Starfleet — the real bad guys of STO?

oliviaclaire

The pattern has been highly consistent throughout the history of STO and Star Trek in general. Let's start with the following example:

Star Trek Online Makes You Kill Innocent Doctors, Then Cover It Up. (scroll down to #4)

In one mission, the player is tasked with aiding an admiral in attacking a Romulan weapons factory developing banned weaponry. So you suit up, beam down, and start lasering people like it's bikini season ... until it becomes painfully clear that you're not in a terrorist base, but in fact are giving a medical research facility and its dutiful staff the Waco treatment.

And then you ... apologize profusely? Turn around and shoot the admiral in the face? Nope: The only thing you can do is to keep offing doctors and scientists who are now just fighting back out of sheer desperation. You're like the Ender of the Star Trek universe, but at least that kid had the excuse of being a brainwashed child. You're just really, really dumb.

By the time your C.O. is revealed to be the warmongering doppelganger you should have figured out she would be seven massacres ago, she's already teleporting away. Then, before you can say "Nuremberg," Starfleet Command decides to keep the incident a secret until they can uncover the underlying conspiracy and send you on a grand adventure of intrigue, misdirection, and, eventually, redemption ... except that they don't. The developers never got around to making the rest of the storyline, leaving only its war crimes-tastic opening chapter. Which means that you, Commander BigD*** of the USS A**, simply massacred an entire hospital, let the villain escape, agreed to a black ops cover-up, and then went on with your life without giving it a second thought.

This is further described in this forum post: Divide et Impera is one of the worst missions in the history of video games and the reason I quit.

Years later, apparently, the lesson was not learned: Why isn't this being discussed?

I know that some characters show reservations about using the temporal weapon, but it's all in the context of "what if we change the timeline too much" etc.

But um.. why isn't anyone discussing the fact that this is an instant genocide gun?

Don't try to tell me that "if they never existed it's not genocide" because it's a false argument, you're still taking action to wipe out an entire species.. it's worse because you wipe out their contributions too.

I know that things are really desperate... and I'm not saying the gun shouldn't be used if it's an "us or them only" situation, but why isn't anyone even talking about this weapon for what it really is?

We should be seeing this debate for what it really is. It feels out of character to see all those TV show alumni just happily skipping off merry-do to build a genocide weapon and wipe out the Iconians. Why isn't the debate being shown? Too much effort to write?

These episodes are enraging me because not one character has even voiced concern about this beyond "well what if it hurts us more than helps us"?

In KDF and Romulan story lines, you are essentially forced to play a traitor to your respective factions. The players are told that, in the future, both factions are going to join the "wonderful" United Federation of Planets under a "common threat". Every fibre of your being is telling you that this is wrong; that this is surrender in disguise. Yet, they are trying to force it upon you, anyway. The NPCs who actually try to save their respective empires are portrayed as enemies, while you are forced to ally with traitors like House Pegh. The only way to avoid it is to play nothing but empire defence and duty officer missions.

Star Trek franchise evidence in general.

Is Starfleet lying through its teeth about its military status? TNG: "Peak Performance:"

PICARD: Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.
KOLRAMI: Then why am I here?
PICARD: With the Borg threat, I decided that my officers and I needed to hone our tactical skills.

The Borg first appeared on screen in TNG: "Q Who?":

GUINAN: They're called the Borg. Protect yourself, Captain, or they'll destroy you.

But an earlier episode TNG: "The Measure of A Man" takes place at a JAG office as one of the locations:

PICARD: Yes, I came to you. You're the JAG officer for this sector. I had no choice but to come to you.

Judge Advocate General's Corps, "also known as JAG or JAG Corps, refers to the legal branch or specialty of a military concerned with military justice and military law."

See TOS: "Court Martial".

Court-martial:

A court-martial (plural courts-martial, as "martial" is postpositive) is a military court. A court-martial is empowered to determine the guilt of members of the armed forces subject to military law, and, if the defendant is found guilty, to decide upon punishment. [. . .] Most navies have a standard court-martial.

