VOY - Virtuoso

[Admiral X]

And all of this is irrelevant since Starfleet is still clearly a military.

Its an exploration fleet that uses military ranks. I'm sure that if SpaceX was liable to get blown up by Klingons, Elon Musk would have put missiles on the thing. Doesn't make it a military ship.

If you have to defend the Earth or take out an enemy fleet yard or anything like that, you wouldn't be calling in an exploration fleet, you'd be calling in the military. And as an added bonus, the military can also act as an exploration fleet and defend itself from any mean ol' mudder-hubbers that might come along and shoot at it.

And the idea that Starfleet is a military is what's being challenged, not a fact.

It's own actions as seen on screen speak well enough to that fact. It's only people who can't seem to handle the idea for some reason who "challenge" that and put forward the idea that civilians are out playing soldier when it comes time for the show to have some good old fashioned military drama. Still not getting why that is, either. Do you guys just have a dislike of the military, or something? I mean, I distrust the real military as an arm of the government, but I don't hate it on general principle or anything just as I don't hate the government even if I want it to be more limited. Maybe that's why I can enjoy media that features members of the military as the "good guys."

And if Elon Musk arms his spaceships because they could be under attack, they'd become an irregular military or a paramilitary force.

Or, more likely, they'd call in the Air Force to help them since that's their job. And if it got to be a big enough problem, maybe we'd actually get that Space Force.

[clearspira]

And all of this is irrelevant since Starfleet is still clearly a military.

Its an exploration fleet that uses military ranks. I'm sure that if SpaceX was liable to get blown up by Klingons, Elon Musk would have put missiles on the thing. Doesn't make it a military ship.

If you have to defend the Earth or take out an enemy fleet yard or anything like that, you wouldn't be calling in an exploration fleet, you'd be calling in the military. And as an added bonus, the military can also act as an exploration fleet and defend itself from any mean ol' mudder-hubbers that might come along and shoot at it.

And the idea that Starfleet is a military is what's being challenged, not a fact.

It's own actions as seen on screen speak well enough to that fact. It's only people who can't seem to handle the idea for some reason who "challenge" that and put forward the idea that civilians are out playing soldier when it comes time for the show to have some good old fashioned military drama. Still not getting why that is, either. Do you guys just have a dislike of the military, or something? I mean, I distrust the real military as an arm of the government, but I don't hate it on general principle or anything just as I don't hate the government even if I want it to be more limited. Maybe that's why I can enjoy media that features members of the military as the "good guys."

We also have to look at Starfleet training as an example. Lets compare my two fave franchises of all time: Star Trek and Stargate SG-1 by comparing away teams to SG teams. Each member of an away team carries: 1 hand phaser, 1 communicator, 1 tricorder, and possibly 1 medkit. They wear primary colours as if its the 19th century again, and that assumes they aren't wearing catsuits and heels. Their physical training? Poor to the point that often they sport sizeable guts.
Each member of SG-1 carries: P90s, M9s, grenades, knives, C4, medkits, zats, gas masks, binoculars, experimentation kits, radios, sunglasses, body armour, rations, cameras, survival gear and water. Their clothing? camouflage. Their physical training? Modern military level.

Absolutely by putting these two teams side by side, Starfleet comes off as nothing more than civilians who have bought their guns from Walmart. I am going to go one step further: I feel as if a 19th century soldier with a musket could defeat the cream of any 23rd or 24th century away team. If he does not out range them, he can just put them under siege given how he's carrying water and rations and they aren't.
These people ARE NOT soldiers.

[Madner Kami]

These people ARE BAD soldiers.

FYP.

SG1, generally, doesn't have the luxury of having access to portable personal shielding and a spaceship equipped with replicators, a transporter and planet-cracker level of armaments at the ready. By your given standards, not even the Klingon Forces and Jem Hadar are a military...

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

And the idea that Starfleet is a military is what's being challenged, not a fact.

