Why the Resistance to Starfleet as a Military?

[Vincent Law]

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.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Gene Rodenberry insisted it wasn't military.

He also insisted that STV and VI didn't really happen, and that there was no money in the future even after we saw the TOS crew buying things with credits and discussing pay.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Starfleet is obviously a military. We've all seen it.

It is not, however, militaristic. Big difference.

 

[Vanyel]

I always saw it as an old world navy. Military ships would do exploring, diplomacy (In most cases at the barrel of a gun.) and fight. Starfleet is no different. Even subspace communication is too slow to conduct real time negotiations with distant worlds; so a starship, like a Galaxy class, is well prepared to start informal or formal negotiations and, if necessary, bring an ambassador to sign formal treaties. Smaller ships like an Intrepid class are also capable of doing the same thing, just on a smaller scale.

For example: A Galaxy class can hold negotiations for multiple parties at once, to stop a war or prevent one. An Intrepid class could hold more private negotiations with one party, purely for Federation interests.

 

[Vincent Law]

Starfleet is obviously a military. We've all seen it.

It is not, however, militaristic. Big difference.

Could you perhaps elaborate further?

 

[T'Girl]

Starfleet is obviously a military. We've all seen it.

It is not, however, militaristic. Big difference.

Could you perhaps elaborate further?

I fail to understand your point as well.
It's like saying "there's the hospital, oh but it's not medical."

 

[neozeks]

Because some people simplistically think military=evil. Yes, the function of a military (well, it's primary function) is to fight and to do that it often has to kill. But the military itself is just a tool. What's evil (or good) is the way you use it and the things that lead you to use it in that way - imperialism, militarism, etc.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I think Kirk said it best that Starfleet was "a combined service." Simple. Straight to the point. Covers all the bases.


'Nuff said.

 

[neozeks]

Starfleet is obviously a military. We've all seen it.

It is not, however, militaristic. Big difference.

Could you perhaps elaborate further?

Seems clear to me. Militaristic is non an adjective of the noun 'military'. Militarism is a philosophy, an outlook that values and glorifies the military, combat and agressiveness and the use of those to pursue national (mostly imperialistic and expansionist) goals, above and to the detriment of everything else. Klingons are militaristic, their entire society is based around the warrior class and it's ideals. Starfleet is not militaristic, it glorifies it's peaceful missions and regards the use of military force only as a neccessary evil and something to be used as a last resort.

 

[AstroSmurf]

I think Kirk said it best that Starfleet was "a combined service." Simple. Straight to the point. Covers all the bases.


'Nuff said.

Beautiful. I think that sums things up the best.

 

[Vincent Law]

I often find I am somewhat at odds with how some people view the military then. Perhaps because I was once a member of it adds to my perspective. You'll find that most soldiers hardly look to the use of military force as anything other than a last measure because it tends to lower their lifespans. The military also tends to provide humanitarian aid following major disasters, such as following that tsunami a few years back. It also still participates in scientific research and exploration. In that way I find the modern US military no more militaristic than Starfleet.

Regardless, I would like Mr. Laser Beam to elaborate for himself.

 

[JiNX-01]

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.

I don't resist the idea that Starfleet is a branch of Earth's military.

But the fact is that there are way too many instances across the five series pointing to a lax approach to military discipline except in instances of dereliction of duty or criminal behavior, and even then, courts martial are extremely rare -- particularly for the regulars -- and when they are disciplined, it's always temporary.
Fraternization is clearly not prohibited.
In the 24th century, children live with their parents on starships or space stations, including those that can come under threat and become a battlefront. And saucer separations seem to be rare, even when a fight is inevitable.

 

[Vincent Law]

Being a lax military wouldn't make it not a military anymore. The other service branches consider the Air Force to be lax by their standards, but that doesn't make the Air Force any less of a military service.

As for children living aboard ship in TNG, if you view the ship as a large mobile base, this isn't quite as absurd as it might otherwise be.

Either way, it comes down to the use of military force in armed conflict and who uses it. The Federation has no other service which uses military force in any of the instances seen on screen. In both TOS and DS9, when war was actually declared, Starfleet was engaging in battles, not some other force. When it comes to ENT, this is somewhat more ambiguous, but then Earth Starfleet is not the Federation Starfleet. While Earth has the MACOs, it seems to lack a space-borne military force.

 

[The Wormhole]

In TOS Starfleet was the military. It was depicted as one talked about like one, its personnel behaved like military personnel. It was a military by every relevant definition of the word. Problem was there was no instance where anyone directly referred to Starfleet as the military. Which left wiggle room when the other series began denying Starfleet was a military, which stems from nothing but ignorance from the writing staffs of those shows about what a military actually is.

Sadly, there are more than a few lines of dialogue which claim Starfleet isn't military, which is why a lot of fans stick so passionately to that argument. Even Trek XI tries to dance around the issue by referring to Starfleet as a "humanitarian peacekeeping force." Even though that still sounds like a military to me, we're supposed to pretend that it doesn't.

 

[BillJ]

If it shoots like a military and kills like a military, then odds are it's a military.

 

[MedicalHologram]

By the time Roddenberry got into TNG, it became clear that he was envisioning a much less militaristic Federation. After all, they had families living on the flagship. I think that it was soon realized that having such a toothless Federation didn't make sense. That's why I like the depiction of the Federation in the post-DS9 world.

 

[scotpens]

I always saw it as an old world navy. Military ships would do exploring, diplomacy (In most cases at the barrel of a gun.) and fight. Starfleet is no different. Even subspace communication is too slow to conduct real time negotiations with distant worlds; so a starship . . . is well prepared to start informal or formal negotiations and, if necessary, bring an ambassador to sign formal treaties.

Exactly. G.R.’s original concept was Captain Horatio Hornblower in space.

From The Making of Star Trek:

When you consider it, the Enterprise is doing the same kind of job naval vessels used to do several hundred years ago. In those days ships of the major powers were assigned to patrol specific areas of the world’s oceans. They represented their governments in those areas and protected the national interests of their respective countries. Out of contact with the admiralty office back home for long periods of time, the captains of those ships had very broad discretionary powers. These included regulating trade, fighting bush wars, putting down slave traders, lending aid to scientific expeditions, conducting exploration on a broad scale, engaging in diplomatic exchanges and affairs, and even becoming involved in such minor matters as searching for lost explorers or helping down-and-out travelers return to their homes.

Roddenberry wanted the atmosphere aboard the Enterprise to be a bit more laid-back than a traditional military, e.g., no salutes. Military Lite, if you will, but still military.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

You'll find that most soldiers hardly look to the use of military force as anything other than a last measure because it tends to lower their lifespans. The military also tends to provide humanitarian aid following major disasters, such as following that tsunami a few years back. It also still participates in scientific research and exploration.

Interesting perspective. I'm sure part of the problem is the general lack of awareness about the humanitarian and exploration aspects.

Starfleet has more of a policing function (at least in TOS) than any modern military I can think of, since nations no longer have far flung colonies to keep track of.

Even Trek XI tries to dance around the issue by referring to Starfleet as a "humanitarian peacekeeping force."

Humanitarian missions have a tendency to turn into shootouts, when whoever is causing the humanitarian crisis shows up with thugs and guns. That's true on Earth and in Star Trek, so even if your mission were solely humanitarian, it wouldn't stay that way for long if you wanted to be at all effective. It always comes down to power. If you want to get your way, you need to enforce your will versus the other power-wielders, who will have their own ideas.

 

[Vincent Law]

The amusing thing about STXI is that the phrasing used was, "peacekeeping armada," which is something of a contradiction.

 

[captcalhoun]

starfleet is the military. deal with it.