Why the Resistance to Starfleet as a Military?

[Sci]

Why my resistance? I dunno. But Starfleet not being military has always suggested a better future and I'm curious what that writers/producers think that looks like...a time when society isn't segregated between those who fight and those who don't.

How on Earth is the idea of a future where there are no more innocent civilians and everyone is a legitimate target in times of war a brighter future?

I don't know about brighter, but it would be a bit more honest. ANY time you engage in a war with enemies a certain amount of civilian casualties are inevitable; better to own up to those casualties and include them in your strategic planning from the get go than try to brush it off saying "Too bad, so sad... like they say, war is hell."

Bullshit. A set of societies in which a specialization of defense is made and in which honest attempts are made to protect the majority of the citizenry of both sides from the fighting -- even if some civilian casualties are unavoidable -- is far more moral, and far more enlightened, than one in which the whole of the people are considered combatants. The latter scenario is just begging to lead to genocide.

Lots of people disagreed with him for this, but I happen to agree with Heinlein's take in "Starship Troopers," though for slightly difference reasons. Heinlein's confederation was openly militaristic to the point that basic citizenship--voting rights and so on--are only earned through a minimum term of military service.

No, the Terran Federation of Starship Troopers required that citizenship be earned through federal service. That could mean military service, but it could also mean civilian service of some sort.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I'd think you'd need some pretty big-ass shield generators to consistently stop starship-size weapons. We're talking city-sized shields here. How are your landing troops going to erect those in a contested landing?

Each of DS9's three shield generators are the size of banquet tables, and this with fifty-year-old Cardassian technology. On the Starfleet end, the shield generators used in "Lessons" were considerably smaller. At least, not so large that you couldn't transport one in the back of a shuttlecraft.

The main problem may be power requirements, drawing energy from a fusion reactor as on a starship or a space station. OTOH, we don't really know the relationship between shields and reactor power, nor is it really understood what "shields at 38%" actually means. I would assume that most shield setups are actually based around some sort of capacitor that stores a fantastic amount of energy that can only be charged gradually by a ship's fusion reactors.

This has evidently never been a problem even in the ABSENCE of starships. Picard's trick of tunneling under Soran's forcefield might be a pretty typical tactic and he only resorted to a pre-existing gap for lack of a shovel.

Might. Or it might not and the defenders are usually smarter than leaving such an obvious hole in their defenses. Not to mention that, while you shovel, death is still raining on you from the sky.

I wouldn't exactly bet the farm on a starship's ability to reliably target and attack single individuals in rough terrain very close to urban population centers. OTOH, if you're the one LANDING on the planet in the first place, the defenders probably aren't going to sit there behind a wall of shields waiting for you to get into position to circumvent it and then attack at your leisure. They're probably going to counter-attack and keep you from mounting an effective assault; if they wait until your entire force is standing a few meters from your forcefield, it's probably too late.

That was just a small scale shield designed to stop people right? Not starship-grade weapons.

It's a fifty gigawatt forcefield. Depending on how shields actually work, that's almost on par with a starship's defense shields.

And anyway, something like that might be posible - but why are you supposing it would be any easier than just doing some technobabble from orbit...

Because a military organization would have a purpose-built device specifically for the job of compromising enemy shields for boarding purposes (the Klingons have one that is effective against small security fields, for example, as do the Jem'hadar). On some level this would simple be another facet of ECM/ECCM, but a military organization would have specialists who spend most of their time practicing the art of shield/jammer/scrambler penetration.

I'm not denying you need ground troops to finish a battle/war. But you don't lose your control of interstellar space just because your ground assault failed.

Then why do you cite Okinawa and the Phillipines, in both cases of which the ground assault DIDN'T fail?

That, after all, was my point about Guadalcanal. The Japanese WERE able to land a sizeable ground force after the U.S. Navy was forced to pull put. They were unable to retake the island, and the Marines remained in control until reinforcements could return. The difficulties experienced by the Japanese would have been compounded a thousand fold if they were attempting to assault an entire PLANET, where the defending Marines would have a zillion places to hide ammo caches, spare parts, setup ambushes and launch raids on their supply lines. Add another three dozen Henderson Fields each with the local Pappy Boyington running a squadron.

