Like I said, characters in Trek frequently spin some elaborate BS for the benefit of making themselves look better to less "advanced" cultures. "We don't have money or get paid" for example, stated on screen lots of times, and contradicted by their use of money and references to getting paid just as often. The "not a military" line is the same thing as far as I see, they say it every now and again, and it is contradicted even more commonly.
In Beyond, Scotty is speaking to fellow officers of Starfleet. Stating the lack of military purpose as a matter of fact. Which, again, was not disputed by either of Scotty's superiors present. Captain Kirk and Commander Spock. I would think both of them would know if Scotty was misinterpreting what Starfleet is. No counter by Spock, saying, "Mr. Scott, I believe that you may be oversimplifying the function of Starfleet...blah, blah, blah." Perhaps this is because there was no BS to counter? Might the exposition by Scotty have been intended for the viewer of the film? Us?
(/\) Exploring Star Trek Online Since July 2008 (/\)
Not only have any of us agreed to, or insinuated, that Military is a dirty word. That's all you.
Fantasizing about a culture being wiped out in 200-odd years can hardly be construed as friendly.
What isn't understood is that your words don't matter. Your opinion doesn't matter. My opinion doesn't matter.
It has been repeatedly stressed that Starfleet is not a Military. Onscreen.
Maybe you didn't read my comment above - its said by a Captain ticked off about being pulled off of his fun-time missions to participate in Federation wargames. The statement is literally NONSENSICAL AS HE SAYS IT.
You let me know the next time the non-military explorer group of your choice is having wargames.
Not only have any of us agreed to, or insinuated, that Military is a dirty word. That's all you.
Fantasizing about a culture being wiped out in 200-odd years can hardly be construed as friendly.
What isn't understood is that your words don't matter. Your opinion doesn't matter. My opinion doesn't matter.
It has been repeatedly stressed that Starfleet is not a Military. Onscreen.
Maybe you didn't read my comment above - its said by a Captain ticked off about being pulled off of his fun-time missions to participate in Federation wargames. The statement is literally NONSENSICAL AS HE SAYS IT.
You let me know the next time the non-military explorer group of your choice is having wargames.
Your turn.
As a wise man once said:
Actions speak louder than words.
Starfleet ACTS a lot like the US Navy/Coast Guard in space. They fill the same function in Federation society that the Navy/Coast Guard does IRL.
Hardly.
Not only have any of us agreed to, or insinuated, that Military is a dirty word. That's all you.
What isn't understood is that your words don't matter. Your opinion doesn't matter. My opinion doesn't matter.
It has been repeatedly stressed that Starfleet is not a Military. Onscreen.
That ends the argument of whether Starfleet is Military within the Star Trek franchise/universe.
Why do you ask us to do what you will not?
We have conceded that if Starfleet was functioning right now in the year 2016 as a non fictional organization, it would be a Military. But since it is not, and instead exists in a fictional universe, it is not a Military.
Your turn.
You accept that if it were around now it would be a military- guess what? The definition of military doesn't change just because a writer decides it does. What if they decided war no longer exists, yet you see the Federation having huge battles with other civilisations with thousands or millions of casualties. Would you agree with the writer that there is no war?
I'm all for respecting the canon but like any book, movie, or tv show, if some moments contradict the body of a work as a whole on the odd occasion, I think about how that fits with the reality they're portaying before deciding if it's bad writing, and whether or not I should reject or accept it. Sometimes I won't give it a second thought and shrug, other times it'll annoy me that they could be so careless.
We can call it anything you want though. The Federation can call it anything they want if they existed, although they don't shy away from treating it as a military force anyway. It doesn't matter if in 2017 the word "military" ceases to exist because whatever word is used to describe Starfleet in the future would just be a synonym anyway.
This is what I'm trying to get across here. The word might not exist or it might not be used for whatever reason (even though it is), but for argument's sake let's say it's not. As the viewer we're constantly getting pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, putting them together and making a picture (or in Star Trek's case, a mural).
