Stafleet has Japanese crewmembers. Would that be a good idea? Also the Enola TRIBBLE ended the war in the pacific. Good idea to name a ship after that?
Yes, my point I couldn't think of those words, though
The CV-6 as far as I am aware did not launch the Enola TRIBBLE. Especially considering we also have the Yamato, I fail to see the problem.
I didn't say it did, I said the Enola TRIBBLE ended the war.
And a forgotten Soviet invasion of Manchuria, the shock of the 2 bombs and the Soviets wiping out their last remaining intact land forces in mainland Asia ended the war
"The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory."
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
It was very much a strategic target. The United States would not waste an expensive prototype weapon on just a "demonstration".
Five targets were selected, Kyoto was one but Stimson, the Secretary of War, got it removed and Nagasaki was added as a replacement later.
Kyoto was selected as target for its psychological effect so yes, some people (Groves) was quite willing to basicly destroy a city of cultural historical importance for exactly that "psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released (Target Committee, Los Alamos, May 10-11, 1945)".
Of course in Star Trek the unification of the planet was after what was implied to been a global nuclear war so I dont think people at that time would get hang up on the end of WW II when they kinda experienced that about a few generations before.
All of the targets selected, including Kyoto (which was a major industrial center), were of military importance to the Empire of Japan. And since the conflict was fought under total war doctrines, demoralization was a major aim of ALL bombing campaigns conducted in Europe and the Pacific. Which is a big reason why those aims were mentioned in the Los Alamos Targeting Committee (in addition to bringing the war to a more favorable conclusion). It was a given, considered of "great importance". But it wasn't the SOLE aim of using the bombs on hand against the Japanese main islands. That was my point. It wasn't solely for the aim of demoralizing Japan, but also destroying it's remaining capacity to wage war in the process. k20vtec's point of the attacks being only a "demonstration of firepower" is incorrect. Nor was it intended to be solely a message to Stalin, as some revisionists like to claim.
Japan's ability to PROJECT power was smashed. But it still had enough left to put up furious resistance on the homefront. Something the war weary Allies wanted to avoid if possible. The bombs were a way out, and a chance to end the war without a major slaughter, something too good to pass up.
On the last point, I'm total agreement. A survivor of the (fictional) Third World War, and large scale use of nuclear weapons, might look at the bombings of 1945, and snort at all the hoopla over them, even if they agree that they were a bad thing.
On three separate occasions during the Pacific War, the Japanese announced that she had been sunk in battle, earning her the name "The Grey Ghost". Enterprise earned 20 battle stars, the most for any U.S. warship in World War II and became the most decorated US ship of World War II.
You know this ship should be with the history of the Enterprises on the Fleet Starbase, for some reason she was excluded. I personally think this is not right. How about we ask cryptic to add this ship to the halls of history.
For those who don't know. CV 6 is a World War 2 carrier. Not to be with confused with CVN 65.
also by the end of the war she was known as CVN 6 she was the first carrier in the us navy to conduct night opperations.
There was and NEVER have been a CVN 6... you know what the N stand for right? A ship that have Nuclear Reactors as a Power-plant they would have to tear out the hull and it much cheaper to build a new ship... that where CVAN 65 came in. Yes the 65 was at first called CVAN 65 and then later CVN 65.
CVAN was Attack Carrier Vessel Nuclear.
CVN is Carrier Vessel Nuclear.
CV was Carrier Vessel
CVA was Attack Carrier Vessel.
I think CVN-65 was included because she was featured in ST:TVH. Along with the other wall ships she has made appearances (however limited) in canon material. While the Yorktown was the name of the feature vessel in Roddenberry's first Trek script in 64' proposal it was rejected. Perhaps as a result it has been alluded to in the naming of other serving Trek ships within the franchise. I don't think the wall of ships is intended as a real world memorial nor the absence of the Yorktown Enterprise intended to slight or disrespect. It just depicts the canon lineage of the starship Enterprise.
When ST: TVH was filmed CVN65 was on deployment. The ship that was shown was the U.S.S. Ranger CV 61
On three separate occasions during the Pacific War, the Japanese announced that she had been sunk in battle, earning her the name "The Grey Ghost". Enterprise earned 20 battle stars, the most for any U.S. warship in World War II and became the most decorated US ship of World War II.
You know this ship should be with the history of the Enterprises on the Fleet Starbase, for some reason she was excluded. I personally think this is not right. How about we ask cryptic to add this ship to the halls of history.