Was Roddenberry lying through his teeth too? From Memory Alpha: Starfleet:

"[Roddenberry] was emphatic that Starfleet was not a military organization but something akin to the Coast Guard. This struck me as manifestly absurd, for what were Kirk's adventures but a species of gunboat diplomacy wherein the Federation (read America, read the Anglo-Saxons) was always right and aliens were – in Kipling's queasy phrase – 'lesser breeds'? Yes, there was lip service to minority participation, but it was clear who was driving the boat." (The View from the Bridge - Memories of Star Trek and a Life in Hollywood, hardcover ed., p. 81)

From Memory Alpha: Starfleet ranks:

Starfleet ranks were designed by William Ware Theiss with the first versions adopted mainly from the insignia of the United States Navy. According to Inside Star Trek: The Real Story, Gene Roddenberry had not wanted Starfleet to appear "too military" which is why the stripe system was "toned down" by making a Lieutenant begin with one stripe (in the real United States Navy this insignia would be worn by an Ensign) and having ensigns wear no insignia.

Not wanting to appear "too military" is not the same as not being a military.

TOS: "Errand of Mercy":

KIRK: I'm a soldier, not a diplomat.

How did that slip past the creator of Star Trek?

Memory Alpha: TOS: "The Savage Curtain":

Kirk and Spock are forced to fight alongside such historical figures as Abraham Lincoln of Earth and Surak of Vulcan by rock-like aliens who want to understand the concepts of "good" and "evil."

The current contest, their first experiment with Humans, is to compare good and evil – "good" being represented by the two Enterprise officers, Lincoln, and Surak (the legendary Vulcan philosophical leader), and "evil" represented by four archetypes: Kahless (founder of the Klingon Empire), Zora of Tiburon, ancient Human conqueror Genghis Khan, and the charismatic but duplicitous 21st century genocidal military officer Colonel Green.

Story written by Gene Roddenberry.

What, by the 23rd century Hitler suddenly stopped being an evil figure in human history? Nuremberg, anyone?

Starfleet allies with Lucifer/Satan in Star Trek: The Animated Series: "The Magicks of Megas-Tu":

The USS Enterprise is exploring the center of the galaxy, looking for the heart of creation. When the ship is caught inside a tornado made of pure energy, a devil like being calling himself Lucien appears to save them. Lucien takes Capt. Kirk and his crew to the magical planet of Megas-Tu. But when the Megans discover the presence of humans, they put them on trial the same way they were treated when they visited Earth centuries earlier.

Writers: Gene Roddenberry (created by), Larry Brody.

EDIT: In case that wasn't enough, even though Roddenberry would have most likely had to approve the script first, add one of his quotes on record to it:



DS9: "In the Pale Moonlight" ("It's a faaake!"):

GARAK: It would mean calling in all my favours, Captain. To do what you're asking would use up every resource I have left on Cardassia. And it may be a very messy, very bloody business. Are you prepared for that?
SISKO: I posted my fourteenth casualty list this morning. I'm already involved in a very messy, very bloody business. And the only way I can see to end it is to bring the Romulans into the war. I am prepared to do whatever it takes to accomplish that goal, but I can't do it alone. I need help. Now, are you in or out?

This, followed by the forgery of evidence to drag Romulans into war, murder of the Romulan senator, cover-up and deletion of captain's log, and so on.

Furthermore, why are both, Starfleet and UFP, based in the United States? Why do the Earth's ships use the designation USS, just like the US Navy, instead of UFP, UFPS (UFPSS), SFS (SFSS) or SFV (SFSV)? Never mind that it stands for "United Space Ship", it still makes absolutely no sense. Even the early version of Starfleet, UESPA, uses a different abbreviation. There is no organization in Star Trek by the name of "United Space".