For 20+ seasons we've been putting this puzzle together and creating this beautiful, intricate design then suddenly we find start finding these pieces like this that just don't fit anywhere.
I can't accept that anyone would want to change the rest of the jigsaw to suit those pieces, and if you do, maybe you're not really as big on canon as you make out.
Once to my knowledge. In Errand of Mercy and he speaks in context of "being a soldier, not a diplomat" emphasizing he's the wrong person for the job Starfleet requires him to do here. Instead of sending someone from the diplomatic corps, Kirk is supposed to deal with it and it's not a first contact situation a captain would function as ambassador for. One could interprete it as being a "soldier" spiritually, meant to do other stuff. It doesn't help that canonicity wasn't as firmly estblished back then, but going from all we have this is plausible.
Let's keep to the facts - if he said it again in another occasion I'm sorry and it slipped my mind, I'd need a hint where this was then.
Maybe you didn't read my comment above - its said by a Captain ticked off about being pulled off of his fun-time missions to participate in Federation wargames. The statement is literally NONSENSICAL AS HE SAYS IT.
You let me know the next time the non-military explorer group of your choice is having wargames.
Your turn.
If I'm not mistaken Picard is disgruntled, but said that despite disagreeing here he himself called for the war games because after encountering the Borg he wanted that his officers "hue their tactical skills" so in a situation of crisis they'd maximize their choices. What military would perform monoeuvres for the odd chance? They'd have drills and see to be at "peak performance" constantly I'd guess.
Context, as you said yourself, is important. And again it works in two ways.
A very fundamental problem in this debate is the inclusion of emotions, politics and a certain victimization of some particioners, making it really hard to stick to the facts. I'd ask for people not to go this route as it is destructive for a discussion.
In my opinion the conclusion that can be drawn must be that Starfleet is Starfleet - a new term for a new organization with both military and domestic jurisdiction and a broad array of tasks which originated in a non-military organisation and simply absorbed tasks and personnel without changing it's original purpose. The terminology used is a) canonical and b) written with a intend and purpose. As such it's meant to reflect that Starfleet's armed tasks are primarily peacekeeping and defense, they pretty much have a standing order of not engaging first like peacekeeping forces do. The inherent differentiation probably originates in the 60s and 80s that had a different view on a lot of matters, but it's still the stated fact we have to take in cosnideration when piecing the puzzle together.
And as we all see it is far from obvious, lots of different interpretation at work here. I personally have absolutely no problems with what was stated and what is shown as non of the outward "military" characterisations we see is actually military exclusive, terms can evolve and the court martial (not marshal btw) could be used as a term to just decribe a internal jurisdictional system which comes with Starfleet indeed taking a different position in the UFP that's a form of fundamentally changed or "evolved" from our todays terms, hence the different terminology.
If we can largely agree what's left is simply bickering over the term "military" - Starfleet performs as the UFPs military that is true. But it doesn't have the self-concept of "military" as opposed to the military of the Cardassians, Klingons, Romulans et al. which work radically different from Starfleet. Maybe this in-universe piece could put it in relation. Because whatever present day analogues one may see are irrelevant in a discussion about fiction.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Starfleet looks like a Navy: They wear uniforms, have a defined, clearly Naval, rank structure; are disciplined, give and receive military salutations (including ruffles and flourishes) use military terminology, give military decorations and have a standard.
Starfleet acts like a Navy: They fulfill similar functions as Navies/Coastguards of today, they accept and impose martial law, they are authorised to use deadly force to support the interests of the state and it's citizens.
Starfleet calls itself a Navy: The refer to themselves as a fleet, the term "Fleet" is itself a Naval term which has since been co-opted into other contexts.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Like I said, characters in Trek frequently spin some elaborate BS for the benefit of making themselves look better to less "advanced" cultures. "We don't have money or get paid" for example, stated on screen lots of times, and contradicted by their use of money and references to getting paid just as often. The "not a military" line is the same thing as far as I see, they say it every now and again, and it is contradicted even more commonly.