For those who don't know. CV 6 is a World War 2 carrier. Not to be with confused with CVN 65.
also by the end of the war she was known as CVN 6 she was the first carrier in the us navy to conduct night opperations.
There was and NEVER have been a CVN 6... you know what the N stand for right? A ship that have Nuclear Reactors as a Power-plant they would have to tear out the hull and it much cheaper to build a new ship... that where CVAN 65 came in. Yes the 65 was at first called CVAN 65 and then later CVN 65.
CVAN was Attack Carrier Vessel Nuclear.
CVN is Carrier Vessel Nuclear.
CV was Carrier Vessel
CVA was Attack Carrier Vessel.
I think CVN-65 was included because she was featured in ST:TVH. Along with the other wall ships she has made appearances (however limited) in canon material. While the Yorktown was the name of the feature vessel in Roddenberry's first Trek script in 64' proposal it was rejected. Perhaps as a result it has been alluded to in the naming of other serving Trek ships within the franchise. I don't think the wall of ships is intended as a real world memorial nor the absence of the Yorktown Enterprise intended to slight or disrespect. It just depicts the canon lineage of the starship Enterprise.
When ST: TVH was filmed CVN65 was on deployment. The ship that was shown was the U.S.S. Ranger CV 61
Yes, there was a CV(N)-6. The N stood for night operations and used in 1945. Its actually in the wiki article.
Semantically not sure if you're saying one event simply followed the other chronologically, or if you're claiming causation. If the latter, planetary unification was a result of first contact with an alien race, not the result of any nuclear exchange.
Planetary unification seem largely due to First Contact with the Vulcans as well due to the Nuclear War basically the end of national governments, "nationalism" in the form of the worsts aspects had been greatly reduced.
It is arguable that perhaps what really happened is humanity's sense of the "other" merely shifted outward. At times, I hear statements about alien species that would be pretty inexcusable if said about Earth cultures. But Picard's speeches aside (and disproven speeches, I might add, as First Contact made a really memorable scene to demonstrate), human nature doesn't really change that much through the years.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Interesting note, the CVN-65 never appeared in any Star Trek movie, despite dialog. That was actually the USS Ranger (CV-61), a Forrestal-class supercarrier. Enterprise was at sea during filming.
On three separate occasions during the Pacific War, the Japanese announced that she had been sunk in battle, earning her the name "The Grey Ghost". Enterprise earned 20 battle stars, the most for any U.S. warship in World War II and became the most decorated US ship of World War II.
You know this ship should be with the history of the Enterprises on the Fleet Starbase, for some reason she was excluded. I personally think this is not right. How about we ask cryptic to add this ship to the halls of history.
For those who don't know. CV 6 is a World War 2 carrier. Not to be with confused with CVN 65.
also by the end of the war she was known as CVN 6 she was the first carrier in the us navy to conduct night opperations.
There was and NEVER have been a CVN 6... you know what the N stand for right? A ship that have Nuclear Reactors as a Power-plant they would have to tear out the hull and it much cheaper to build a new ship... that where CVAN 65 came in. Yes the 65 was at first called CVAN 65 and then later CVN 65.
CVAN was Attack Carrier Vessel Nuclear.
CVN is Carrier Vessel Nuclear.
CV was Carrier Vessel
CVA was Attack Carrier Vessel.
I think CVN-65 was included because she was featured in ST:TVH. Along with the other wall ships she has made appearances (however limited) in canon material. While the Yorktown was the name of the feature vessel in Roddenberry's first Trek script in 64' proposal it was rejected. Perhaps as a result it has been alluded to in the naming of other serving Trek ships within the franchise. I don't think the wall of ships is intended as a real world memorial nor the absence of the Yorktown Enterprise intended to slight or disrespect. It just depicts the canon lineage of the starship Enterprise.
When ST: TVH was filmed CVN65 was on deployment. The ship that was shown was the U.S.S. Ranger CV 61
Yes, there was a CV(N)-6. The N stood for night operations and used in 1945. Its actually in the wiki article.
I see, but the way he said it CVN.. Not CV(N)... he made it sound like she have a Nuclear reactor on it, which she never did.
It's a military achievement that is an ill fitting name for an exploration and humanitarian fleet.
Considering that Starfleet embodied the naval traditions of old Earth in Kirk's time, and warfighting is part of Starfleet's mission, naming vessels after warships, battles, famous military personnel, etc. is more than appropriate.