And here's the clincher: though the space war dials up everything else in this equation, the only thing that DOESN'T change is the size of the invading force. Even if the Romulan fleet is ten times as large as the military of the entire human race, the Romulan EMPIRE spans hundreds of worlds and hundreds of light years that have to be tightly controlled at all time or risk rebellion by its various subjects; concentrating the bulk of their fleet to capture a single planet may be strategically impossible.

I'm not sure how that is different from sea/ocean borders?

Because the Ocean is a two-dimensional surface with a series of lines that an attacking force MUST cross in order to enter attack range of an enemy target. Not so with space, where that "line" becomes a vast plane rolled into a spheroid with a surface area that could cover a thousand billion pacific oceans.

Why? The Dominion managed to stop all but one Starfleet ship from reaching the wormhole. It took the Klingons to breach their lines and even then only one ship got through at first.

I still haven't figured out why they bothered to slow to impulse and engage the Dominion in the first place. Their fleet was clustered together in a tight formation a couple dozen kilometers across; it wouldn't have cost them anything to send a dozen of their fastest ships to go AROUND them at warp speed, assuming they bothered to slow to sublight at all, and again... why did they slow down in the first place?

I admit it, this one just leaves me utterly confused.

A small escort is enough if your protecting against a small scale pirate or raider attack. But what if your convoys run into a 200 hundred ship strong fleet?

I expect the inexplicable plot contrivances will cancel each other out; the troop transport will slow to impulse for some reason, and those 200 ships will all attack one at a time.

Realistically, though: if the enemy has a fleet that big just to intercept three transports and two escorts, chances are your entire command staff is in contact with his intelligence service, which means the interception fleet is the LEAST of your problems.

It's just that you were the one "accusing" me of subscribing such ulterior motives to Starfleet a few posts back.

Actually, I'm describing an ulterior motive of the POLITICIANS. Starfleet has always been pretty clear about its interest in natural resources.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

many fans -- some of whom are active in this thread -- view any form of military as inherently evil and feel that any society which has a military can't be particularly evolved.

Really? Like who?

Look, personally I DO think of Starfleet as the military from my POV as a 20th Century human. But then I have to remind myself that the folks in Trek are from a time where they've co-existed with alien lifeforms for centuries, and don't suffer from the various social problems we have today.

So it's not so hard for me to think "Well, when they say they aren't the military and they are a combined service they're speaking from a society that ISN'T 100% like mine so I can accept their views AND mine together."

So to us, they are the military; to them they see themselves as more than a military. Easily reconciled.

Sounds right to me.

 

[neozeks]

The only other case of orbital bombardment we've ever seen that would really fit the bill would be Enterprise' phasers stunning several Iotian gangsters in "A Piece of the Action."

There's also Voyager shooting down that shuttle that was flying only meters above ground in Alliances, I think. But Saito S is right, this is all a way OT tangent...

many real-world military organizations (including the US) devote sizable amounts of resources to non-combative tasks helping people in danger or need.

But never more--or even AS MUCH--as they do for defense, unlike Starfleet.

Now I'm really repeating myself, I think I said this at least three times in this thread - but what about the US Coast Guard?

 

[Sci]

many real-world military organizations (including the US) devote sizable amounts of resources to non-combative tasks helping people in danger or need.

But never more--or even AS MUCH--as they do for defense, unlike Starfleet.

Now I'm really repeating myself, I think I said this at least three times in this thread - but what about the US Coast Guard?

Exactly. The United States Coast Guard is as much a military as the United States Navy, but its primary duty is maritime law enforcement rather than foreign defense.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

How on Earth is the idea of a future where there are no more innocent civilians and everyone is a legitimate target in times of war a brighter future?

I don't know about brighter, but it would be a bit more honest. ANY time you engage in a war with enemies a certain amount of civilian casualties are inevitable; better to own up to those casualties and include them in your strategic planning from the get go than try to brush it off saying "Too bad, so sad... like they say, war is hell."

Bullshit. A set of societies in which a specialization of defense is made and in which honest attempts are made to protect the majority of the citizenry of both sides from the fighting -- even if some civilian casualties are unavoidable -- is far more moral, and far more enlightened, than one in which the whole of the people are considered combatants. The latter scenario is just begging to lead to genocide.

