Would a series of Star Trek soldier/pilot novels work?
- Thread starter Iceburgeruk
- Start date
Vulcan has no army, JD. And it didn't have one prior to the existence of the Federation. That is a planetary culture with no army but a stack of spaceships capable of doing massive damage when required.
David:
The Genesis device was not designed to be a weapon but both Khan and Dr. McCoy immediately took it for one. Starfleet has never weaponized the transporter when it, alone, is arguably the most potentially lethal weapon in their arsenal. Like I said, a butter knife can be used to kill or spread butter. Doesn't make it a dagger.
David Marcus had a fairly big chip on his shoulder. I'm not sure his opinion could be taken for that of the average Federation citizen. His mother clearly didn't think she was working for the military and was genuinely surprised when "Starfleet" took her baby. Dr. McCoy has a fairly large and anti-military reaction to his discovery of the existence of Genesis.
We currently have a paramilitary organization empowered to do the majority of the things you listed. It's called BLACKWATER. As it gets bigger, I assume it will do more of those things.
And no one has named the military organization that has included families with children as part of permanent on-duty, "front line" personnel. No such animal. Explorers, however, have been known to make their business a family affair.
Starfleet resembles a modern military organization in some superficial ways and the Federation, as a society, resembles many things that are familiar to us but there's simply no way it could function (or, in fact, has been shown to function) the way our society does.
You guys are consistently assuming that what we've done so far in terms of military/civilian culture is the best or only option available. I'm assuming, in the centuries ahead, that we will do better than we have done. Massively better than what we've got now or have done before in fact.
It makes perfect sense that a society that has done away with ethnic hatred, racial division, gender discrimination and religious persecution and which has, at the same time, removed the need for capitalism and created technologies that provide, literally, anything you want from thin air, would be radically different than anything we recognize.
One of those differences, IMO, supported by the evidence, is that they've evolved away from having a military in favor of an exploratory fleet that can, when the need arises, retask itself for battle. That makes such a fleet, at most, a paramilitary organization according to the def I presented
Starfleet has been caught with its pants down too many times to consider itself a military organization. Its relearning curve for each major conflict is too steep.
Where are the figther "jets?" Where are the dedicated ground troops? Where is the infantry division that was once reprsented by the MACOs? "Security" is a fairly passive description for a devision tasked with all things military. None of the other Starfleet divisions come close. Therefore the personnel is composed, almost entirely, of non-combat officers. Not much of a military under that ratio.
In modern military crews, even ones doing research, the ratio of soldiers to scientists always skews heavily in favor of the soldier. I'm going to guess something like ten to one or more. As depicted on film, that ratio is reversed. This alone tells you that we're not dealing with a martial culture. No martial culture, no military. Simple. It's the future. They're better than we are.
Starfleet doesn't see itself as a military org. Some individual officers clearly do but that's just, like, their opinion, man.
David:
The Genesis device was not designed to be a weapon but both Khan and Dr. McCoy immediately took it for one. Starfleet has never weaponized the transporter when it, alone, is arguably the most potentially lethal weapon in their arsenal. Like I said, a butter knife can be used to kill or spread butter. Doesn't make it a dagger.
David Marcus had a fairly big chip on his shoulder. I'm not sure his opinion could be taken for that of the average Federation citizen. His mother clearly didn't think she was working for the military and was genuinely surprised when "Starfleet" took her baby. Dr. McCoy has a fairly large and anti-military reaction to his discovery of the existence of Genesis.
We currently have a paramilitary organization empowered to do the majority of the things you listed. It's called BLACKWATER. As it gets bigger, I assume it will do more of those things.
And no one has named the military organization that has included families with children as part of permanent on-duty, "front line" personnel. No such animal. Explorers, however, have been known to make their business a family affair.
Starfleet resembles a modern military organization in some superficial ways and the Federation, as a society, resembles many things that are familiar to us but there's simply no way it could function (or, in fact, has been shown to function) the way our society does.