What happened to the sovereignty of the Earth's nations in the Star Trek universe? Where are their own space or star fleets? Was Roddenberry's vision of the future that of everyone being forced under USA's control as a global government and military? There's a word for it — fascism. And people, despite all that, are still expected to see Starfleet and UFP as the "good guys"? Uh-huh, sure, if you say so.

EDIT: Coronado U.S. Navy base:



EDIT: [Fascist] Symbols in the US Military: “Accidental” Giant US Navy Swastika Building Was No Accident.



Signed off on March 5, 1968 by United States Rear Admiral Robert Reynolds Wooding.

Was Star Trek created by a Satanist to promote American fascism under the guise of "democracy"?

EDIT: Here's an additional piece of evidence that supports the original premise:




Notice the DC Comics address at the time (1983) as "666 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY". You can search for "DC Comics location" to confirm it.

The title of "The only good Klingon . . ." is a reference to an infamous saying: "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." This, in turn, was derived from another infamous saying: "The only good Indians I ever saw were dead." The latter, based on many witness accounts, is typically attributed to General Phil Sheridan (1831-1888), although he denied saying it himself. Even without the saying, he was a well-known Native American hater. Also, notice the ellipsis at the end of the title, as if it expects you to complete the sentence.

To add further to this:

"I suppose I should be ashamed to say that I take the Western view of the Indian. I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth."
—Theodore Roosevelt, the future, at the time, President of the United States, at the New York speech of January 1886.

Here's another one:

"My original convictions upon this subject have been confirmed by the course of events for several years, and experience is every day adding to their strength. That those tribes can not exist surrounded by our settlements and in continual contact with our citizens is certain. They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race, and without appreciating the causes of their inferiority or seeking to control them, they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long disappear."
—Andrew Jackson, the U.S. President, at the Fifth Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1833.

There were over 500 treaties signed with the natives, and over 500 still broken. That is over 500 treaties still broken, no matter who is in power in the United States, the country that supposedly fights for "peace, freedom and democracy" and proclaims itself as the "world police".

On the other hand, US named its top military attack helicopters after some of the bloodiest native tribes, like the Comanche and the Apache. See Top 10 Deadliest Native American Tribes.

When you see the character of Chakotay in Star Trek, does it mean that in the Star Trek "future", United States finally honored over 500 treaties with the natives and the president apologized for the genocide? There is certainly nothing on the show that would confirm that. Does it mean that Chakotay sold out? Perhaps he was "civilized" by being brainwashed and accepting fascism? It's very odd.

"But they can become movie actors!" Yeah, that solves everything, right?

A Memory Alpha article titled Depicting Klingons, claims that Klingons were based "metaphorically" on Soviet Russians, and, in appearance, on a cross between Vikings and Mongols, which doesn't add up when it comes to historical fact checking, by the way. On the other hand, Klingons are typically depicted with a dark reddish tint to their skin color. Have you ever heard the term "redskins", like the Washington Redskins?

What happens when a Native American Indian grows a moustache and a beard? It looks Asian, with a slight space in the middle of moustache. One of their typical headdresses, swept back feathers, seems to have a vague resemblance to the Klingon ridges and swept back hair.

Enter dehumanization:

dehumanize

to treat (someone) as though he or she is not a human being

Remember that Klingons were portrayed as aliens, not humans on the show.

On the subject of lighter-skinned Klingons shown on screen, from the aforementioned article on Memory Alpha:

"The second time [the Klingons appeared], something went wrong. I didn't see them in their makeup before they were photographed, as I usually did. The first time I saw the Klingons revisited, I was horrified. They were much paler and didn't match what we'd done before. I blew a gasket, but in television, unless it's a total disaster, you can't afford to reshoot. The third outing, we went back to them being darker." (Star Trek: Communicator issue 114, p. 24)

Keep in mind that Klingons were the main "bad guys" on the show.

Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens), Friday, September 7, 1906: (Adobe Acrobat Reader document)

For good or for evil, we continue to educate Europe. We have held the post of instructor for more than a century and a quarter now. We were not elected to it, we merely took it. We are of the Anglo-Saxon race. At the banquet, last winter, of that organization which calls itself the Ends of the Earth Club, the chairman, a retired regular army officer of high grade, proclaimed in a loud voice, and with fervency,

“We are of the Anglo-Saxon race, and when the Anglo-Saxon wants a thing he just takes it.”

That utterance was applauded to the echo. There were perhaps seventy-five civilians present and twenty-five military and naval men. It took those people nearly two minutes to work off their stormy admiration of that great sentiment [. . .]

The soldier man’s great utterance, interpreted by the expression which he put into it, meant, in plain English—

“The English and the Americans are thieves, highwaymen, pirates, and we are proud to be of the combination.”

Out of all the English and Americans present, there was not one with the grace to get up and say he was ashamed of being an Anglo-Saxon, and also ashamed of being a member of the human race, since the race must abide under the presence upon it of the Anglo-Saxon taint. I could not perform this office. I could not afford to lose my temper and make a self-righteous exhibition of myself and my superior morals that I might teach this infant class in decency the rudiments of that cult, for they would not be able to grasp it; they would not be able to understand it.

It's no coincidence that Star Trek has involved the character of Mark Twain (Sam Clemens) in TNG: "Time's Arrow":

TROI: I think what we've gained far outweighs anything that might have been lost.
CLEMENS: Oh? Well, I'm not so impressed with this future. Huge starships, and weapons that can no doubt destroy entire cities, and military conquest as a way of life?
TROI: Is that what you see here?
CLEMENS: Well, I know what you say, that this is a vessel of exploration and that your mission is to discover new worlds.
CLEMENS: That's what the Spanish said.
[. . . ]
CLEMENS: And the Dutch and the Portuguese. It's what all conquerors say.

Then the episode proceeds to prove him "wrong" and depicts him as an idiot, such as when he's hiding inside a wardrobe with a transceiver, until he finally gives his "approval". Would the real Mark Twain (Sam Clemens) really approve what's been hiding behind the façade of Star Trek?

Is Star Trek really about the Manifest Destiny? It's the term and ideology that American settlers used to justify the colonial conquest or invasion of America and slaughter of the indigenous population. They believed that mass murder and conquest were justified because they were "civilizing the savages".



EDIT: The opening title sequence of Star Trek Enterprise:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urYH6xEyXw0

The sequence features a number of non-space mission references. However, the space mission related footage is almost entirely made up of the US (NASA) space program, with the exception of the ISS, until it gets into Star Trek fiction. The footage shows Alan Shepard (first American in space) and Project Mercury, astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins as they board Apollo 11, Neil Armstrong's footprint, the Apollo lunar module, space shuttle Enterprise (OV-101), Mars Pathfinder, NASA's fictional OV-165, the Phoenix (another fictional spacecraft) and so on.

Considering the known space program, why is the sequence noticeably missing the following?

• Sputnik—the first artificial Earth satellite, launched into space by the Soviet Union on October 4, 1957.
  
  
  
  
• Yuri Gagarin—a Soviet Russian cosmonaut and the first human in space on April 12, 1961.
  This is how the USSR won the space race (first human in space).
  
  
  
  
• Valentina Tereshkova—a Soviet Russian cosmonaut and the first woman in space on June 16, 1963.
  
  
  
  
• Alexei Leonov—a Soviet Russian cosmonaut and the first human to conduct the EVA space walk on March 18, 1965.
  
  
  
  
• Soyuz—a Soviet and, subsequently, Russian spacecraft, which the manned space flight to the ISS is dependant on today, including the US astronauts. It was already dependant on it when ENT premiered on television.
  
