Why the Resistance to Starfleet as a Military?

[Robert DeSoto]

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.

Actually, there was. In the Wrath of Khan, Starfleet was called the military several times. Admiral Leyton's attempted coup d'etat was called a military dictatorship. There might be more, I don't know.

I agree with the OP that Starfleet is the Federation's military and all this exploration talk is Federation propaganda. Just like how the Defiant isn't a warship, its an "escort vessel". Even the Klingons called the Constitution class starship a battle cruiser. When the TNG crew lost its memory, Worf believed the Enterprise was a battleship based on its armament. All of Starfleet's "ships of exploration" are so well armed that anyone not subjected to Federation propaganda would recognize them as warships.

But to play devil's advocate, it is true that the primary mission of Starfleet has always been peaceful exploration and scientific research, like NASA. But in addition, Starfleet is also given the responsibility for protecting the Federation. So in that sense, it is not a military organization because although defending the Federation is part of Starfleet's mandate, it isn't the primary function.

The "peacekeeping armada" makes no sense however. Armada, yes, peacekeeping, no. Starfleet has never been involved in peacekeeping missions. They would probably think it violates the prime directive to deploy Starfleet security officers as a peacekeeping force.

 

[Mojochi]

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

It is not, however, militaristic. Big difference.

Could you perhaps elaborate further?

Militarism: A practice of subordinating all other interests to those of the military.

Often that ideal manifests the tendency to place priority on either conquest, or isolationism, two traits which Starfleet does not exhibit, opting more for strong defense through fellowship & alliance

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

As it would appear, that combination is military, diplomacy & science. The prominence of each is entirely dependent on the individual missions. Although Starfleet seems to most value the seeking out of "New life & new civilizations". This would seem to suggest that diplomacy & science hold higher priority. The military structure would only seem to be a necessary addition to the primary goal, as it is certain that the potential exists for these new lifeforms & civilizations to pose a violent threat

 

[F. King Daniel]

FWIW, the aborted Romulan War movie Star Trek: The Beginning (cancelled in favour of JJ's reboot) was to feature fighter pilots from the United Earth Space Navy, which was set to merge with Starfleet in the forthcoming Coalition of Planets.

 

[C.E. Evans]

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

As it would appear, that combination is military, diplomacy & science. The prominence of each is entirely dependent on the individual missions. Although Starfleet seems to most value the seeking out of "New life & new civilizations". This would seem to suggest that diplomacy & science hold higher priority. The military structure would only seem to be a necessary addition to the primary goal, as it is certain that the potential exists for these new lifeforms & civilizations to pose a violent threat

I wish this could be put up in a FAQ sticky.

 

[T'Girl]

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.

Which doesn't mean those ships and stations are not military. People do take their children into (semi) dangerous situations because they want them close. I was born on a US military base in (then) West Germany in 1987, not to far from the "Funda Gap," My parents put their five children directly in the path of Soviet tank columns because they wanted us close to them.

This would seem to suggest that diplomacy & science hold higher priority.

But diplomacy and the military have always historically gone hand in hand. I don't know how many of you have ever been in a foreign American embassy before, but usual the first person you meet walking through the door is a armed United States Marine. All American ambassadors, including ambassadors in friendly countries, are backed up by their nations military. Picard, a member of a uniformed service (how else would you say it), was frequently seen engaging in diplomacy and forming treaties without Federation civilian government personnel present.

It really not that unusual for a diplomatic negotiations to include military officers at some point, the most resent (and flawed) START treaty that is working it way through congress had obvious military participation. Even trade treaties often will include military aspects. Historically, treaties with foreign countries have entirely been formulated by military officers, before being ratified by congress.

 

[sbk1234]

I think people often look at Star Trek with their own idealism - which is not always realistic or practical. It's easy to be idealistic when looking at a TV show. Many are strongly opposed to guns, weapons, and the like and would like to see them banned. In this vein, many would like to see the military disbanded. However, the situation inevitably will rise when another group will attack/invade and it will be necessary to defend one's self, or one's allies. In a case like this, such idealism may not work too well. Those weapons will be needed, and killing may be necessary. Star Trek has shown such situations.
In other words, without military, where would the Federation be when the Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, Dominion, Breen, Tholians, etc. decide to attack?


It also speaks to people's definition of military. Many people see the word "military" as meaning "agressive, and pro-war." This is not necessarily the mission of the military.
In Star Trek, I've always seen it as military with the mission of exploration, support, and defense.

Am I explaining myself clearly? I have a feeling my thoughts are a bit jumbled.

 

[captcalhoun]

made perfect sense to me.

 

[neozeks]

So in that sense, it is not a military organization because although defending the Federation is part of Starfleet's mandate, it isn't the primary function.

Actually, it doesn't have to be. The primary mission of the US Coast Guard isn't combat - though it does that too - yet it is still considered a military organization (but I'm not sure how many people are aware of this). In fact, the USCG is a perfect example of a non-militaristic military organization.