You guys are consistently assuming that what we've done so far in terms of military/civilian culture is the best or only option available. I'm assuming, in the centuries ahead, that we will do better than we have done. Massively better than what we've got now or have done before in fact.
It makes perfect sense that a society that has done away with ethnic hatred, racial division, gender discrimination and religious persecution and which has, at the same time, removed the need for capitalism and created technologies that provide, literally, anything you want from thin air, would be radically different than anything we recognize.
One of those differences, IMO, supported by the evidence, is that they've evolved away from having a military in favor of an exploratory fleet that can, when the need arises, retask itself for battle. That makes such a fleet, at most, a paramilitary organization according to the def I presented
Starfleet has been caught with its pants down too many times to consider itself a military organization. Its relearning curve for each major conflict is too steep.
Where are the figther "jets?" Where are the dedicated ground troops? Where is the infantry division that was once reprsented by the MACOs? "Security" is a fairly passive description for a devision tasked with all things military. None of the other Starfleet divisions come close. Therefore the personnel is composed, almost entirely, of non-combat officers. Not much of a military under that ratio.
In modern military crews, even ones doing research, the ratio of soldiers to scientists always skews heavily in favor of the soldier. I'm going to guess something like ten to one or more. As depicted on film, that ratio is reversed. This alone tells you that we're not dealing with a martial culture. No martial culture, no military. Simple. It's the future. They're better than we are.
Starfleet doesn't see itself as a military org. Some individual officers clearly do but that's just, like, their opinion, man.
That just doesn't make a lick of sense. The Federation is surrounded by hostile powers who each do have specialist fighting forces. The Federation defence cannot rest on "well we don't do armies" and you cannot "retask" an anthropologist to be a solider in a couple of weeks - and expect them to take on crack Klingon or cardassian troopers - modern warfare is far more than giving someone a gun and saying "point it that way" - the specialism of "solider/warrior" has to exist. One the specialism exists, the infrastructure to support it has to exist.
As for retasking an anthropologist, or any civilian, in a couple of weeks, what the heck to you think boot camp is for?
No, it is not "surrounded" by hostile powers. Look at the maps. It has aggressive and sometimes dangerous neighbors (some of whom are allies). It is not nor has it ever been portrayed as being surrounded.
Starfleet business, exploration, places it in dangerous situations requiring explorer ships be able to defend themselves. Often their weaponry, despite its relative destructive power, has been woefully substandard.
Why, for instance, aren't all Constellation class (or Akira) outfitted with Genesis torpedoes. ONE of those would end most conversations. A goodly number of current battle vessels have nuclear missiles, our most destructive weapon. And yet, not once during the Borg conflict or the Dominion war, was such a device used.
Before someone puts up the prohibition against biogenic weapons, I again point out that Starfleet was in partnership with Carol Marcus on Genesis. Clearly, though it was obvious to at least two people that it was a deadly "biogenic" weapon, the reason it was being allowed be constructed was for more efficient terraforming. Starfleet simply does not see itself as a military.
I give up - your ideas about how a military operates and can operate read like parody to me. The concept that you can bootcamp an army into existence and the specialism of solider during the opening weeks of a conflict between nations possessing advanced technology and win is just laughable. You cannot train doctrine, culture and experience in weeks.
How Starfleet chooses to employ the technologies at its disposal has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is a military organization. You are confusing ethos/culture with structure/organizational characteristics.
Why is David Marcus's biased point of view any less valid than Picard's? Might it be because the latter serves your argument while the former does not?
I didn't ask you to name an organization that does the "majority" of those things, I said name one that meets all those characteristics. Blackwater doesn't fit the bill as a true military organization.
* It does not hold courts martial and is not subject to the United States' Uniform Code of Military Justice.
* It is not answerable solely to the civilian government (in fact, it is questionable whether it answers to any legitimate governmental body at all).
