Well, except that it's not like the land that the FBI operates on just stops between towns. Whereas, oceans are confined to a given planet -- it makes much more sense for that to be a planetary matter rather than to have an inter-planetary agency.
Why the Resistance to Starfleet as a Military?
- Thread starter Vincent Law
- Start date
Well, except that it's not like the land that the FBI operates on just stops between towns. Whereas, oceans are confined to a given planet -- it makes much more sense for that to be a planetary matter rather than to have an inter-planetary agency.
I would agree there, but apparently the writers of Voyager didn't think of that. Of course, there are a great many things they didn't really think through very well. 
YARN
Fleet Captain
Well, The Apple and A Taste of Armageddon for starters.
Cool- I just started my TOS S2 Blu-ray: will get to those eps v. soon!
A Taste of Armageddon is actually late-season 1.
I imagine that Starfleet is the military arm, but it is completely under civilian control and oversight (well as much as any military is). However that civilian government seems very beholden to the military.
Furthermore Starship captains seem to have inordinate power over life, death and entire planets, so they can be compared to Roman proconsuls.
Furthermore Starship captains seem to have inordinate power over life, death and entire planets, so they can be compared to Roman proconsuls.
Robert DeSoto
Lieutenant Commander
This discussion reminds of the Japanese military. Japan's constitution forbids the creation of a military so they have a "self defense" force. Legally, the military is an extension of the police force. They even go so far as to call their tanks "special vehicles" or something like that. Kind of like the Defiant class "escort vessel"
Err, no... The USCG is only beholden to the United States Federal Government, as its an armed force of the United States. If you're describing how we're organized geographically, that's different -- there are the Area, District, and Sector commands, but that's just from an organizational perspective, not jurisdictional.
Cheers,
-CM-
Last edited:
Oh. Wait, are you referring to General Order 24? I said name a situation where Starfleet used military force as a response to a situation it did not precipitate. In that situation Starfleet was clearly provoked by a society that demanded that an entire ship voluntarily submit themselves to be murdered! It's not militaristic to defend yourself from harm.
That episode is nothing if not a cry for peace.
YARN
Fleet Captain
Actually, what you said was this:
when did Starfleet ever execute a military solution to any problem that wasn't already escalated to conflict level by a second party?
There is no escalating 2nd party in this instance. No Klingons. No Romulans. No hidden Andorians.
And if Anan 7 had not complied with Kirk? If Scotty had executed the order?
That's exactly what I mean. Coast Guard units operate in the great lakes too, independent of local commands who otherwise have jurisdiction over those waterways, not to mention local state governments who otherwise have jurisdiction over their own coastlines. I imagine the Federation Naval Patrol would work much the same way.
To be fair, not all countries have military forces. Costa Rica, for instance.
That's because they replaced it with a "Ministry of Public Security," much in the same way Japan's SDF is technically a part of its police force, at least on paper. I doubt they have need of much of a military as they aren't exactly high on anyone's list of places to conquer, and I'm sure the United States places them under its umbrella of protection. This is hardly comparable to the Federation.
"Some people" in this case would be Gene Roddenberry, who served during WW II.
What difference does that make? That certainly doesn't invalidate any of the evidence that points to Starfleet being a military, or the argument that much of this resistance comes from the viewpoint that the military is somehow evil.
It has considerably more impact on what was and wasn't done with the Franchise than your opinion, mine or that of anyone else here. Then there's the inconvenient fact that as a WW II veteran it's exceedingly unlikely that Roddenberry was motivated by the simplistic "viewpoint that the military is somehow evil." So it's worth another mention.
Years after GR's death, the producers/writers on Star Trek: Enterprise still troubled themselves to give the characters dialogue like (referencing the MACO marines) "I have no problem with having the military aboard Enterprise." It was considered that important, anyway.
Actions speak louder than words. Neither Gene Roddenberry's service in WWII, nor his apparent attitude change later in life, nor anything he said, nor anything characters said on screen really changes that.
However, if you feel it is so important a point, and you don't hold the simplistic view that the military is evil, then I would be happy to see what your thoughts on the topic are.
However, if you feel it is so important a point, and you don't hold the simplistic view that the military is evil, then I would be happy to see what your thoughts on the topic are.
The Eminiar were the 2nd party, obviously, and escalated the situation to conflict level by declaring their intent to take the Enterprise and murder the entire crew. If they had murdered the boarding party as they had declared their intention to do, wouldn't that have been an act of war, demanding a military response? How was this situation in any way precipitated by Starfleet?
Similar threads