But given how often we've seen Starfleet engage in combat, I'd say the defence mission is at least as equally important to Starfleet as exploration. It's just that exploration is it's prefered mission, the one it wants to do and the one it promotes. Defence is the mission it has to do.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

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.

I interpreted that line not to mean that Starfleet isn't military, but rather the opposite - that it's the ONLY military in the Federation. Meaning this: the Federation doesn't have an army, navy, air force, etc. - it has only Starfleet. Only one branch.

Kind of like Canada, in a way (the Canadian Forces are the entire military, which comprise all of Canada's needs - air, ground or sea).

 

[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.

Beautiful. I think that sums things up the best.

I interpreted that line not to mean that Starfleet isn't military, but rather the opposite - that it's the ONLY military in the Federation. Meaning this: the Federation doesn't have an army, navy, air force, etc. - it has only Starfleet. Only one branch.

That's why we can never have nice things...

 

[Colonel Midnight]

So in that sense, it is not a military organization because although defending the Federation is part of Starfleet's mandate, it isn't the primary function.

Actually, it doesn't have to be. The primary mission of the US Coast Guard isn't combat - though it does that too - yet it is still considered a military organization (but I'm not sure how many people are aware of this). In fact, the USCG is a perfect example of a non-militaristic military organization.

<Edited for brevity>

Beat me to it...

Cheers,
-CM-

 

[Navigator_NCC2120]

Didn't the book "The Making of Star Trek" describe Starfleet as a paramilitary organization?


Navigator NCC-2120 USS Entente
/\

 

[BillJ]

"That's the first thing that would be lost! Excuse me, gentlemen. I'm a soldier, not a diplomat. I can only tell you the truth." - James Kirk, Errand of Mercy

 

[Mirror_Barclay]

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.

He could be full of it, trying to retcon some great stuff... but I don't recall any ST V either. I think Gene's right there.

(Although I always wondered why ST VI was "The Apology.")

More seriously, the non-military thing always bugged me, most especially regarding the Defiant.

"It isn't a warship! It's an escort"

= "That's not a fruit, why on earth would you think that? It's an apple."

Calling an apple a banana doesn't disguise the fact that it's a fruit. Calling a 'strike cruiser' or whatever the Defiant really is an 'escort' (which in fact is what it does part of the time) doesn't make it sound any less military.

 

[Anwar]

That's somewhat for political reasons, if the rest of the Trek species hostile to the Feds knew about the Defiant being a more pure warship they'd be suspicious and it could either negatively impact relations or cause an upping of militarization from all the others and more hostility to the Feds. Calling the Defiant an "Escort" is more a way of hiding it.

All those other ships made after it like the Akira, Steamrunner, Saber and Norway classes are all warships too. And the Sovereign is a Dreadnought but they call is a "Heavy Explorer" also as a way of hiding it.

 

[Robert DeSoto]

So in that sense, it is not a military organization because although defending the Federation is part of Starfleet's mandate, it isn't the primary function.

Actually, it doesn't have to be. The primary mission of the US Coast Guard isn't combat - though it does that too - yet it is still considered a military organization (but I'm not sure how many people are aware of this). In fact, the USCG is a perfect example of a non-militaristic military organization.

But given how often we've seen Starfleet engage in combat, I'd say the defence mission is at least as equally important to Starfleet as exploration. It's just that exploration is it's prefered mission, the one it wants to do and the one it promotes. Defence is the mission it has to do.

There are many countries in which the Coast Guard isn't considered part of the military.

Look, like I said, I agree, Starfleet should be considered a military force. I'm just saying, you ask any Starfleet officer and they'll say they're explorers first, and soldiers second. That's why Starfleet doesn't consider itself a military organization.

IMO, I don't really care how much exploring Starfleet does. Your ships are very well armed, your personnel carry small arms, and everyone has to take a oath to defend the United Federation of Planets. That to me sounds like a military, but Starfleet will never admit it.

 

[sbk1234]

It's a military organization whose primary mission is one of denial.

 

[Vincent Law]

Whether they consider themselves to be soldiers first and foremost or second is irrelevant to the fact that they are still soldiers. That is the heart of the matter. TOS provides some examples of dialog to the effect of Starfleet being a military organization but from TNG and on, it seems that Gene Roddenberry had changed his mind on a number of things and hence the contradictions from that point forward. DS9 provides us with some examples of Starfleet definitely acting as a military force, even going as far as to organize ships into numbered fleets, the same way the US Navy did during WWII.

 

[Expendable]

Whether they consider themselves to be soldiers first and foremost or second is irrelevant to the fact that they are still soldiers. That is the heart of the matter. TOS provides some examples of dialog to the effect of Starfleet being a military organization but from TNG and on, it seems that Gene Roddenberry had changed his mind on a number of things and hence the contradictions from that point forward. DS9 provides us with some examples of Starfleet definitely acting as a military force, even going as far as to organize ships into numbered fleets, the same way the US Navy did during WWII.

But even within the numbered fleets and during times of war, the function isn't exactly "military" as we know it today.

 

[Vincent Law]

Actually from what I saw that seemed to be exactly the case, even if it wasn't nearly as effective as the modern military.