I don't think so. Most of the western countries that laud themselves on their moral clarity are very much fans of the concept of total war. While you should not go out of your way to target civilians, any civilian infrastructure becomes a valid target if it in any way benefits the enemy's war effort. In this sense, civilian casualties sustained during Total War operations can always be dismissed as "Somebody else's problem."

OTOH, intentional total war means targeting and assassinating members of the enemy population because they possess certain skills and knowledge beneficent to the war effort. You target ALL of the enemy's civilian assets; not just his shipyards, but the managers, the dock workers, the engineers, anyone of any importance who might be able to run the yard efficiently.

I suspect this is just a matter of subjective judgment, but I happen to think that a man who sets out to murder two people has a better moral position than the man who only intends to kill one and accidentally kills a second. If you take it as a given that both murders are justified by the circumstances--as in the case of war--then the first man must take direct responsibility for both deaths, both to his superiors and to his own conscience. The second man only needs to take responsibility for one, and can handwave the second as "shit happens."

No, the Terran Federation of Starship Troopers required that citizenship be earned through federal service. That could mean military service, but it could also mean civilian service of some sort.

I'll have to read it again (it's been a while), but I thought it was implied in the entire process that this ESSENTIALLY meant military service of some sort (Rico's crappy grades disqualifying him from just about everything else).

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Now I'm really repeating myself, I think I said this at least three times in this thread - but what about the US Coast Guard?

If the Coast Guard was the only naval force we possessed, then I would have to think about it. But it's not, it's one of many organizations administered by the Department of Defense, which makes it a military organization.

IS Starfleet part of the Federation DoD (or equivalent office)? If so, THAT would make them a military organization. If they do not--as the Coast Guards of many countries don't--then they would be either a gredarmerie or a paramilitary organization by modern definitions. And this summarizes very nicely my entire point that militaries are not defined by their actions. MANY coast guards are military organizations despite the fact that they serve virtually no warfighting role of any kind; many others are civilian organizations DESPITE their warfighting role, because they are not part of their country's legally designated defense departments.

So who is it? Department of Defense? Department of Planetary Security? Department of Space and Navigation? Federation Aeronautics and Space Administration? Or let's put that another way: who has more influence over Starfleet's actions, the Federation Security Council, or the Federation Science Council?

 

[Arpy]

A few bits:

Picard said "uniform code of justice" - no "military".

Starfleet Intelligence (Military Intellience) seemed to be the Federation's main intelligence agency. In current free societies, the intelligence agencies are separate from the military as the Obsidian Order is from Central Command. So either the Federation is a commie dictatorship or it works differently than we're accustomed to.

The "Federation News Service" has a Utopian, things are different in the future. connotation to it as well. You could also interpret it as just another news agency (FNS, NBC, etc) or Glen Beck style as Federation Big Brother media. Again, it's what you want it to be.

 

[neozeks]

If the Coast Guard was the only naval force we possessed, then I would have to think about it. But it's not, it's one of many organizations administered by the Department of Defense, which makes it a military organization.

Erm. That's actually not true. The US Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security. Historically it was part of the Department of the Treasury and then the Department of Transportation. It can be transferred to the Department of Defense in time of war, that is true.

 

[Sector 7]

I am currently re-watching STIV: The Voyage Home. One of the best arguments for StarFleet being a military is the fact that our beloved crew are on their way back to face Courts Martial, a military trial.

 

[Arpy]

How on Earth is the idea of a future where there are no more innocent civilians and everyone is a legitimate target in times of war a brighter future?

I don't know about brighter, but it would be a bit more honest. ANY time you engage in a war with enemies a certain amount of civilian casualties are inevitable; better to own up to those casualties and include them in your strategic planning from the get go than try to brush it off saying "Too bad, so sad... like they say, war is hell."

Bullshit.

Please don't be rude.

A set of societies in which a specialization of defense is made and in which honest attempts are made to protect the majority of the citizenry of both sides from the fighting -- even if some civilian casualties are unavoidable -- is far more moral, and far more enlightened, than one in which the whole of the people are considered combatants.