This^ especially given the absurdity of the idea that the Federation simply doesn't have a military....
I can agree that it is possible that Starfleet, as a whole, is not entirely military and that maybe that is adequate for calling the organization non-military... However, that does not change the fact that Starfleet is the Federation's military.
Minus the fact that it isn't.
Seriously people. Read what others have posted.
So far it is your word against the word of the IP.
Guess who wins.
I put a reply in previously that no one replied to. It has a link to the TNG writers bible and it does say that Starfleet is not military. Ok.
But it also says Data was made by unknown aliens and was tested and shown to be alive before he ever entered Starfleet. Do we ignore the episodes that say he was made by a human? Or that he had to prove he was a life form? They break the IP.
The bible also says no stories involving romulans or Klingons. So should we dismiss what actually came on the screen and discount all of the Klingon arcs?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
I put a reply in previously that no one replied to. It has a link to the TNG writers bible and it does say that Starfleet is not military. Ok.
But it also says Data was made by unknown aliens and was tested and shown to be alive before he ever entered Starfleet. Do we ignore the episodes that say he was made by a human? Or that he had to prove he was a life form? They break the IP.
The bible also says no stories involving romulans or Klingons. So should we dismiss what actually came on the screen and discount all of the Klingon arcs?
The document you linked is outdated. It was replaced by the TNG Technical Manual which doesn't contain those remarks. And even if that were the case, the "no military" line made it in canon, the other things oviously not.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I put a reply in previously that no one replied to. It has a link to the TNG writers bible and it does say that Starfleet is not military. Ok.
But it also says Data was made by unknown aliens and was tested and shown to be alive before he ever entered Starfleet. Do we ignore the episodes that say he was made by a human? Or that he had to prove he was a life form? They break the IP.
The bible also says no stories involving romulans or Klingons. So should we dismiss what actually came on the screen and discount all of the Klingon arcs?
The document you linked is outdated. It was replaced by the TNG Technical Manual which doesn't contain those remarks. And even if that were the case, the "no military" line made it in canon, the other things oviously not.
I thought the technical manual was a non-canon item for fans as it shows some of the excerpts like one of the medical lines is insurance remaining etc?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
I thought the technical manual was a non-canon item for fans as it shows some of the excerpts like one of the medical lines is insurance remaining etc?
There are indeed two books existing. The "24th Century Technical Manual" is a bootlegged version of material like you described that was actually illegally printed back in the day. The "Star Trek the Next Generation Technical Manual" however is the officially released version of what made it from the writer's guide into continuity. (This one: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation_Technical_Manual )
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Once to my knowledge. In Errand of Mercy and he speaks in context of "being a soldier, not a diplomat" emphasizing he's the wrong person for the job Starfleet requires him to do here. Instead of sending someone from the diplomatic corps, Kirk is supposed to deal with it and it's not a first contact situation a captain would function as ambassador for. One could interprete it as being a "soldier" spiritually, meant to do other stuff. It doesn't help that canonicity wasn't as firmly estblished back then, but going from all we have this is plausible.
Let's keep to the facts - if he said it again in another occasion I'm sorry and it slipped my mind, I'd need a hint where this was then.
Maybe you didn't read my comment above - its said by a Captain ticked off about being pulled off of his fun-time missions to participate in Federation wargames. The statement is literally NONSENSICAL AS HE SAYS IT.
You let me know the next time the non-military explorer group of your choice is having wargames.
Your turn.
If I'm not mistaken Picard is disgruntled, but said that despite disagreeing here he himself called for the war games because after encountering the Borg he wanted that his officers "hue their tactical skills" so in a situation of crisis they'd maximize their choices. What military would perform monoeuvres for the odd chance? They'd have drills and see to be at "peak performance" constantly I'd guess.
If you're talking about the Picard vs Riker mission.... that level of wargaming is not routine IRL. It's too expensive.
I thought the technical manual was a non-canon item for fans as it shows some of the excerpts like one of the medical lines is insurance remaining etc?