* It is not the primary organization charged with national defense.
* It is not permitted to own or operate capital ships.
Which better fits my definition of Starfleet as "military-plus" --- i.e., an enlightened military that adapts to the unique demands of extremely long-term deep-space exploration assignments.
This is a straw-man argument, as no one has posited such an argument.
No such assumptions have been made, Geoff. If anything, we've all agreed that Starfleet does represent an evolved and improved concept of a military organization. It's a benign military -- a truly futuristic and forward-thinking concept.
Except that your proposition fails every prima facie test, Geoff. If your model was correct, Starfleet would not have courts martial, nor a monopoly on national defense, or the ability to impose martial law. These terms would never have come up if that were Starfleet's origin. But there they are, liberally dispersed through 40 years of canon Star Trek.
Occam's Razor, Geoff --- the simplest explanation that fits the on-screen evidence is that Starfleet is a military organization that, like humanity and the Federation, has evolved into something nobler and more benign than what we currently think of as a military organization. Frankly, that makes much more sense than your postulate that a non-military organization just happens to have appropriated and regularly exhibits every single characteristic of a military organization, in form and function.
Incompetence does not negate the essential nature of the organization. All you've demonstrated here is that Starfleet is not particularly good at this aspect of its charged duties.
Immaterial. Another straw man argument, Geoff. None of these have ever been stated as being necessary to the constitution of a military organization. The ratio of ground combatants to flight officers actually makes a lot of sense when one considers that the majority of conflicts we've ever seen in Star Trek have been resolved through "naval" engagements.
Your definition does not jibe with the commonly accepted definition. Once again, you are conflating Starfleet's ethos with its organizational structure. They are two separate things, Geoff.
If your definition were correct, then any organization that adopts a belligerent, martial ethos would qualify as a military -- except that's not true.
In fact, the culture that informs the attitudes of a military is entirely separate from the question of its nature. A military organization can be relatively benign (such as the Papal Swiss Guards or United Nations Peacekeepers) or it can be genocidal and bloodthirsty (take your pick of the current crop of African warlords, or look to the Khmer Rouge, or the Nazis).
Culture and organization are not the same thing.
This is circular reasoning at best. You can repeat the same flawed definitions all you want, they won't change the incontrovertible facts that have been presented.
Based on strict definitions and the available evidence (excluding the multiply contradictory pieces of anecdotal canon material), Starfleet is a military organization.
You go on and on and on about the fact that Picard said Starfleet isn't a military and take that as a fact. But when for example Sisko says he is a soldier it's just his opinion? What makes Picard's statement more valid than Sisko's ?
Well. We'll have to agree to disagree at this point. I'm officially only continuing for the fun of play.
I feel the Paramilitary def is the best fit for Starfleet.
And, btw, Starfleet doesn't assume all defense responsibility. Many planetary cultures have been shown to maintain their own, non-Starfleet, forces.
David Marcus loses to Picard for two reasons.
1) He's not in Starfleet so his ideas about what Starfleet is, are less relevant. He is a radical and therefore not representative of the norm. He's shown to be even more radical than the other scientists on his mother's team.
2) Picard exists in Marcus's future. Picard is describing a Starfleet Marcus never met.
The timeline is this:
ENT era - Starfleet is a miliary org. Hostile universe, mostly unknown with massive xenophobia still present on Earth and a near extinction event at the hands of aliens. Beginning of the Romulan shooting war.
TOS era - Starfleet is a paramiltary org with many of the old guard still wearing the uniform and thinking in the old paradigm. Cold War conditions with both the Romulans and Klingons and, according to the books, the Tholians and some others.
TOS film era - the end of the military mindset with UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY. Smaller faction of military minds within Starfleet attempt coup. It fails and, post failure, Starfleet puts its feet down on being a non military org. Explorers with big guns only. Kirk, clearly a military mind, is depicted as necessary on occasion but not the norm. He's a maverick. He can't be a maverick unless he's in opposition to something. Since we know what Kirk is, we must conclude the mass of Starfleet, from top to bottom, is not that.