It's own actions as seen on screen speak well enough to that fact. It's only people who can't seem to handle the idea for some reason who "challenge" that and put forward the idea that civilians are out playing soldier when it comes time for the show to have some good old fashioned military drama. Still not getting why that is, either. Do you guys just have a dislike of the military, or something? I mean, I distrust the real military as an arm of the government, but I don't hate it on general principle or anything just as I don't hate the government even if I want it to be more limited. Maybe that's why I can enjoy media that features members of the military as the "good guys."

I understood what you were getting at when you last said that. There's not really any reason to assert that that's why anyone here is challenging the idea that it's a military.

You're saying that it's a fact that it's a military for its operation with attack vessels, but precise definition of military is what's being speculated. That concerns directive and purpose aside from operation.

[Beelzquill]

I would say that starfleet is the federation's military de facto if not de jure. I mean they are literally the first line of defense against foreign powers and they are federally organized. Wouldn't that mean they are more than "paramilitary" or "militia" and they don't just fight the first battle in an emergency situation, they seem to fight ALL the battles the federation takes part in. Clearly Roddenberry wanted starfleet to not be a military but in practical effect his attempts to make them not a military just made them a bad military.
About how much of this thread is people debating the status of starfleet as a military versus the review anyway?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I would say that starfleet is the federation's military de facto if not de jure. I mean they are literally the first line of defense against foreign powers and they are federally organized. Wouldn't that mean they are more than "paramilitary" or "militia" and they don't just fight the first battle in an emergency situation, they seem to fight ALL the battles the federation takes part in. Clearly Roddenberry wanted starfleet to not be a military but in practical effect his attempts to make them not a military just made them a bad military.
About how much of this thread is people debating the status of starfleet as a military versus the review anyway?

I suppose this debate would have served better in the Into Darkness thread in which the review for the movie is where it's brought up as far as I can tell.

So yeah, Roddenberry called it a not-a-military. So in creating a post American society, is it possible to have defense and not call it a military? The Coast Guard is considered a military during conflict, but a law enforcement agency otherwise. It's not a standing army, just is like armed lifeguards enforcing beach rules.

[Beelzquill]

I suppose this debate would have served better in the Into Darkness thread in which the review for the movie is where it's brought up as far as I can tell.

So yeah, Roddenberry called it a not-a-military. So in creating a post American society, is it possible to have defense and not call it a military? The Coast Guard is considered a military during conflict, but a law enforcement agency otherwise. It's not a standing army, just is like armed lifeguards enforcing beach rules.

I feel like calling starfleet a defense instead of a military is splitting hairs. I mean isn't the united states military under the larger umbrella of the department of defense? I mean sure, not everyone in starfleet is doing military work but all the military work is being done in starfleet. I just wish they had really codified more on what starfleet actually is.

[Fianna]

I guess it depends on whether you consider something like Japan's Self-Defense Force to be a military.

It has the equipment, structure, and training of a military, and it was created to serve as a force to defend Japan in case of a military attack. However, Japan's post-WWII constitution prohibits it from maintaining a military, and the Self-Defense Force was thus constructed as an outgrowth of the nation's police force. The reasoning is that, if a foreign military invades Japan, they're going to be committing all sorts of felonies: shooting people, blowing up buildings, trying to overthrow the government, entering the country without a visa, etc. So if that happens, there needs to be a division of the police force equipped to respond to such a heavily armed and well-organized group of criminals.

The distinguishing feature between the Self-Defense Force and a military thus becomes the fact that it's only authorized for carrying out defensive actions within Japanese territory. Just as the FBI can't send its agents outside the United States, or arrest people who haven't broken any U.S. laws yet, Japan's Self-Defense Force can't be sent abroad to attack other countries, or to initiate conflict with someone who has not yet attacked Japan.

(For an interesting use of this fact in science fiction, the movie Gamera: Guardian of the Universe has Japan run into a legal hurdle when the titular giant monster shows up. Legally, the Self-Defense Force can only be deployed if Japan has been fired upon, but Gamera wasn't firing any weapons, just stepping on people and pushing a few buildings over.)