A minor part. Until DS9 there were no ships specifically built far war, just armed exploration ships, it's massively out of place to name a vessel designed to seek out new life and new civilisations after an old ship that got famous by killing more people than other old ships.
On three separate occasions during the Pacific War, the Japanese announced that she had been sunk in battle, earning her the name "The Grey Ghost". Enterprise earned 20 battle stars, the most for any U.S. warship in World War II and became the most decorated US ship of World War II.
You know this ship should be with the history of the Enterprises on the Fleet Starbase, for some reason she was excluded. I personally think this is not right. How about we ask cryptic to add this ship to the halls of history.
For those who don't know. CV 6 is a World War 2 carrier. Not to be with confused with CVN 65.
also by the end of the war she was known as CVN 6 she was the first carrier in the us navy to conduct night opperations.
There was and NEVER have been a CVN 6... you know what the N stand for right? A ship that have Nuclear Reactors as a Power-plant they would have to tear out the hull and it much cheaper to build a new ship... that where CVAN 65 came in. Yes the 65 was at first called CVAN 65 and then later CVN 65.
CVAN was Attack Carrier Vessel Nuclear.
CVN is Carrier Vessel Nuclear.
CV was Carrier Vessel
CVA was Attack Carrier Vessel.
Interesting note, the CVN-65 never appeared in any Star Trek movie, despite dialog. That was actually the USS Ranger (CV-61), a Forrestal-class supercarrier. Enterprise was at sea during filming.
You're both mistaking actors for characters. The Enterprise was in TVH whether it was played by another ship or not.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
(...)
You think a devastating nuclear attack against civilian targets would be a thing Starfleet would name their exploration ships after especially in light of the Eugenics War/WWIII?
(...)
To be fair, I don't think the majority of players in STO does care about the actual game universe lore but want to play battleship in space. That and people have huge pant tents for guns and war in general
(...)
On the last point, I'm total agreement. A survivor of the (fictional) Third World War, and large scale use of nuclear weapons, might look at the bombings of 1945, and snort at all the hoopla over them, even if they agree that they were a bad thing.
It's difficult to speak of how a fictional person would think about historical and fictional historical events but I have a hard time believing historical relativization would come that easy. Or do WW2 veterans generally shrug off WW1 events, for example?
^ 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
Azrael, I'd say you've got more than enough data there to prove your point.
It's for that reason I think there is MORE than enough precedent for Alyosha's ship to be named after a battle of the Dominion War, and I have zero intention of changing it.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Among the ships destroyed at Wolf 359, USS Melbourne, USS Bellerophon, USS Yamaguchi, USS Saratoga, USS Bonestell, USS Ahwahnee, USS Buran, USS Chekov, USS Firebrand, USS Kyushu, USS Liberator, USS Princeton, USS Roosevelt, USS Tolstoy. Among a task force assembled in TNG Descent there were the USS Crazy Horse, USS Agamemnon, USS Gorkon. There has also been a USS Berlin, USS Valley Forge, USS Fearless, USS Bismark. Starfleet (or more correctly Trek writers) have never had a problem naming ships after warships of the past, nor should they have any such problem.
One of my characters has a ship named after one of Ambassador Spock's most famous human ancestors, Mr. Richard Grayson, USS Nightwing, Constellation class (its head canon based on the Star Trek/Legion of Superheroes crossover comic;) ).
Sigh, do you want to make me dig out all the non-warship names?Also, Melbourne is a city, Bellerophon is a hero, Yamaguchi is a place, Saratoga is a place, Bonestell is an artist, etc. What have they got to do with warships?
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Among the ships destroyed at Wolf 359, USS Melbourne, USS Bellerophon, USS Yamaguchi, USS Saratoga, USS Bonestell, USS Ahwahnee, USS Buran, USS Chekov, USS Firebrand, USS Kyushu, USS Liberator, USS Princeton, USS Roosevelt, USS Tolstoy. Among a task force assembled in TNG Descent there were the USS Crazy Horse, USS Agamemnon, USS Gorkon. There has also been a USS Berlin, USS Valley Forge, USS Fearless, USS Bismark. Starfleet (or more correctly Trek writers) have never had a problem naming ships after warships of the past, nor should they have any such problem.
One of my characters has a ship named after one of Ambassador Spock's most famous human ancestors, Mr. Richard Grayson, USS Nightwing, Constellation class (its head canon based on the Star Trek/Legion of Superheroes crossover comic;) ).