TNG/VOY era - Starfleet is a paramilitary only in its internal structure. Its guiding principles are massively altered (and mostly entrenched) as is its command structure (Councillors as bridge officers, families with children as permanent personnel).
It is the presence of children, incidentally, that most undercuts your argument and which, unsurprisingly, no one has adequately addressed.
Starfleet has police powers under very specific circumstances but is not the Federation's law enforcement any more than it is its army or navy. The assumption has been made that a society as big as the Federation must have an army and since no army has eer been shown, Starfleet must be that army.
why?
Both of those assumptions are based upon current and past conditions on Earth. The Federation is larger and more diverse than earth and exists FAR in our future. Why should either of those assumptions be correct? You can make your case, certainly, just as I have, by tossing thise bits that don't fit.
In fact the question is left intentionally muddy in the canon material and I think most of us know that.
I prefer to think the Future only includes the militaries of "foreign" cultures. OUR culture has moved beyond that.
DS9 Era and beyond-
A return to the original, primarily military set up is possible here due to the recent and devastating conflicts with the Borg, Dominion and, to some degree, the Romulans.
EXCEPT
The "back to business" mandate from the Federation sends not newly minted warships out on patrol but brand new, state-of-the-art explorer vessels out into the dark.
Even in the "Naval" eras of terrestrial warfare, the ratio of dedicated fighters ("infantry") to non-combatant officers skewed crazily toward the fighter class. The ratio is reversed for Starfleet and, really, always has been (post ENT).
This isn't straw and the razor won't cut it. It's simply a different interpretation of available facts. But it's totally supported by those facts.
It's an inkblot.
I feel the Paramilitary def is the best fit for Starfleet.
And, btw, Starfleet doesn't assume all defense responsibility. Many planetary cultures have been shown to maintain their own, non-Starfleet, forces.
David Marcus loses to Picard for two reasons.
1) He's not in Starfleet so his ideas about what Starfleet is, are less relevant. He is a radical and therefore not representative of the norm. He's shown to be even more radical than the other scientists on his mother's team.
2) Picard exists in Marcus's future. Picard is describing a Starfleet Marcus never met.
The timeline is this:
ENT era - Starfleet is a miliary org. Hostile universe, mostly unknown with massive xenophobia still present on Earth and a near extinction event at the hands of aliens. Beginning of the Romulan shooting war.
TOS era - Starfleet is a paramiltary org with many of the old guard still wearing the uniform and thinking in the old paradigm. Cold War conditions with both the Romulans and Klingons and, according to the books, the Tholians and some others.
TOS film era - the end of the military mindset with UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY. Smaller faction of military minds within Starfleet attempt coup. It fails and, post failure, Starfleet puts its feet down on being a non military org. Explorers with big guns only. Kirk, clearly a military mind, is depicted as necessary on occasion but not the norm. He's a maverick. He can't be a maverick unless he's in opposition to something. Since we know what Kirk is, we must conclude the mass of Starfleet, from top to bottom, is not that.
TNG/VOY era - Starfleet is a paramilitary only in its internal structure. Its guiding principles are massively altered (and mostly entrenched) as is its command structure (Councillors as bridge officers, families with children as permanent personnel).
It is the presence of children, incidentally, that most undercuts your argument and which, unsurprisingly, no one has adequately addressed.
Starfleet has police powers under very specific circumstances but is not the Federation's law enforcement any more than it is its army or navy. The assumption has been made that a society as big as the Federation must have an army and since no army has eer been shown, Starfleet must be that army.
why?
Both of those assumptions are based upon current and past conditions on Earth. The Federation is larger and more diverse than earth and exists FAR in our future. Why should either of those assumptions be correct? You can make your case, certainly, just as I have, by tossing thise bits that don't fit.