Now, whether this is serves as a meaningful distinction between military and non-military forces, or is simply Japan playing semantics to exploit a legal loophole, is of course up for debate.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I suppose this debate would have served better in the Into Darkness thread in which the review for the movie is where it's brought up as far as I can tell.

So yeah, Roddenberry called it a not-a-military. So in creating a post American society, is it possible to have defense and not call it a military? The Coast Guard is considered a military during conflict, but a law enforcement agency otherwise. It's not a standing army, just is like armed lifeguards enforcing beach rules.

I feel like calling starfleet a defense instead of a military is splitting hairs. I mean isn't the united states military under the larger umbrella of the department of defense? I mean sure, not everyone in starfleet is doing military work but all the military work is being done in starfleet. I just wish they had really codified more on what starfleet actually is.

Well the term I was running with before for distinction is security force. I'm using defense in a general sense that doesn't insinuate a necessary military. Anyways, as you brought up Roddenberry's intent, I think it's fair to consider the events of TOS in lieu of TNG and onwards to gauge at least if he wasn't out of his wit with his own declaration.

I guess it depends on whether you consider something like Japan's Self-Defense Force to be a military.

It has the equipment, structure, and training of a military, and it was created to serve as a force to defend Japan in case of a military attack. However, Japan's post-WWII constitution prohibits it from maintaining a military, and the Self-Defense Force was thus constructed as an outgrowth of the nation's police force. The reasoning is that, if a foreign military invades Japan, they're going to be committing all sorts of felonies: shooting people, blowing up buildings, trying to overthrow the government, entering the country without a visa, etc. So if that happens, there needs to be a division of the police force equipped to respond to such a heavily armed and well-organized group of criminals.

The distinguishing feature between the Self-Defense Force and a military thus becomes the fact that it's only authorized for carrying out defensive actions within Japanese territory. Just as the FBI can't send its agents outside the United States, or arrest people who haven't broken any U.S. laws yet, Japan's Self-Defense Force can't be sent abroad to attack other countries, or to initiate conflict with someone who has not yet attacked Japan.

(For an interesting use of this fact in science fiction, the movie Gamera: Guardian of the Universe has Japan run into a legal hurdle when the titular giant monster shows up. Legally, the Self-Defense Force can only be deployed if Japan has been fired upon, but Gamera wasn't firing any weapons, just stepping on people and pushing a few buildings over.)

Now, whether this is serves as a meaningful distinction between military and non-military forces, or is simply Japan playing semantics to exploit a legal loophole, is of course up for debate.

Very interesting. Unfortunately the word military is laden throughout the JSDF wikipedia. But my impression of Starfleet now is kinda compromised between the Coast Guard as a maritime department part of Homeland Security and the JSDF. I'm more and more getting comfortable just resting on the Coast Guard's quasimilitary status, as I imagine a lot of their duties outside of conflict just involve helping people with more natural incidents that occur in the ravages of the sea.

[Admiral X]

I feel like calling starfleet a defense instead of a military is splitting hairs. I mean isn't the united states military under the larger umbrella of the department of defense? I mean sure, not everyone in starfleet is doing military work but all the military work is being done in starfleet. I just wish they had really codified more on what starfleet actually is.

And I really wish that GR just hadn't been such a hippie who had to go out of his way to say Starfleet wasn't a military while still treating them like one in his writing. I forget what review it was, but like Chuck said, okay, if you don't want it to be a military, lose the ranks and lose the weapons.

I guess it depends on whether you consider something like Japan's Self-Defense Force to be a military.

They are in every practical sense. As you say, the only reason they can't call themselves one is because of the treaty it has with the US, which limits them to self-defense only. Of course even this has had exceptions made for it, as the US had them actually participate in our little brush-fire wars in the middle east. Yet they keep having to play that semantics game, which includes a carrier they built recently which has nonetheless been classed as a destroyer, because Japan is restricted by treaty from having an aircraft carrier. Nonetheless, it is essentially a carrier, even though it can only handle a small number of V/STOL aircraft, and are planning on operating F-35s off of it.

If anything, this kind of underlines the point being made about Starfleet being a military in spite of all attempts to call it something else.