Sigh, do you want to make me dig out all the non-warship names?Also, Melbourne is a city, Bellerophon is a hero, Yamaguchi is a place, Saratoga is a place, Bonestell is an artist, etc. What have they got to do with warships?
I refer to you again to my earlier reply to you. Sadly these forums won't let me link a specific post/reply number so I have to be crude and copy & paste it.
========
Stafleet has Japanese crewmembers. Would that be a good idea? Also the Enola TRIBBLE ended the war in the pacific. Good idea to name a ship after that?
I would figure that the super-enlightened Federation citizens on Earth would not about a war that occurred hundreds of years prior. Hell, Starfleet personnel can't even remember how Starfleet uniforms worked from a few decades prior.
You already have the USS Enterprise that has existed on several different ship classes.
There's also canon used: USS Intrepid, which had a WWII use namesake that saw very heavy action in the war (especially considering Star Trek was a U.S. made show of the 60's).
USS Lexington - U.S. Revolutionary War source. Think about the British in the crews of Starfleet! Not to mention there were 2 USS Lexingtons in WWII, the first being sunk early in the war and a later Essex-class that saw heavy action against Japan.
USS Yamato? What would the old nationalities that fought Japan in WWII think?
Would anyone have cared in the timeframe of TOS onwards? Hell, do the humans on Earth even think of themselves in the dividing lines of nationalities, races from an old Earth that nearly destroyed itself to even bother to care?
=========
End of my copy & paste.
Also, Saratoga isn't just a place but a American Revolutionary War battle. When TOS came out, there were numerous ships named after battles, as some of the ships I listed have.
Personally, I have no qualms about players ingame using Non-U.S. battles. I don't have issue with guys having Jutland, etc. Hell, some of my Fed characters have ships named:
Leyte Gulf
Tassafaronga
Surigao Strait (I particularly like how snazzy this sounds)
Essex
Zuikaku
Midway
Bismarck Sea
Chin'toka
Etc.
The last is Dominion War. Most of the others are WWII Pacific War battles with 1 lopsided Japanese victory in there. I got no problems with it at all.
Well, on my Fed Engineer, I named ships after members of the nuclear program. (My favorite name in there might be Konopinskj). I have some doubts this would really be names Starfleet would use, but who knows - they were important scientists. Maybe naming ships after them serves as a cautionary tale - that science can be used for good and bad?
Looking up his picture on Google I note - whoa, was Gene Roddenberry a Polish scientist, too?
Emil Konopinskj:
Gene Roddenberry:
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
I would figure that the super-enlightened Federation citizens on Earth would not about a war that occurred hundreds of years prior.
Because it's massively out of character.
By and large nobody nowadays cares about old wars beyond the turn of the last century, would it be appropriate to name a probe bound for Pluto the Agincourt? Yes, maybe, but would it be an appropriate name? Would't Voyager be better? Are lifeboats named Bosworth Field? Or are they named things like 'Spirit of the Sea'?
I suspect it's more likely the U.S.S. Saratoga is named after a place not the warship, the Intrepid after the concept not the warship, the Enterprise after the concept or the shuttle not the warships.
Starfleet vessels are science ships, colonisation ships, medical ships, transport escorts, exploration ships etc.
"So Admiral, how did this fine vessel get its name?"
"Well ambassador, it's named after an old Earth ship famous for killing a metric shittonne of people and sending their bodies to a watery grave before moving onto bomb the TRIBBLE out of a small island. We figured it was a good name for this hospital ship."
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Sigh. My point was that among all the various sources for the names of ships military engagements and military vessels are just as well represented as any other source and always have been.
But I've just pointed out they're not. There's no reason why a Starfleet vessel would be named after warship even if the warship shares the same name. It's not part of a lineage.
If there was a reason to exclude CV 6 from the Enterprise lineage then almost all of the ships ever listed in Trek should have been renamed.
Wrong. The reason it's not listed is because wall space is limited and reserved for ships that appeared in the shows or films. And no, you don't need to rename the majority of them, sometimes a place is a place and not a warship.
Agamemnon was a brutal primitive conqueror after all. There is a USS Cook named for James Cook, celebrated as an explorer, but guilty of numerous atrocities among indigenous peoples all over the world. There is also a canon ship named Endeavor, one of Cook's vessels, should Starfleet really be celebrating the bloody "exploration" of the 1700s by your point of view?
Agamemnon is mostly mythological, The Cook could have been named after (not for) anybody, Endeavour may be named after the shuttle, anyway bloody or not, it's still an exploration vessel. It at least fits the theme of exploration coupled with the apparent lack of caring the Federation would have towards the past.