In fact the question is left intentionally muddy in the canon material and I think most of us know that.
I prefer to think the Future only includes the militaries of "foreign" cultures. OUR culture has moved beyond that.
DS9 Era and beyond-
A return to the original, primarily military set up is possible here due to the recent and devastating conflicts with the Borg, Dominion and, to some degree, the Romulans.
EXCEPT
The "back to business" mandate from the Federation sends not newly minted warships out on patrol but brand new, state-of-the-art explorer vessels out into the dark.
Even in the "Naval" eras of terrestrial warfare, the ratio of dedicated fighters ("infantry") to non-combatant officers skewed crazily toward the fighter class. The ratio is reversed for Starfleet and, really, always has been (post ENT).
This isn't straw and the razor won't cut it. It's simply a different interpretation of available facts. But it's totally supported by those facts.
It's an inkblot.
Last edited:
You go on and on and on about the fact that Picard said Starfleet isn't a military and take that as a fact. But when for example Sisko says he is a soldier it's just his opinion? What makes Picard's statement more valid than Sisko's ?
Honestly?
Picard's a better officer. He's been in longer and advanced farther. Picard and those like him are chosen to be the society's representatives in uncharted space. Sisko is on that track before the Borg attack but not the same kind of thinker as Picard. He is, by contrast, set to sit on an important outpost in known space to oversee a transition between two non-Federation, but well known, powers. Nowhere near the same kind of guy.
In fact it is his time amongst the Bajorans that improves him on this score.
Last edited:
You go on and on and on about the fact that Picard said Starfleet isn't a military and take that as a fact. But when for example Sisko says he is a soldier it's just his opinion? What makes Picard's statement more valid than Sisko's ?
Honestly?
Picard's a better officer. He's been in longer and advanced farther. Picard and those like him are chosen to be the society's representatives in uncharted space. Sisko is on that track before the Borg attack but not the same kind of thinker as Picard. He is, by contrast, set to sit on an important outpost in known space to oversee a transition between two non-Federation, but well known, powers. Nowhere near the same kind of guy.
In fact it is his time amongst the Bajorans that improves him on this score.
WOW! What?!?! This sound like Picard is being put on a pedestal solely because his one statement supports your argument. Heaven forbid the almighty Picard be wrong about anything ever. I'd bet someone could find somewhere where an Admiral (who's got more experience than Picard, is higher ranked than Picard, and is a "better officer" than Picard) said that SF is a military or they them self are a soldier.And speaking from a personal perspective on a subject, of course Picard wouldn't consider himself a soldier first, he's an archaeologist first (an explorer by nature). It just so happens that the military was where he could utilize his exploratory and diplomatic skills best. I know SEVERAL people (having worked on a military base, myself) who do not consider themselves soldiers first and hope to hell never to have to go to war, but they are quite prepared to do so, if need be. Being a soldier and an explorer are NOT mutually exclusive, any more than being an engineer and a soldier. Hell one could even be all of an engineer, soldier, AND an explorer! (Damned humans! Why we gotta be so versatile?!)
Also earlier it was mentioned that the majority of the people in Starfleet are not military and/or not actively fighting or some such thing. I'm not sure how that affects whether or not SF is a military org or not. Because contrary to popular belief, if you took the entire population of the US Military you'd find that the vast majority of them are NOT currently engaged in any of the combative actions being carried out right now, though any of them could at any time be called to do so -- like Starfleet.
Yes, and many states retain their state Army and Air National Guards (which may be federalized) and their State Defense Forces (which may never be federalized). The fact that the United States Armed Forces share their monopoly on the use of force with the National Guard and State Defense Forces does not mean they do not have the monopoly, nor that they are not military.
Actually, if anything, the United Earth Starfleet is the only one that can legitimately be called paramilitary rather than military. There's no evidence that I can recall that the UES has courts martial, and the idea that the UE Starfleet would serve as Earth's armed forces in a war with the Xindi actually seemed to take Archer's superiors by surprise.