  

EDIT: From VOY: "Threshold":

JANEWAY: If this works, you'll be joining an elite group of pilots. Orville Wright, Neil Armstrong, Zefram Cochrane and Tom Paris.

If they were going with that theme, what happened to Yuri Gagarin, Valentina Tereshkova and Alexei Leonov?

EDIT: Why would a fourth grade student from Ireland send this image to the Enterprise, as seen in the ENT: "Breaking the Ice"?



Note "USA" written on the suit.

captainoblivous

TL;DR.

cidjack

Only on the forums.

bravecatherine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VhSm6G7cVk

darakoss

U.S.S. = United Star Ship. Earth's nation became united hence United Earth.

kodachikuno

Fresh hot popcorn for sale! We have butter or, for a limited time, caramel drizzle!

talonxv

Then explain why the president of the federation is placed in PARIS FRANCE?

nebfab

Obviously. Only members of Tralfamadorian Order of Good Guyhood are real good guys.

kjwashington

I should point out that your essay starts out wrong in its first point. Or at least uses out of date information. The mission that you refer to (Divide et Impera) has been removed from the game, and as such is no longer canon. Anyone who played the mission can play it off as a bad dream your character had one night and will never have again.

markhawkman

I have memories of the last time a similar rant was posted... by this person.

jade1280

History is written by the Victors and we won.

legendarylycan

markhawkman wrote: »

I have memories of the last time a similar rant was posted... by this person.

pretty sure it was a different person...the same one who used to rant about klingon architecture and brownnose JJ's klingon art style​​

jonsills

I hung in as far as the second point. What the author of this rant missed, however, was that the use of temporal mechanics to attempt to stamp out the last of the Iconians when they were vulnerable, 200,000 years ago, was in response to the fact that the Iconians were working on either enslaving or eliminating every other sapient species. It really did seem to be a case of "us or them".

And then you go backtime and meet them in their heyday, and realize these guys aren't the villains after all. And you can, if you choose, try to help them - only to be stymied not by someone you trusted, but by Sela (come on, did anyone expect her not to try to stuff things up?). And in the end, by grabbing the World Heart and bringing it back with you (after the Iconian gate had closed), you can bring an end to the war in your own time, without any species having to be eliminated after all.

So yeah, the author clearly wanted to grind away on an axe, without paying any attention as to whether the axe even had a bit any more.

highlord83

I'd like to know where OP got the idea that Starfleet being a military force would make them "bad."

davefenestrator

ICONIANS.

baldrick8

Some tl;dr or conclusion at the end would have been helpful indeed.

As it is, I don't quite see the point. Is it that Starfleet/UFP doesn't live up to it's own standards? If so, I'm surprised anyone is surprised: when has it ever happened that high, better-than-life moral standards have not been compromised by reality? That has been a recurring theme in fiction (and Trek is, essentially, fiction) since the first variations of King Arthur and the round table.
Probably much earlier.


*puzzled*

mirrorchaos

oliviaclaire wrote: »

The pattern has been highly consistent throughout the history of STO and Star Trek in general. Let's start with the first example:
...

And people are expected to see Starfleet/UFP as the "good guys"? Uh-huh, sure, if you say so.

What is your point in all that whatever you wrote?

davefenestrator

baldrick8 wrote: »

Some tl;dr or conclusion at the end would have been helpful indeed.

As it is, I don't quite see the point. Is it that Starfleet/UFP doesn't live up to it's own standards? If so, I'm surprised anyone is surprised: when has it ever happened that high, better-than-life moral standards have not been compromised by reality? That has been a recurring theme in fiction (and Trek is, essentially, fiction) since the first variations of King Arthur and the round table.
Probably much earlier.


*puzzled*

Exactly. In TNG we have the top scorers in Starfleet assembled together on one ship and they still struggle to apply the Prime Directive, sometimes bending it in half.

saurializard

oliviaclaire wrote: »

The pattern has been highly consistent throughout the history of STO and Star Trek in general. [...]Let's start with the first example:And people are expected to see Starfleet/UFP as the "good guys"? Uh-huh, sure, if you say so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2ZGBNpYo5g

talonxv

highlord83 wrote: »

I'd like to know where OP got the idea that Starfleet being a military force would make them "bad."