That is an enlightened system we have today and works today. But the Jews being German civilians didn't stop the Nazis from seeing them as enemies, nor the Armenian/Greek citizens by the Turks. If the Founders or the Sheliak could get rid of the Federation threat, they wouldn't necessarily care who's in Starfleet and who's not.

The latter scenario is just begging to lead to genocide.

Only if one allows labels to excuse evil. Anyone can be drafted a soldier if the need arises. Do you use that as an excuse to commit genocide? Also, nations in war are subject to the Geneva Conventions - they can't just kill/torture soldiers indiscriminately because they're classified as soldiers. The underlying issue is morality and the best way to see it done justice, not the evolving systems we come up with the see that happen.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If the Coast Guard was the only naval force we possessed, then I would have to think about it. But it's not, it's one of many organizations administered by the Department of Defense, which makes it a military organization.

Erm. That's actually not true. The US Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security. Historically it was part of the Department of the Treasury and then the Department of Transportation. It can be transferred to the Department of Defense in time of war, that is true.

Weird, I was under the very strong impression that it has been administered by the DoD ever since the U.S. invaded Iraq, but I am suddenly unable to find a source for this. Dang.

In any case, my point is that the reason the Coast Guard is a military organization is because U.S. law flat out SAYS it is:

The Coast Guard as established 28 January 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. The Coast Guard shall be a service in the Department of Homeland Security, except when operating as a service in the Navy.

The issue with Starfleet could be definitively settled if we could just track down the part of the Starfleet Charter that actually defines exactly what Starfleet is. No doubt that it's one of the Federation's uniformed services, but MILITARY authority is a separate issue.

 

[T'Girl]

Also, nations in war are subject to the Geneva Conventions

Usually only if they are a party to the treaties (signed and ratified), although there are exceptions. Plus the conventions don't cover a lot of things people seem to think they do.

 

[Sci]

Now I'm really repeating myself, I think I said this at least three times in this thread - but what about the US Coast Guard?

If the Coast Guard was the only naval force we possessed, then I would have to think about it. But it's not, it's one of many organizations administered by the Department of Defense, which makes it a military organization.

Actually, the United States Coast Guard is normally part of the Department of Homeland Security. It only moves to the Department of Defense during times of war or by executive order.

It's a military because it's defined as such by the United States Code, not because it's part of the Department of Defense. And it's a military whose primary duty is not foreign defense -- though that does remain one of its official duties -- which proves that that's not a binding rule for all militaries. It's a sufficient condition for something but not a necessary one.

IS Starfleet part of the Federation DoD (or equivalent office)?

Starfleet does answer to the Federation Secretary of Defense in the novels.

As for whether Starfleet's primary role is defense or exploration, I for one would suggest that it's both. A wise approach is to bear in mind that you never know what kinds of technologies and/or alliances you might find which you can use to defend yourself from foreign aggression in the course of exploration. Exploration is another means of national defense.

In current free societies, the intelligence agencies are separate from the military as the Obsidian Order is from Central Command.

You might want to tell that to the United States Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Agency, Army Military Intelligence, Marine Corps Intelligence Agency, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, Naval Security Agency, Office of Naval Intelligence, and, perhaps most famously, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), all of which are part of the United States Intelligence Community and all of which are part of the Department of Defense.

The "Federation News Service" has a Utopian, things are different in the future. connotation to it as well.

I don't see how the idea of there being a Federation News Service is Utopian-sounding. Certainly it doesn't sound any more Utopian to me than does the British Broadcasting Corporation and its news division, or than does the American Broadcasting Corporation or the National Broadcasting Corporation or the Columbia Broadcasting Corporation or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. For my money, I'd just infer that the Federation News Service is like the BBC -- an independent broadcasting company paid for out of a special tax levied upon the Federation people and directly collected by FNS or a lawfully-appointed agency, independently of the Federation government.

 

[Vincent Law]

THE military? I don't think so. Not all military organizations are the same, nor do all of them have the same history, the same duties, the same traditions.

But they tend to be very similar.

There's a limited number of things they all must have in order to be classified as militaries, however. You keep trying to drive this same tired point "But militaries can do that too," but it doesn't change the fact that the primary function of a military organization is to engage in combat against the nation's enemies. You keep saying "It does other things too!" as if those "other things" are as fundamental to the military mission as national defense. But they're not, not by a longshot, and that is NOT an oversimplification.