It's actually immaterial to the argument. There are children on military bases -- does that mean that those aren't actually military bases? Besides, it'd be bloody stupid to put kids on a ship heading out into the unknown even if it's civilian.
Yes. Similarly, the Posse Comitatus Act restricts the law enforcement powers of the United States Armed Forces.
No, it's based on the assumption that if it didn't have a military, the Klingons, Romulans, Tholians, Xindi, etc. would have walked all over them.
That's based on your emotional dislike of the military -- a dislike motivated by a perception of the military as possessing a hostile, warmongering ethos that I am thoroughly skeptical of. You are allowing your emotions to interfere with your ability to logically define the legal structures of an organization. It's irrational.
I'm gonna make a u-turn here, and say that while Starfleet, as Mack said, appears to be a military, it is certainly not militarised, as others have said.
Besides, the Federation proper (ie civilians) has its own security force, Federation Security, not Starfleet Security. I point to The Search for Spock for emphasis. http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Federation_Security
Besides, the Federation proper (ie civilians) has its own security force, Federation Security, not Starfleet Security. I point to The Search for Spock for emphasis. http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Federation_Security
That's the point everyone's been trying to make. Everyone agreed that the Federation and humans and Starfleet have advanced and evolved. And several times people have said that Starfleet is a more open-minded, benign military.
No one said it was militarised or like the current United States Armed Forces. The disagreement is that Starfleet is defined as a military.
You go on and on and on about the fact that Picard said Starfleet isn't a military and take that as a fact. But when for example Sisko says he is a soldier it's just his opinion? What makes Picard's statement more valid than Sisko's ?
Honestly?
Picard's a better officer. He's been in longer and advanced farther. Picard and those like him are chosen to be the society's representatives in uncharted space. Sisko is on that track before the Borg attack but not the same kind of thinker as Picard. He is, by contrast, set to sit on an important outpost in known space to oversee a transition between two non-Federation, but well known, powers. Nowhere near the same kind of guy.
In fact it is his time amongst the Bajorans that improves him on this score.
And speaking from a personal perspective on a subject, of course Picard wouldn't consider himself a soldier first, he's an archaeologist first (an explorer by nature). It just so happens that the military was where he could utilize his exploratory and diplomatic skills best. I know SEVERAL people (having worked on a military base, myself) who do not consider themselves soldiers first and hope to hell never to have to go to war, but they are quite prepared to do so, if need be. Being a soldier and an explorer are NOT mutually exclusive, any more than being an engineer and a soldier. Hell one could even be all of an engineer, soldier, AND an explorer! (Damned humans! Why we gotta be so versatile?!)
Also earlier it was mentioned that the majority of the people in Starfleet are not military and/or not actively fighting or some such thing. I'm not sure how that affects whether or not SF is a military org or not. Because contrary to popular belief, if you took the entire population of the US Military you'd find that the vast majority of them are NOT currently engaged in any of the combative actions being carried out right now, though any of them could at any time be called to do so -- like Starfleet.
Picard is not referring to himself. He is describing the organization. Sisko, by contrast, is referring only to himself.
And, again, no, the majority of Starfleet personnel are shown not only not to be the sort of utility soldier you describe but, in fact, many take pains to say they are NOT soldiers. Jaeger in THE SQUIRE OF GOTHOS comes to mind.
EDIT:
An army base is not analogous to a starship. An aircraft carrier or a submarine would be the natural analogue except, of course in this case, they don't fit. Battlestars, under normal conditions, do not have children aboard. Stargate Command has no families on the premises or going on missions.
As a military person, SCI, you know why. Starships do. Ergo, not warships. If the most powerful vessels you have are not warships, it follows that the organization building and controlling them is not a military.
Paramilitary is the best you get.
