

The first time I watched the DS9 episode "The Search" and they unveiled the Defiant for the first time I thought, "Now, why in the hell didn't the Feds build super powerful crap like this before!" .

They did. Ships like the Galaxy-class, the Excelsior-class, and the Constitution-class were all intended to be the powerful defense ships of their era. The difference is that the Defiant-class is meant to be exclusively all about defense, and the others are meant to be able to serve as exploratory vessels, too.

That's Starfleet's operational ethos: It views combat and exploration as being co-equal missions. A Starfleet officer would probably argue that exploration is as essential to national defense as combat, in my view.

and the Feds will finally have their Akira's, Defiants, and Sovereigns.

For the record, the registry numbers on the Akira-class ships indicate that the first Akiras were launched around the same time as the Galaxy-class.

ETA:

I, on the other hand, can't imagine that it would be so simple as that. You'd have to fundamentally re-write United Earth law, since, amongst other things, you'd be taking away its major agency.

Starfleet doesn't seem to be a major agency for United Earth. It is clearly less important to it ECONOMICALLY than the Cargo Service and less important militarily than the MACOs.

That may have been true when ENT started in 2151, but by the time of "Demons"/"Terra Prime," I think it's clear that the UESF had established itself as an essential organ of the UE government. I mean, they literally saved the Earth from its first existential threat. That's huge.

Interestingly:

In "Divergence"/"Affliction," Archer threatens Reed with a court-martial. I wonder if this means that UESF became a legal military after saving Earth from the Xindi?

Here's a thought: we're often reminded by many Starfleet officers that "Earth is paradise!" All of us know, on some level, that this condition cannot exist and could not have been established without the systematic exclusion of people like Quark, Ro Laren, Harry Mudd, etc. Earth is essentially the ultimate gated community: politically and economically outgoing, but socially isolationist.

In which case, United Earth may have GIVEN Starfleet away and thus avoided having to take any real responsibility for activities outside the Sol sector. Humans who want to explore can still join Starfleet (and so can anyone else, for that matter) but they must do so as representatives of the entire Federation, not Earth).

This does not follow. Why would United Earth "give" Starfleet away instead of just abolishing it and letting the Federation government do whatever it wants? And why would the Federation government want to have ownership of the UESF transferred instead of just raising its own Starfleet by itself? And why would being socially isolationist even lead to "giving it away?"

Not if they sign legislation that nullifies the existing charter

1. I'm not convinced they're using the term "charter" in the same sense U.S. law with regards to Congressional charters uses it. When they talk about Section 31 being part of the "original Starfleet Charter," that sounds to me more like we're talking about the other definition of a charter -- a document establishing the existence of and competencies of an an organization.

2. Ergo, if they've nullified the charter, that's the same thing as abolishing the organization. Like I've been saying.

I never mentioned "same ships." I both said and implied that it is the same ORGANIZATION, meaning the same command structure, same internal documents, same buildings, same employees, same infrastructure, same assets, same debts, same patents. In point of fact it doesn't even seem that they DO use the same ships (I don't think the NX-class survived to serve as a Federation vessel) but they definitely use the same TECHNOLOGY,

Oh? What technology? I'm aware of no technology invented by United Earth which had not already been invented by the other Federation founding races. Even the transporter had apparently already been developed by the Andorians ("Awakening").

At NO time does a charter IN AND OF ITSELF establish the existence of an organization, nor does the abolition of that charter eliminate that organization.

char·ter

noun \ˈchär-tər\ Definition of CHARTER

1
: a written instrument or contract (as a deed) executed in due form

2
a : a grant or guarantee of rights, franchises, or privileges from the sovereign power of a state or country b : a written instrument that creates and defines the franchises of a city, educational institution, or corporation c : constitution

3
: a written instrument from the authorities of a society creating a lodge or branch

4
: a special privilege, immunity, or exemption

5
: a mercantile lease of a ship or some principal part of it

6
: a charter travel arrangement

Definition 2b can easily apply to a military organization, too.

Because that would rather obviously weaken the entire Federation

Yes, it would. Kinda like the Articles of Confederation very much weakened the United States.

That doesn't follow. The Articles of Confederation did not weaken the U.S. -- it created the United States. Before the Articles, there was no "United States of America," merely a collection of non-unified states who had jointly declared independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain. By contrast, even under the Articles of Confederation (which were followed de facto even if not de jure during the Revolutionary War), the U.S. still used the Continental Army rather than having, say, Massachusetts transfer its entire state militia into the Continental Congress's hands.

Let's avoid a misunderstanding here: the original founders of the Federation INTENDED it to be weak.

Evidence?

You're also forgetting that those worlds had just gone through a rather horrible war with Romulus together -- why would they be so unwilling to trust one-another after that?

Why did the colonies ratify the Articles of Confederation while STILL AT WAR with the British Empire?