Yes, it is. Your odd focus on "primary" roles conveniently pushes aside everything the military does and historically has done. It's not just that the military can participate in exploration, humanitarian aid and the like, it's that it does and has throughout history. You also seem to be overlooking the role Starfleet has always been shown to play in defense of the Federation and its interests.

 

[Arpy]

In current free societies, the intelligence agencies are separate from the military as the Obsidian Order is from Central Command.

You might want to tell that to the United States Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Agency, Army Military Intelligence, Marine Corps Intelligence Agency, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, Naval Security Agency, Office of Naval Intelligence, and, perhaps most famously, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), all of which are part of the United States Intelligence Community and all of which are part of the Department of Defense.

Which is exactly what I made reference to with "Military Intelligence". You didn't quote that bit.

The "Federation News Service" has a Utopian, things are different in the future. connotation to it as well.

I don't see how the idea of there being a Federation News Service is Utopian-sounding. Certainly it doesn't sound any more Utopian to me than does the British Broadcasting Corporation and its news division, or than does the American Broadcasting Corporation or the National Broadcasting Corporation or the Columbia Broadcasting Corporation or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. For my money, I'd just infer that the Federation News Service is like the BBC -- an independent broadcasting company paid for out of a special tax levied upon the Federation people and directly collected by FNS or a lawfully-appointed agency, independently of the Federation government.

Ditto when I said, "FNS, NBC, etc."

You often post windy replies thinking they'll distract from the fact that they say little new.

Numerous people have commented on how long and repetitive this thread is. I almost didn't click on it at all, knowing it'd be like so many others – let new fans go at it from the top, citing that line there and this reference here. I was about to leave when I noticed a request for something new, a different perspective, and I think I supplied it.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Your odd focus on "primary" roles conveniently pushes aside everything the military does and historically has done. It's not just that the military can participate in exploration, humanitarian aid and the like, it's that it does and has throughout history.

I heard you the first time, and the second. It does not change the fact that exploration and humanitarianism are not the primary roles of a military organization, national defense is.

You also seem to be overlooking the role Starfleet has always been shown to play in defense of the Federation and its interests.

Not overlooking anything at all. Starfleet plays a role in MANY things, but I have no reason to attempt to shoehorn the entire fleet into any of those additional roles, because Starfleet officers have REPEATEDLY pointed out that Starfleet's enduring priority is the exploration of space.

By the same token, the military's many secondary roles do not change the fact that it IS a military. The Navy it doesn't become a "charitable volunteer organization" just because they're the first to respond to any natural disaster in the western hemisphere. It's a military, as defined by law; even if the Navy did nothing else for seven consecutive years except hand out disaster relief to hurricane victims, it would STILL be a military organization, and its primary role would still be to defend the United States against potential enemies.

What, under Federation law, is Starfleet's statutory role? Novels notwithstanding (Secretary of Defense? That's kinda pushin it...) there's nothing in Trek canon that establishes this either way. Of course the issue is even trickier given that Starfleet is a charter organization and doesn't appear to HAVE a statutory role so defined. The Starfleet charter may very well define what Starfleet is in relation to the Federation or it may leave it intentionally vague, we don't really know.

One thing we DO know is that the phrase "to boldly go where no man has gone before" comes from the Starfleet charter. In "The Measure of a Man" Picard is possibly quoting the charter again when he says "Starfleet was created to seek out new life!" It's therefore not much of a stretch to the assumption that Starfleet's mission is defined by its charter: "To explore new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before."

 

[Sci]

What, under Federation law, is Starfleet's statutory role?

They're the only Federation defense agency we've ever seen. They're armed and they take orders from the government. They have a uniform code of justice. They operate a system of courts-martial. They can be called upon to occupy the state in State of Emergency that are de facto declarations of martial law. And they've been referred to as a military on numerous occasions.

I'm inclined to infer from this that the Federation Starfleet's statutory role is as a military.

Novels notwithstanding (Secretary of Defense? That's kinda pushin it...)