These are the voyages of the starship Enterpise whose continuing mission is TO SEEK OUT NEW LIFE FORMS and NEW CIVILIZATIONS. To boldy go where no one has gone before.
NOT to protect the galaxy from outside or internal threat. Not to keep the peace. To explore. It's the freaking thesis statement for Prophet's sake.
Last edited:
No one said Starfleet protected the galaxy from outside or internal threat. The Federation? Yes, definitely.
And how else would you define the majority of Starfleet's actions but keeping the peace, especially in TNG? How often do we see the Enterprise ferrying this diplomatic team or that to a planet to deal with some dispute or other? How often has Picard had to settle a disagreement?
And notice how the statement you quoted really only applies directly to the starship mentioned, ie the Enterprise.
And it's not "the freaking thesis statement", but one of many aspects of a Starfleet mission.
But even if they did, that would not change the fact that all of those things are still military installations/vessels. Because a military is not defined by the things it does, but rather by the things that it is legally empowered to do by the state.
You've got me confused with someone else, there, RedJack. I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the United States Armed Forces, nor of the Army or Air National Guard, nor of the State Defense Forces. Heck, I've never even been in the Boy Scouts.
I do, however, have a good friend who is a member of the Ohio Army National Guard and another who is a former enlisted man in the United States Navy, and my family is close friends with another family who have had a number of their sons join the United States Navy. As a result, I'm not wholly unfamiliar with their ethos -- and while I will tend to concede that it's not as open-minded and more simplistic than I think is rational, I do not agree that it is an institution whose ethos is inherently violent or jingoistic, either.
You gonna tell me that the Sovereign-class starship is not blatantly designed for combat? And, like David Mack said:
Every single starship carries enough power to reduce an M-Class planet to a smoldering hunk of glass, and has since the 23rd Century. Heck, Starfleet used to have an entire General Order about the circumstances under which such an operation could take place. This is not the behavior of a mere paramilitary exploratory association. This is the behavior of a military.
And, once again, even if they don't actually engage in that behavior, it is not the behavior that defines an institution as being a military. It is that institution's legal status and legal empowerments that make it military. A military is defined by its relationship to the state, not by its members' behavior. That's why the Pontifical Swiss Guard are the military of the State of the Vatican City, even if they aren't exactly well-known for their prowess in modern combat or tendency to invade the neighboring Italian Republic.
I see. So you are contending that the State of the Vatican City -- an independent state since the 1920s -- has no military?
No, it's really not. The definition of a military is purely objective -- it is defined by its relationship with the state and by its legal authorities. Starfleet, as outlined by myself and others, meets all of the legal criteria. Ergo, it is a military. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.
Not material to the question. A military is not prevented by the definition of the term from undertaking missions of exploration, which is why you have things like the Royal Navy undertaking such missions as recently as the early 20th Century. Again, a military is not defined by what it does but by what it is legally empowered by the state to do.
Edited to add:
Now's the part where I eat my foot on something. The Pontifical Swiss Guard may or may not be part of the Vatican military, depending on which Wikipedia article you believe. I'm doing some extra-Wiki research to figure out whether or not they qualify as a genuine military, rather than paramilitary, organization as we speak.
ETA 2:
The official State of the Vatican City website is no help, because it just talks about the history without defining its terms. This article from The Guardian, however, refers to the Pontifical Swiss Guard as being the Vatican's military.
Last edited:
Starfleet has to be the Federation's military. If the Federation doesn't have one, then it would have been walked all over and conquered by the other powers in the quadrant a long time ago. Humans and the Federation and Starfleet may have evolved, but that doesn't mean everyone else in the quadrant has as well.
SCI- Sorry. I was mistaking you fo another poster.
Vixen- It is the thesis statement. Not "one of many missions," not "part of the mission." THE mission.
How many times, when a new species asks about all those weapons a given ship sports is that species told variations of, "We are explorers. Our weapons are purely for our own protection."