There are indeed two books existing. The "24th Century Technical Manual" is a bootlegged version of material like you described that was actually illegally printed back in the day. The "Star Trek the Next Generation Technical Manual" however is the officially released version of what made it from the writer's guide into continuity. (This one: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation_Technical_Manual )
Starfleet, despite all the proclamations of the writers and "Saint" Roddenberry, fits the definition of a modern military. In particular, one geared toward the defensive.
In other words, Starfleet is the JSDF in SPAAAAAACCCEEE!!! Like the JSDF, it's treated like a civil service job, and rarely engages in operations overseas. You can simply quit whenever you want to, rather than be bound by conscription or a contract. That's slowly changing in Japan, but that's pretty much how the JSDF has rolled historically because of constitutional limitations.
In some nations, the military either handles policing territorial waters, or oversees the agencies that do. In the United States, the U.S. Coast Guard is currently under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security, which is part of this nation's defense. In the past, it was under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Transportation, only passing to the Department of Defense in wartime. But even then, the Coast Guard operated under a military structure (still does), used military hardware (as it does now), had a military academy (still does), and worked closely with the U.S. Navy (which hasn't changed).
The United States Navy, like many other national navies across the globe, engages in non-military scientific exploration and research. The Navy works closely with various institutions and universities in the United States and abroad. Many of the firsts in exploration have been carried out by the military, with military assistance, or by military personnel.
So, Starfleet being an exploratory agency doesn't disqualify it from being a defensive military force for the Federation, and vice versa. The fact that it has a military-style academy that teaches military arts, has a military hierarchy, military regulations, a means of projecting the power and influence of the UFP, a uniform code, and military ranking system all points to Starfleet functioning as a type of military self-defense force.
All of this talk of Starfleet non being a military of ANY KIND, is just a case of bad writing and the inconsistencies in canon that Trek is famous for, not to mention Roddenberry's personal tantrum toward Paramount and Harve Bennett.
It's the military AND exploratory arm of the United Federation of Planets. Period.
Okay the first one is what I was referring to. But how was that illegally printed with a foreword from Gene?
It wasn't meant to be released to the public. The parts from Rodenberry were aimed at writers and production staff but a member of the staff leaked it and the print wasn't authorized. That's at least what I piece together from the info on the linked page. The official release followed much later in the form of Okuda et al. "TNG Technical Manual".
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Val, fiction - any fiction - must be internally self-consistent. If it's not, it's "magic realism" garbage like the '70s tried to foist on the literary world.
Are you trying to tell me Trek is the equivalent of a Castenada novel, and nothing can be relied upon to remain consistent even from moment to moment?
Hell, being fiction makes it more important that internal clues being consistent must mean something. It's an old saying that "truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense". If the fiction makes less sense than reality, it's not even fiction, it's a bunch of six-year-olds telling a story that starts with dogs driving cars and ends with "and then the little boy fell out of bed and woke up." Now, maybe that's all you expect from a tale, but I for one expect more - because even I can write better than that. (And I can prove it, down in Ten Forward! )
Okay the first one is what I was referring to. But how was that illegally printed with a foreword from Gene?
It wasn't meant to be released to the public. The parts from Rodenberry were aimed at writers and production staff but a member of the staff leaked it and the print wasn't authorized. That's at least what I piece together from the info on the linked page. The official release followed much later in the form of Okuda et al. "TNG Technical Manual".
Okay but the burgundy 1991 official released TNG manual is what I was quoting. Again it seems more meant for fans than a canon supplement. Though technically the Okuda-grams on the walls supposedly have the bi-plane and duck etc as well. Question is do we take that as a casual in joke or call it canon since it was onscreen? Heck supposedly they put the millennium Falcon as part of what was blown off the borg cube in First contact. (Personally think it was too blurry to tell) but would that make Star Wars canon for Star Trek?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Okay but the burgundy 1991 official released TNG manual is what I was quoting. Again it seems more meant for fans than a canon supplement. Though technically the Okuda-grams on the walls supposedly have the bi-plane and duck etc as well. Question is do we take that as a casual in joke or call it canon since it was onscreen? Heck supposedly they put the millennium Falcon as part of what was blown off the borg cube in First contact. (Personally think it was too blurry to tell) but would that make Star Wars canon for Star Trek?