Guess that means Patton's 3rd Armor, Grant/Meade's Army of the Patomic, George Washington's army is bad in his summation because they were a military force?

Guess that means I was a bad guy having been a US Marine right?

feiqa

Since no one else has I'll bite.

Divide et Imperia, stricken from the game and canon for the very points listed as it did not fit the theme for star fleet nor the federation.

Temporal Weapon was a weapon of last resort as it was, "Us or Them". Belabouring and handwringing over 'but we are going to wipe out a species.' Is a philosophical debate you can have after we live. Prior to that it is a stance of put down your weapons and sing songs around a flower to prove to the genocidal enemy that we mean no harm.

KDF and Romulans betraying their factions. . . KDF may seem more hamstrung. But the leadership of the RR wants reunification. So it actually isn't against type for the romulans. Now what is a KDF officer to do when his superiors tell him to go with the Starfleet man of the future and not start a war?

Does Starfleet/UFP lie about the military nature of Star Fleet? I hate to say this but you rehashed SFDebris quite a bit here. You may wish to finish with his conclusion as well. Or at least put in a footnote on him as source material.
That said. No they do not lie. They are delusional. Note how often they as the security officer for his opinion and he asks to do little things like raise shields or post guards and they look at him like he is a barbarian. Yet is often right. (Yes SFDebris mentioned this as well.) The point being is I have seen this in RL. "Oh the only thing wrong with the whole world is the U.S. Military. If they were gone all the world would be perfect." Along side people glad the military can respond swiftly and decisively to emergencies but hate the military structure that is what allows that level of preparedness. The best explanation I have is too many of the 'military is bad' people got in power and said no more military. Then gave orders to have a force capable of responding like the military. Three guesses what they got.

As for the episode not using Hitler. .
Really how many shows use Hitler as a main character? They don't because for us it is still too soon. And views on him too varied. Not going to derail the thread for debating the flaws of the man. Just leave that one as Hollywood unacceptable and repress the question.

In the Pale Moonlight: Watch SFDebris episode on it.
http://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/d543.php

He argues far more eloquently than I can and is far more entertaining.

Thank you for reading.

questerius

Sigh this nonsense again?

antonine3258

jonsills wrote: »

And then you go backtime and meet them in their heyday, and realize these guys aren't the villains after all. And you can, if you choose, try to help them - only to be stymied not by someone you trusted, but by Sela (come on, did anyone expect her not to try to stuff things up?). And in the end, by grabbing the World Heart and bringing it back with you (after the Iconian gate had closed), you can bring an end to the war in your own time, without any species having to be eliminated after all.

One of my favorite STO episodes just for this (well, besides Sela TRIBBLE things up, but you sort of have to factor that'll happen with Sela), and at least Divide et Imperia got removed.

echatty

I didn't get the point either. So explorers can't also be military and be able to defend themselves? So they act human and bend the Prime Directive, what's new about that? Even today leaders bend laws or outright break them to get what they want.

What was the point again?

evilmark444

My officers have standing orders to respond to all hails from non-federation ships with one word:

mustrumridcully0

talonxv wrote: »

Guess that means I was a bad guy having been a US Marine right?

Well, in Germany it's legal to say "Soldiers are murderers", IIRC. (Quite some public debate about that back in the days).

I was a soldier, too, though mostly because I was too lazy to avoid the compulsury military service Germany still had back then. I don't think I quite subsribe to the claim, but I am not that concerned. Aside from my laziness to go through the refusal of military service on moral grounds, I also think my morals allow the option of killing people to defend myself from people that want to destroy my country, the society I grew up with, and the ethical and moral ideals I associate with it.
I think killing people is bad, though. I just accept that the universe is not fair - sometimes you need to be bad things to avoid worse things, and if there are negative consequences for it, you have to deal with that. But if I ever got into the situation, I better be sure I can justify my actions and did really avert worse things from happening.