For the same reason the founding worlds of the Federation would have ratified the Articles of the Federation -- because the war taught them that they needed one-another and needed to trust one-another. There's nothing irrational about ratifying the Articles of Confederation during the Revolutionary War.

To expect politicians to behave rationally is not logical.

Don't be silly. Politicians always behave rationally. It's the constituents they are always attempting to please that cannot always be relied upon to behave rationally.

And you're still ignoring the numerous on-screen references to the Federation Starfleet as being a military.

Only because we've been over this too many times before and I have no wish to repeat myself.

Repeat yourself, then, because I don't remember you actually presenting an argument that refuted those scenes.

 

[Paradon]

As warriors, I think Klingons think we're losers! You go around pissing everyone off and you don't want have a military. Common!

The Chinese strategist, Tsungsu, said: pissing off your enemies is a bad idea. Losers!

 

[Sci]

As warriors, I think Klingons think we're losers! You go around pissing everyone off and you don't want have a military. Common!

The Chinese strategist, Tsungsu, said: pissing off your enemies is a bad idea. Losers!

... that post was almost, but not quite, coherent.

 

[Paradon]

He also said: people who think their enemies are stupid base on their appearance and how they act are stupid. There are other cultures that are more resourceful than the U.S. Thailand, for example, has never been ruled by western powers, and any foreign powers. The British could have taken control of this country if wanted to, bu they didn't. The U.S. got lucky!

 

[Sci]

He also said: people who think their enemies are stupid base on their appearance and how they act are stupid. There are other cultures that are more resourceful than the U.S. Thailand, for example, has never been ruled by western powers, and any foreign powers. The British could have taken control of this country if wanted to, bu they didn't. The U.S. got lucky!

Yes, but what does that have to do with the price of tea on Vulcan?

 

[T'Girl]

So did the Love Boat.

Did the Love Boat have a brig?

Yes it likely did.

Did the Love Boat have weapons?

Cruise ship do possess security guards, the big ships quite a few, and they do have access to small arms at the ship captain's option. The captain can also legally arm the ship's officers and crew.

Thailand, for example, has never been ruled by western powers

Wasn't Thailand basically ruled (in all but name) for a time by the British East India Company?

 

[Paradon]

They gained a foothold, but did not have a say in the government. They didn't want to piss off the Brits unless it was absolutely necessary. if push came shove, they will give them one hell of a fight like they never experienced. They've been known to go into battles knowing they are going to all die anyway, but do it to kill as many good people and to slow them down so they can set up a defense parameter...plus they do it to intimidate the enemies. Kindda like the Breen suicide mission we saw on DS9...when they attacked earth. If you look at their culture, and Thai food.... It's second to none. They also were the first people to cultivate rice.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That may have been true when ENT started in 2151, but by the time of "Demons"/"Terra Prime," I think it's clear that the UESF had established itself as an essential organ of the UE government. I mean, they literally saved the Earth from its first existential threat. That's huge.

There is, of course, the flip side of this, that information eventually comes to light that the reason the Xindi attacked in the first place is because they believed Earth had something to do with the destruction of their future homeworld. The universe is already a weird enough place without time-traveling skinheads setting people up all the time, and in light of the whole Terra Prime issue a portion of the general public might decide to buffer itself from further participation on the interplanetary stage.

The terms of their joining the Federation would probably reflect both points of view. They wouldn't want to get rid of Starfleet, but they wouldn't want to be responsible if something went wrong either (as they nearly were in "Shockwave").

Interestingly:

In "Divergence"/"Affliction," Archer threatens Reed with a court-martial. I wonder if this means that UESF became a legal military after saving Earth from the Xindi?

If it did, it wasn't after the Xindi. Remember Archer's conversation with Hernandez in Home, where Archer recommends a MACO for her tactical officer and she tells him straight faced "I'm not sure how I'd feel about a military officer on the bridge." Hernandez seems to think this is cynical, DESPITE having read Archer's mission logs.

This does not follow. Why would United Earth "give" Starfleet away instead of just abolishing it and letting the Federation government do whatever it wants?

Because they didn't want to ABOLISH it, they just wanted to abdicate any political responsibility for maintaining it. Starfleet would cease to be a United Earth organization but would still be headquartered on Earth anyway. Meanwhile, other Federation races also get to avoid the (it seems to them) problematic arrangement of having their space forces placed at the disposal of alien interests while laughing under their breath at how stupid the humans are for agreeing to such a daft arrangement.

Of course, a hundred years later we get to see who got the last laugh.

And why would the Federation government want to have ownership of the UESF transferred instead of just raising its own Starfleet by itself?

Apart from the reasons mentioned above--certain political paranoia among member nations not wanting to accidentally create their own jailer--there's the fact that raising a whole starfleet from scratch would be incredibly expensive and time consuming. Federalizing an existing organization saved them the trouble of having to CREATE anything at all, they could simply build on what was already there and expand on it with the greater funding resources of the Federation government.