The TNG manual doesn't have remarks about the personnel any more, though. But that's the pocket book version, the other one is as you say probably more derived from the fanzines. Who knows.
In-jokes and references can and should be included in the works and we can very much spot them. Some of them are much more subtle, though. As fun as the Falcon and the Rubber Duck are we can identify them as jokes. Exposition dialogue that's integral part of the scene though doesn't qualify as something you can ignore no matter how hard you tilt the image Fun fact: The character of colonel west and the whole briefing scene was indeed a political comment (maybe it was cut because of it at first). I didn't know this but someone on Memory Alpha said it was a reference to a Marine Colonel named Oliver North who played a big part in the Iran-Contra affair. His existence and his involvement with the "Starfleet marines" is according to this a very unflattering situation and wouldn't be the best indication for such a department.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Sooo... what does it really mean if Starfleet is a military? I consider it a military- a modified one to suit the future. It may not be a military like modern-day militaries, but then again our militaries are not the same as those that existed 4 centuries ago.
And why is it bad if Starfleet is a military? The Federation isn't militaristic just because Starfleet is a military- it just means that the Federation has a military.
Now can someone explain why the Federation is now fascist? I'm having a hard time seeing how swastika-shaped US military bases make the Federation a fascist state...
Comments
In Beyond, Scotty is speaking to fellow officers of Starfleet. Stating the lack of military purpose as a matter of fact. Which, again, was not disputed by either of Scotty's superiors present. Captain Kirk and Commander Spock. I would think both of them would know if Scotty was misinterpreting what Starfleet is. No counter by Spock, saying, "Mr. Scott, I believe that you may be oversimplifying the function of Starfleet...blah, blah, blah." Perhaps this is because there was no BS to counter? Might the exposition by Scotty have been intended for the viewer of the film? Us?
Fantasizing about a culture being wiped out in 200-odd years can hardly be construed as friendly.
Maybe you didn't read my comment above - its said by a Captain ticked off about being pulled off of his fun-time missions to participate in Federation wargames. The statement is literally NONSENSICAL AS HE SAYS IT.
You let me know the next time the non-military explorer group of your choice is having wargames.
Your turn.
My character Tsin'xing
You accept that if it were around now it would be a military- guess what? The definition of military doesn't change just because a writer decides it does. What if they decided war no longer exists, yet you see the Federation having huge battles with other civilisations with thousands or millions of casualties. Would you agree with the writer that there is no war?
I'm all for respecting the canon but like any book, movie, or tv show, if some moments contradict the body of a work as a whole on the odd occasion, I think about how that fits with the reality they're portaying before deciding if it's bad writing, and whether or not I should reject or accept it. Sometimes I won't give it a second thought and shrug, other times it'll annoy me that they could be so careless.
We can call it anything you want though. The Federation can call it anything they want if they existed, although they don't shy away from treating it as a military force anyway. It doesn't matter if in 2017 the word "military" ceases to exist because whatever word is used to describe Starfleet in the future would just be a synonym anyway.
This is what I'm trying to get across here. The word might not exist or it might not be used for whatever reason (even though it is), but for argument's sake let's say it's not. As the viewer we're constantly getting pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, putting them together and making a picture (or in Star Trek's case, a mural).
For 20+ seasons we've been putting this puzzle together and creating this beautiful, intricate design then suddenly we find start finding these pieces like this that just don't fit anywhere.
I can't accept that anyone would want to change the rest of the jigsaw to suit those pieces, and if you do, maybe you're not really as big on canon as you make out.