Why? We know from DS9's "Extreme Measures" that the Federation President has a Cabinet just like modern governments do. Why wouldn't the Federation have a Secretary of Defense?

One thing we DO know is that the phrase "to boldly go where no man has gone before" comes from the Starfleet charter. In "The Measure of a Man" Picard is possibly quoting the charter again when he says "Starfleet was created to seek out new life!" It's therefore not much of a stretch to the assumption that Starfleet's mission is defined by its charter: "To explore new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before."

I will happily agree with the idea that exploration is part of the Federation Starfleet Charter, and would argue that it is co-equal with defense. Though I feel compelled to point out, again, that a charter doesn't always mean the organization so chartered existed before the charter was created; the United Nations did not exist before the U.N. Charter was ratified, for instance.

ETA:

In current free societies, the intelligence agencies are separate from the military as the Obsidian Order is from Central Command.

You might want to tell that to the United States Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Agency, Army Military Intelligence, Marine Corps Intelligence Agency, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, Naval Security Agency, Office of Naval Intelligence, and, perhaps most famously, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), all of which are part of the United States Intelligence Community and all of which are part of the Department of Defense.

Which is exactly what I made reference to with "Military Intelligence". You didn't quote that bit.

Because all you did was equate Starfleet Intelligence with military intelligence. Your next sentence seemed to imply that you were unaware that the United States and other free societies still operate military intelligence agencies.

The "Federation News Service" has a Utopian, things are different in the future. connotation to it as well.

I don't see how the idea of there being a Federation News Service is Utopian-sounding. Certainly it doesn't sound any more Utopian to me than does the British Broadcasting Corporation and its news division, or than does the American Broadcasting Corporation or the National Broadcasting Corporation or the Columbia Broadcasting Corporation or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. For my money, I'd just infer that the Federation News Service is like the BBC -- an independent broadcasting company paid for out of a special tax levied upon the Federation people and directly collected by FNS or a lawfully-appointed agency, independently of the Federation government.

Ditto when I said, "FNS, NBC, etc."

Because I was only responding to one assertion you made. In particular, you only said, "You could also interpret it as just another news agency (FNS, NBC, etc) or Glen Beck style as Federation Big Brother media." You did not present a third possibility -- that the Federation News Service is, rather than just another privately-owned broadcaster or the official government propaganda channel, is instead an independent, taxpayer-funded broadcaster akin to the BBC or CBC.

You often post windy replies thinking they'll distract from the fact that they say little new.

You are welcome to ignore me if I so bother you.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

What, under Federation law, is Starfleet's statutory role?

They're the only Federation defense agency we've ever seen. They're armed and they take orders from the government. They have a uniform code of justice. They operate a system of courts-martial. They can be called upon to occupy the state in State of Emergency that are de facto declarations of martial law. And they've been referred to as a military on numerous occasions.

Which, while interesting, wasn't what I asked, now is it?

I'm inclined to infer from this that the Federation Starfleet's statutory role is as a military.

And I'm inclined to infer from other evidence that it isn't (we've been over that in exhaustive detail already).

The broader issue is that since Starfleet operates under a charter it leaves open the possibility that Starfleet does not actually HAVE a statutory role.

Why? We know from DS9's "Extreme Measures" that the Federation President has a Cabinet just like modern governments do. Why wouldn't the Federation have a Secretary of Defense?

I was alluding to the fact that this is an overt Americanization of the Federation's government (there's alot of that going on in the novels; some cases are handled better than others). More specifically because I don't see a Federation of planets with a population of tens of billions being governed by a pure presidential system, but that's a whole other discussion.

I will happily agree with the idea that exploration is part of the Federation Starfleet Charter, and would argue that it is co-equal with defense. Though I feel compelled to point out, again, that a charter doesn't always mean the organization so chartered existed before the charter was created; the United Nations did not exist before the U.N. Charter was ratified, for instance.

Considering that Section 31 still exists well into the 24th century, it's perfectly clear that STARFLEET did.