Anyway, that question is moot, because they clearly DIDN'T raise a Starfleet by themselves. Whether Fed SF is a new organization or the adopted ESF, they obviously used the existing infrastructure that was already in place from the old organization anyway. They could have used the Vulcan space service, or the Andorian Royal Guard, or any number of much older and more advanced space forces in the universe, but they chose San Francisco and the United Earth Starfleet instead. Why would they do that? Again, I say politics: nobody thought Earth was a threat, so nobody argued when they made (what seemed at the time) to be the incredibly stupid decision to hand over its space service to the Federation Council.

1. I'm not convinced they're using the term "charter" in the same sense U.S. law with regards to Congressional charters uses it. When they talk about Section 31 being part of the "original Starfleet Charter," that sounds to me more like we're talking about the other definition of a charter -- a document establishing the existence of and competencies of an an organization.

But even in that "other" sense, charters don't establish an organization's EXISTENCE. Competences, sure, but in that case the Starfleet charter may well include a Strategic Defense and Response clause that legally empowers Starfleet to act in a military capacity at the request of the United Earth Government.

Interestingly, Earth Starfleet doesn't seem to have that authority. They're authorized to engage in espionage to the point of breaking interstellar law and/or treaties, but even sent against the Xindi their mission was primarily to FIND the Xindi and figure out what the hell they were on about (and then only because Archer had clued Starfleet in to the fact that some time traveling weirdness was afoot). The NEW Starfleet charter probably includes some sort of additional clause--Section 47, let's say--that empowers Starfleet to use any means necessary to protect Federation worlds and/or citizens from natural or artificial harm. That would nicely establish Starfleet's military role: they're empowered to protect Federation citizens and Federation allies against anyone or anything that might threaten them or compromise their right of self-determination. Nine times out of ten, that involves things OTHER than military/defensive actions, hence the Enterprise spends alot more time wrangling comets and asteroids, evacuating settlers, transporting rare medical supplies and [tech]ing exotic natural disaster than actually blowing up belligerent spacecraft.

2. Ergo, if they've nullified the charter, that's the same thing as abolishing the organization. Like I've been saying.

Except that, once again, charters do not establish ORGANIZATIONS.

Oh? What technology?

Linear warp drives, phasers, photon torpedoes, transporters (apparently), linguicode translators, security forcefields, widespread use of navigational deflectors. And though not exactly an example of "technology," it's clear that Earth-based design conventions continue to dominate even in the Federation Starfleet.

Even the transporter had apparently already been developed by the Andorians ("Awakening").

But Starfleet didn't get it from the Andorians; again, they invented it themselves.

Definition 2b can easily apply to a military organization, too.

Indeed it could, though again, the organization the charter applies to has to exist before the charter is assigned. That's the significance of referencing a Constitution: a government of sorts must exist to ratify it in the first place. You can't just write a constitution and then announce "We've got a document now, so we'd better get some guys together and start governing shit."

That doesn't follow. The Articles of Confederation did not weaken the U.S. -- it created the United States.

Then the mistake is yours for claiming that the Federalization of Starfleet--agreed to by member worlds strictly BECAUSE it was non-threatening--would "weaken" the Federation. Clearly it didn't, because that arrangement lead to the CREATION of the Federation and a re-charted (if low-tech and somewhat limited) Federation Starfleet.

Of course, the United States WAS the United States under the Articles of Confederation and didn't become a brand new country when the Constitution was written; that's my point about charters not CREATING organizations, but EMPOWERING them. In precisely the same way, I suspect that the Federation Starfleet is little more than the Earth starfleet empowered by a broad Federation charter.

For the same reason the founding worlds of the Federation would have ratified the Articles of the Federation -- because the war taught them that they needed one-another and needed to trust one-another. There's nothing irrational about ratifying the Articles of Confederation during the Revolutionary War.

Except that they still built provisions into the Articles that severely limited Federal power and strongly favored the power of individual colonies. This came back to haunt them SEVERAL times during the war, and ultimately wasn't corrected until Daniel Shays nearly overran Pennsylvania and the states realized that the central government could afford to be a little bit stronger.

Don't be silly. Politicians always behave rationally.

 

[Sci]

They gained a foothold, but did not have a say in the government. They didn't want to piss off the Brits unless it was absolutely necessary.

That's nice. It has nothing to do with whether or not Starfleet is a military.

 

[C.E. Evans]

So did the Love Boat.

Did the Love Boat have a brig?

Was any member of the crew threatened with court martial on the Love Boat?

Did the Love Boat have weapons? Did it ever fight off other ships?

Did it have a self-destruct code?

Looks like somebody doesn't have a sense of humor...