Once to my knowledge. In Errand of Mercy and he speaks in context of "being a soldier, not a diplomat" emphasizing he's the wrong person for the job Starfleet requires him to do here. Instead of sending someone from the diplomatic corps, Kirk is supposed to deal with it and it's not a first contact situation a captain would function as ambassador for. One could interprete it as being a "soldier" spiritually, meant to do other stuff. It doesn't help that canonicity wasn't as firmly estblished back then, but going from all we have this is plausible.
Let's keep to the facts - if he said it again in another occasion I'm sorry and it slipped my mind, I'd need a hint where this was then.
If I'm not mistaken Picard is disgruntled, but said that despite disagreeing here he himself called for the war games because after encountering the Borg he wanted that his officers "hue their tactical skills" so in a situation of crisis they'd maximize their choices. What military would perform monoeuvres for the odd chance? They'd have drills and see to be at "peak performance" constantly I'd guess.
Context, as you said yourself, is important. And again it works in two ways.
A very fundamental problem in this debate is the inclusion of emotions, politics and a certain victimization of some particioners, making it really hard to stick to the facts. I'd ask for people not to go this route as it is destructive for a discussion.
In my opinion the conclusion that can be drawn must be that Starfleet is Starfleet - a new term for a new organization with both military and domestic jurisdiction and a broad array of tasks which originated in a non-military organisation and simply absorbed tasks and personnel without changing it's original purpose. The terminology used is a) canonical and b) written with a intend and purpose. As such it's meant to reflect that Starfleet's armed tasks are primarily peacekeeping and defense, they pretty much have a standing order of not engaging first like peacekeeping forces do. The inherent differentiation probably originates in the 60s and 80s that had a different view on a lot of matters, but it's still the stated fact we have to take in cosnideration when piecing the puzzle together.
And as we all see it is far from obvious, lots of different interpretation at work here. I personally have absolutely no problems with what was stated and what is shown as non of the outward "military" characterisations we see is actually military exclusive, terms can evolve and the court martial (not marshal btw) could be used as a term to just decribe a internal jurisdictional system which comes with Starfleet indeed taking a different position in the UFP that's a form of fundamentally changed or "evolved" from our todays terms, hence the different terminology.
If we can largely agree what's left is simply bickering over the term "military" - Starfleet performs as the UFPs military that is true. But it doesn't have the self-concept of "military" as opposed to the military of the Cardassians, Klingons, Romulans et al. which work radically different from Starfleet. Maybe this in-universe piece could put it in relation. Because whatever present day analogues one may see are irrelevant in a discussion about fiction.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Starfleet looks like a Navy: They wear uniforms, have a defined, clearly Naval, rank structure; are disciplined, give and receive military salutations (including ruffles and flourishes) use military terminology, give military decorations and have a standard.
Starfleet acts like a Navy: They fulfill similar functions as Navies/Coastguards of today, they accept and impose martial law, they are authorised to use deadly force to support the interests of the state and it's citizens.
Starfleet calls itself a Navy: The refer to themselves as a fleet, the term "Fleet" is itself a Naval term which has since been co-opted into other contexts.
Starfleet is a duck.
http://www.whatbird.com/browse/objs/all/birds_na_147/20/bodyshape/303/duck-like
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I put a reply in previously that no one replied to. It has a link to the TNG writers bible and it does say that Starfleet is not military. Ok.
But it also says Data was made by unknown aliens and was tested and shown to be alive before he ever entered Starfleet. Do we ignore the episodes that say he was made by a human? Or that he had to prove he was a life form? They break the IP.
The bible also says no stories involving romulans or Klingons. So should we dismiss what actually came on the screen and discount all of the Klingon arcs?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
The document you linked is outdated. It was replaced by the TNG Technical Manual which doesn't contain those remarks. And even if that were the case, the "no military" line made it in canon, the other things oviously not.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I thought the technical manual was a non-canon item for fans as it shows some of the excerpts like one of the medical lines is insurance remaining etc?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
There are indeed two books existing. The "24th Century Technical Manual" is a bootlegged version of material like you described that was actually illegally printed back in the day. The "Star Trek the Next Generation Technical Manual" however is the officially released version of what made it from the writer's guide into continuity. (This one: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation_Technical_Manual )
This article has some background information http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation_Writers'_Technical_Manual
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
My character Tsin'xing
Okay the first one is what I was referring to. But how was that illegally printed with a foreword from Gene?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Starfleet, despite all the proclamations of the writers and "Saint" Roddenberry, fits the definition of a modern military. In particular, one geared toward the defensive.