OTOH, even given how little we know about the Starfleet charter, no one has even SUGGESTED that its military role is co-equal with its exploratory role. If anything, it would seem to be co-equal with ALL OF ITS OTHER roles. Considering Section 31 appears in Article 14 of the Starfleet charter, it's entirely possible that Article 14 is the very one that defines Starfleet's authority as granted by United Earth (and later Federation) law in relation to external threats. Most of those sections undoubtedly spell out Starfleet's authorization in defense of their own ships and facilities, the others would define their duties in defense of Federation facilities and/or colonies and worlds. And then there's Section 31, which allows for "Extraordinary measures to be taken in time of an extreme threat."

And what exactly IS Section 31? A counterintelligence organization? A "branch of Starfleet intelligence"? A death squad? Or is it, more likely, something for which we don't really have a good word because Section 31--much like Starfleet in general--is a very different organization from anything we've ever seen and defies conventional definitions?

 

[Sci]

Why? We know from DS9's "Extreme Measures" that the Federation President has a Cabinet just like modern governments do. Why wouldn't the Federation have a Secretary of Defense?

I was alluding to the fact that this is an overt Americanization of the Federation's government (there's alot of that going on in the novels; some cases are handled better than others). More specifically because I don't see a Federation of planets with a population of tens of billions being governed by a pure presidential system, but that's a whole other discussion.

It's inaccurate to describe the governmental system established in the novels as a U.S.-style presidential system, actually. Yes, there are Secretaries of the various executive departments, but, as depicted in the novel Articles of the Federation, the Federation government is almost a sort of hybrid between the presidential and Westminster systems. The Federation President is required to serve as the presiding officer of meetings of the full Federation Council, and is required to appoint Councillors to the various committees (called sub-councils) of the full Federation Council, with confirmation from the full Council.

After this, the President is required to constantly consult with the relevant sub-council on a given situation, and in practice usually invites the relevant Councillors to meetings to discuss a given issue and work through to a solution along with the Cabinet Secretaries. The President also retains the option of presiding over any sub-council, though they usually restrict that to the Federation Security Council (which deals with Federation defense, and which is legally empowered to issue orders to the Federation Starfleet alongside the Federation President).

So the system seen in the novels is not presidentialism by any means -- the close working relationship between the President and the Council is more akin to the close relationship that usually exists being a Prime Minister and Parliament than the relationship that exists between a U.S. President and Congress (which is almost always distant at best, even when the same party controls the White House and Capitol Hill).

I will happily agree with the idea that exploration is part of the Federation Starfleet Charter, and would argue that it is co-equal with defense. Though I feel compelled to point out, again, that a charter doesn't always mean the organization so chartered existed before the charter was created; the United Nations did not exist before the U.N. Charter was ratified, for instance.

Considering that Section 31 still exists well into the 24th century, it's perfectly clear that STARFLEET did.

I don't think the existence of a criminal conspiracy within the Federation Starfleet is evidence of anything. I certainly wouldn't consider it evidence that the Federation Starfleet existed before it had a charter any more than I'd consider the existence of the Mafia within the U.S. to mean that the United States is a legal continuation of Italy.

And then there's Section 31, which allows for "Extraordinary measures to be taken in time of an extreme threat."

That's not what ENT's "Divergence" established. Rather, it established the following:

ARCHER: Phlox was kidnapped. Starfleet would never authorise that.

HARRIS [on monitor]: Reread the Charter, Article 14, Section 31. There are a few lines that make allowances for bending the rules during times of extraordinary threat.

Transcript here.

A line in a charter making an allowance for bending of rules in times of extraordinary crisis is a long way from one establishing "extraordinary measures in times of extreme threat."

And what exactly IS Section 31? A counterintelligence organization? A "branch of Starfleet intelligence"? A death squad? Or is it, more likely, something for which we don't really have a good word because Section 31--much like Starfleet in general--is a very different organization from anything we've ever seen and defies conventional definitions?

None of the above. It's a criminal conspiracy that uses a nonsense legal interpretation of Article 14, Section 31 of the United Earth Starfleet Charter to justify its existence and its actions. Canonically, Article 14 contains no mention of authorizing any organization to permanently exist and operate outside of the law with carte blanche to do whatever it wants. Section 31 (the organization) is just using a B.S. interpretation of that line to justify their existence.

And given Sloan's line in "Inquisition" about Section 31 being part of the "original" Starfleet Charter, it's questionable that Article 14, Section 31 is even in legal effect anymore.