Essentially, having an impressive war record should not get a ship wall space when other ships would fit better. The only example would be the Mirror Universe where the Terrans would probably have the captains skull on the wall or something.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
(...)
"So Admiral, how did this fine vessel get its name?"
"Well ambassador, it's named after an old Earth ship famous for killing a metric shittonne of people and sending their bodies to a watery grave before moving onto bomb the TRIBBLE out of a small island. We figured it was a good name for this hospital ship."
Laughed.Out.Loud.
^ 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
"Well ambassador, it's named after an old Earth ship famous for killing a metric shittonne of people and sending their bodies to a watery grave before moving onto bomb the TRIBBLE out of a small island. We figured it was a good name for this hospital ship."
"Uh-oh.. You Earthers are strange - in what possible way could it be a good name?"
"It's a reminder of the dark aspects of our past, and serves as motivation for the crew to overcome the dark and replace despair and death with hope and healing."
"An interesting view point. I think I understand. You Earthers are still strange, though."
"Thanks."
The Endeavor Space shuttle did not exist in the 1960s when the USS Endeavor appeared in TOS
And what was the original Endeavor named for?
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Saratoga is a battle as well as a place as others have mentioned. There are literally dozens of canon starfleet ships named after warships, military leaders, famous battles (USS Gettysburg), etc etc. Attempting to deny this is just foolish, and I've never found you to be foolish.
That was me that pointed it out.
I never said there were no ships named after military ships, I said it's out of character, then I said there's no reason to believe the majority of the ships were named after the military ships but after the things those ships were named after.
The Endeavor Space shuttle did not exist in the 1960s when the USS Endeavor appeared in TOS.
Endeavour has a 'U' in it no matter where you're from. The shuttle existed when the Enterprise was launched, in universe isn't the same as out of it obviously.
Now again using a canon ship as an example, "What is your ship named for Captain?" "A primitive North American Indigenous tribal chief most famous for a bloody battle fought in a failed attempt to avoid being conquered." USS Crazy Horse. There is also a USS Lakota, named after Crazy Horse's tribe (also my tribe), we weren't exactly known for being real nice people.
Which means either someone at Starfleet command had a poor choice of names or someone behind the scenes had a poor choice in names.
Above all else Starfleet is still a military organization, James Kirk said himself in TOS, they are soldiers, no matter their exploratory and peackeeping focus they are still military.
Above all Starfleet is not a military organisation Picard said so many times. No matter if they have to shoot people occasionally their focus is on science and exploration.
"Well ambassador, it's named after an old Earth ship famous for killing a metric shittonne of people and sending their bodies to a watery grave before moving onto bomb the TRIBBLE out of a small island. We figured it was a good name for this hospital ship."
"Uh-oh.. You Earthers are strange - in what possible way could it be a good name?"
"It's a reminder of the dark aspects of our past, and serves as motivation for the crew to overcome the dark and replace despair and death with hope and healing."
"An interesting view point. I think I understand. You Earthers are still strange, though."
"Thanks."
That would be a stupid thing to name a ship for, whatever reason would an exploration ship ever be named for looking back? That would't fly in real life never mind in Starfleet.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
I can honestly say that Starfleet names it ships based on more lineage rather original meaning. I imagine the ship's name origin is based on the discretion of the specific commander. Starfleet is a Military says 99% of Trek Characters, only Picard said it wasn't once but he would later recant and put battlefield commander on a list of his accomplishments.
Besides, nearly all the Constitution-class ships are named after warships, weapons, and battlefield commanders. Enterprise, Yorktown, Hood, Potemkin, Lexington, Constitution, Constellation, Republic, Essex, Emden, Eagle, Merrimac, Kongo, Farragut, and Olympia. Only Endeavour, Korolev, and Ahwahnee were the exceptions.
I would figure that the super-enlightened Federation citizens on Earth would not about a war that occurred hundreds of years prior.
Because it's massively out of character.
By and large nobody nowadays cares about old wars beyond the turn of the last century, would it be appropriate to name a probe bound for Pluto the Agincourt? Yes, maybe, but would it be an appropriate name? Would't Voyager be better? Are lifeboats named Bosworth Field? Or are they named things like 'Spirit of the Sea'?
I suspect it's more likely the U.S.S. Saratoga is named after a place not the warship, the Intrepid after the concept not the warship, the Enterprise after the concept or the shuttle not the warships.