[/sidetrack]

evilmark444

mustrumridcully0 wrote: »

talonxv wrote: »

Guess that means I was a bad guy having been a US Marine right?

Well, in Germany it's legal to say "Soldiers are murderers", IIRC. (Quite some public debate about that back in the days).

I was a soldier, too, though mostly because I was too lazy to avoid the compulsury military service Germany still had back then. I don't think I quite subsribe to the claim, but I am not that concerned. Aside from my laziness to go through the refusal of military service on moral grounds, I also think my morals allow the option of killing people to defend myself from people that want to destroy my country, the society I grew up with, and the ethical and moral ideals I associate with it.
I think killing people is bad, though. I just accept that the universe is not fair - sometimes you need to be bad things to avoid worse things, and if there are negative consequences for it, you have to deal with that. But if I ever got into the situation, I better be sure I can justify my actions and did really avert worse things from happening.

[/sidetrack]

Well said. I spent some time in the US Marine Corps Reserves, and while I was never deployed and did not have a combat MOS I still received extensive combat training. This training was not to kill or murder anyone not wearing an allied uniform, it was training to defend myself and my fellow marines. I'm not a violent person by nature, and I would never think of killing someone, but on a battlefield if someone is firing at you it's not murder to return fire, it's self defense. Shooting an unarmed civilian, or even an enemy combatant who is attempting to surrender now that's different, that WOULD be murder.

solidshark214

I always knew Roddenberry was weirdly contradictory on the matter of Starfleet supposedly not being military, but I was not aware of his "Coast Guard" comparison. My Dad was Coast Guard, once upon a time, and believe you me, he would not have been amused at being told he wasn't military. Sure, they haven't always been under the Department of Defense, but they most certainly are a military branch regardless.

trennan

solidshark214 wrote: »

I always knew Roddenberry was weirdly contradictory on the matter of Starfleet supposedly not being military, but I was not aware of his "Coast Guard" comparison. My Dad was Coast Guard, once upon a time, and believe you me, he would not have been amused at being told he wasn't military. Sure, they haven't always been under the Department of Defense, but they most certainly are a military branch regardless.

U.S. Military Forces
Department of the Army
Department of the Navy
Department of the Marines
Department of the Air Force
Department of the Coast Guard.

Being a veteran of the Army, I may pick on the puddle jumpers(Coast Guard), but that my way of showing respect to them. Which is true for any branch of the military.

If you look at how the story line in STO goes. The Federation is cranking out more weapons of mass destruction than any other faction. Just look at all their new ships, designed for war, not exploration. Though my character still calls it the Federation in game. As a player I refer to it as the New Terran Empire. Because that is what they are becoming.

feiqa

trennan wrote: »

If you look at how the story line in STO goes. The Federation is cranking out more weapons of mass destruction than any other faction. Just look at all their new ships, designed for war, not exploration. Though my character still calls it the Federation in game. As a player I refer to it as the New Terran Empire. Because that is what they are becoming.

I really don't see that. Unless you are counting player characters as the wmd's.
Feds don't have Thalaron weapons. Did not invent Har'pheg torpedoes, nor invented the time incursion weapon. They have made vessels that no longer carry families and outfitted them more for conflict because too many powers have chosen the way of the blade than the path of peace. It just shows at the moment how the Federation is not being allowed to put its head back in the sand and be pre-Wolf359 again.

In STO we are not sitting over a civilization and demanding their dilithium. And if they refuse bombing them till they are not stupid then putting the survivors to our newly claimed mines. That is the Terran Empire. Not the Federation. The Federation is more a watch while someone else vaporizes you and waxes that it must be part of the grand plan of the cosmos.