You have two choices with a statement like this, made repeatedly. Either it is true or it is false. If it is true, SF is not a military org. If it is false, Picard and a host of other SF representatives are habitual liars which they have not been presented as being.
Sisko, like several other SF officers feels he is a soldier (not illegit after his personal experiences) but he is not part of a military organization.
Picard describes not what his particular function within the organization is but that of the ENTIRE organization and he does so at multiple junctures as do others.
Etymology- military
1460, from M.Fr. militaire, from L. militaris "of soldiers or war," from miles (gen. militis) "soldier," perhaps ult. from Etruscan, or else meaning "one who marches in a troop," and thus connected to Skt. melah "assembly," Gk. homilos "assembled crowd, throng." The noun sense of "soldiers generally" is attested from 1757.
So, yes, the shifting central ethos is germane and is NOT limited to how the organization interacts with the government or its hierarchical structure or the weapons it has. How it defines itself is the rubric, not 21st century notions of what "must" be true of "any" nation state.
We must defer to its definition of itself and, if there are inconsistencies, not figure ways to make Picard's statement false but rather shore up why it is true in spite of those inconsistencies.
Vixen- It is the thesis statement. Not "one of many missions," not "part of the mission." THE mission.
How many times, when a new species asks about all those weapons a given ship sports is that species told variations of, "We are explorers. Our weapons are purely for our own protection."
You have two choices with a statement like this, made repeatedly. Either it is true or it is false. If it is true, SF is not a military org. If it is false, Picard and a host of other SF representatives are habitual liars which they have not been presented as being.
Sisko, like several other SF officers feels he is a soldier (not illegit after his personal experiences) but he is not part of a military organization.
Picard describes not what his particular function within the organization is but that of the ENTIRE organization and he does so at multiple junctures as do others.
Etymology- military
1460, from M.Fr. militaire, from L. militaris "of soldiers or war," from miles (gen. militis) "soldier," perhaps ult. from Etruscan, or else meaning "one who marches in a troop," and thus connected to Skt. melah "assembly," Gk. homilos "assembled crowd, throng." The noun sense of "soldiers generally" is attested from 1757.
So, yes, the shifting central ethos is germane and is NOT limited to how the organization interacts with the government or its hierarchical structure or the weapons it has. How it defines itself is the rubric, not 21st century notions of what "must" be true of "any" nation state.
We must defer to its definition of itself and, if there are inconsistencies, not figure ways to make Picard's statement false but rather shore up why it is true in spite of those inconsistencies.
Last edited:
There's one reason this wasn't onscreen: It'd break the show dramatically, just as using any of the super-tech developed or discovered would.
How long does the Dominion War last if the Federation deploys a billion cloned Arcturian infantry troops juiced on kironide, accelerated by Scalosian water, supplemented by humans with Galactic Barrier-induced psionic powers and backed by Genesis torpedo-armed phase-cloaking ships operated by multitronic computers programmed to survive at all costs? One episode? Two, if it's played out?
Now, that's total fanboy junk, but it's all in-universe technology which has been shown to work, some of it well. Any or all of it could be used in the literature without worrying about effects costs exploding the production budget. It's not used because the Federation would be invulnerable to Klingons, Romulans, and the Borg. Q and V'ger'd be looking over their shoulders (figuratively) and listening for footsteps. There's no drama, no danger when your characters can read minds and reshape their surroundings at a whim. And don't doubt for an instant someone at Starfleet HQ didn't think of deploying these techniques and technologies for military purposes. There have been plenty portrayed who'd be more than happy to do so and more who'd do it but be conflicted over it.
What show are you watching? Even the 24th century show has humans who hate, discriminate, and persecute. Certainly it has humans who judge sanctimoniously, namely Picard.
So's "Department of Defense". Governments and individuals are not afraid to use semantics to cover up an unpleasant truth.
Similar threads