In other words, Starfleet is the JSDF in SPAAAAAACCCEEE!!! Like the JSDF, it's treated like a civil service job, and rarely engages in operations overseas. You can simply quit whenever you want to, rather than be bound by conscription or a contract. That's slowly changing in Japan, but that's pretty much how the JSDF has rolled historically because of constitutional limitations.
In some nations, the military either handles policing territorial waters, or oversees the agencies that do. In the United States, the U.S. Coast Guard is currently under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security, which is part of this nation's defense. In the past, it was under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Transportation, only passing to the Department of Defense in wartime. But even then, the Coast Guard operated under a military structure (still does), used military hardware (as it does now), had a military academy (still does), and worked closely with the U.S. Navy (which hasn't changed).
The United States Navy, like many other national navies across the globe, engages in non-military scientific exploration and research. The Navy works closely with various institutions and universities in the United States and abroad. Many of the firsts in exploration have been carried out by the military, with military assistance, or by military personnel.
So, Starfleet being an exploratory agency doesn't disqualify it from being a defensive military force for the Federation, and vice versa. The fact that it has a military-style academy that teaches military arts, has a military hierarchy, military regulations, a means of projecting the power and influence of the UFP, a uniform code, and military ranking system all points to Starfleet functioning as a type of military self-defense force.
All of this talk of Starfleet non being a military of ANY KIND, is just a case of bad writing and the inconsistencies in canon that Trek is famous for, not to mention Roddenberry's personal tantrum toward Paramount and Harve Bennett.
It's the military AND exploratory arm of the United Federation of Planets. Period.
It wasn't meant to be released to the public. The parts from Rodenberry were aimed at writers and production staff but a member of the staff leaked it and the print wasn't authorized. That's at least what I piece together from the info on the linked page. The official release followed much later in the form of Okuda et al. "TNG Technical Manual".
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Are you trying to tell me Trek is the equivalent of a Castenada novel, and nothing can be relied upon to remain consistent even from moment to moment?
Hell, being fiction makes it more important that internal clues being consistent must mean something. It's an old saying that "truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense". If the fiction makes less sense than reality, it's not even fiction, it's a bunch of six-year-olds telling a story that starts with dogs driving cars and ends with "and then the little boy fell out of bed and woke up." Now, maybe that's all you expect from a tale, but I for one expect more - because even I can write better than that. (And I can prove it, down in Ten Forward!
Okay but the burgundy 1991 official released TNG manual is what I was quoting. Again it seems more meant for fans than a canon supplement. Though technically the Okuda-grams on the walls supposedly have the bi-plane and duck etc as well. Question is do we take that as a casual in joke or call it canon since it was onscreen? Heck supposedly they put the millennium Falcon as part of what was blown off the borg cube in First contact. (Personally think it was too blurry to tell) but would that make Star Wars canon for Star Trek?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
The TNG manual doesn't have remarks about the personnel any more, though. But that's the pocket book version, the other one is as you say probably more derived from the fanzines. Who knows.
In-jokes and references can and should be included in the works and we can very much spot them. Some of them are much more subtle, though. As fun as the Falcon and the Rubber Duck are we can identify them as jokes. Exposition dialogue that's integral part of the scene though doesn't qualify as something you can ignore no matter how hard you tilt the image
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
And why is it bad if Starfleet is a military? The Federation isn't militaristic just because Starfleet is a military- it just means that the Federation has a military.
Now can someone explain why the Federation is now fascist? I'm having a hard time seeing how swastika-shaped US military bases make the Federation a fascist state...