Starfleet vessels are science ships, colonisation ships, medical ships, transport escorts, exploration ships etc.
"So Admiral, how did this fine vessel get its name?"
"Well ambassador, it's named after an old Earth ship famous for killing a metric shittonne of people and sending their bodies to a watery grave before moving onto bomb the TRIBBLE out of a small island. We figured it was a good name for this hospital ship."
You are completely forgetting that Star Trek was an American made TV show made in the years after WWII with a good number of people working in the entertainment industry having served in the military in WWII. Roddenberry himself was a B-17 crewman for the war.
Do you really think the naming of a ship like USS Saratoga had no significance made by a U.S. TV production and simply named a ship out of a blue with "Saratoga?" Just because?
It's a military achievement that is an ill fitting name for an exploration and humanitarian fleet.
Considering that Starfleet embodied the naval traditions of old Earth in Kirk's time, and warfighting is part of Starfleet's mission, naming vessels after warships, battles, famous military personnel, etc. is more than appropriate.
A minor part. Until DS9 there were no ships specifically built far war, just armed exploration ships, it's massively out of place to name a vessel designed to seek out new life and new civilisations after an old ship that got famous by killing more people than other old ships.
Established lore doesn't support your statement or belief. Defense of the UFP (thus warfighting capability) is just as much a part of Starfleet's mission as exploration and humanitarian efforts. Period.
And the UFP Starfleet has long used starships named after military vessels, military officers, or campaigns from Earth's past. That is also established in lore. No matter how much you don't want it to be so.
(...)
You think a devastating nuclear attack against civilian targets would be a thing Starfleet would name their exploration ships after especially in light of the Eugenics War/WWIII?
(...)
To be fair, I don't think the majority of players in STO does care about the actual game universe lore but want to play battleship in space. That and people have huge pant tents for guns and war in general
(...)
On the last point, I'm total agreement. A survivor of the (fictional) Third World War, and large scale use of nuclear weapons, might look at the bombings of 1945, and snort at all the hoopla over them, even if they agree that they were a bad thing.
It's difficult to speak of how a fictional person would think about historical and fictional historical events but I have a hard time believing historical relativization would come that easy. Or do WW2 veterans generally shrug off WW1 events, for example?
I won't go into a detailed response on the first part, since it's just the occasional snippets of trollish posting I expect from you, in an otherwise sterling record of brilliant posting. Especially when it comes to anything military related, and Star Trek, in the same thread. That's just you being you, and it does have the benefit of keeping things interesting from time to time. I hate it when things get stale.
Anyway...
You might find it hard to believe, it's entirely possible and does still happen. And it will continue to do so. The Greatest Generation, a number I knew personally growing up, didn't make a habit of getting their panties in a wad over a past that didn't pertain to them directly. Nor were they notorious for keeping TRIBBLE stirred up for political and monetary gain. Unlike more recent generations. What was done is done, and they left it to the history books to remind us of the tribulations of the past (and rightly so). Most were more focused on moving on, starting a prosperous life for themselves in the post-war era, and looking forward to tomorrow. Or picking up where they left off when called into service. The events of World War I were the furthest thing on their minds
"Time heals all wounds", as the old saying goes. Overtime, all the historical events, even those that are still controversial, will become just another entry in the history books. Regardless if anything bigger overshadows it or not, as was the case in Star Trek's take on a hypothetical Third World War nuke-o-rama, versus the real world atomic attacks on Japan in 1945. I seriously doubt people would still be debating it as if it happened yesterday, in such circumstances.
I won't go into a detailed response on the first part, since it's just the occasional snippets of trollish posting I expect from you, in an otherwise sterling record of brilliant posting. Especially when it comes to anything military related, and Star Trek, in the same thread. That's just you being you, and it does have the benefit of keeping things interesting from time to time. I hate it when things get stale.(...)
That part I wrote didn't really require any kind of response to be honest. I believe in a basic concept of balance and just think now and then you need a Targ like me to create a counterweight to those people, that definitely exist en masse, who'll switch off their brain functions the moment a uniform shows up, turning into propaganda broadcasts. If that was the topic of this thread I'd take some time to admit that neither air headed pathos on the side nor polemic sarcasm on the other side would do any good to smooth over the edges but I just need to vent from time to time, otherwise you'd had me go poof at some point
You might find it hard to believe, it's entirely possible and does still happen. And it will continue to do so. The Greatest Generation, a number I knew personally growing up, didn't make a habit of getting their panties in a wad over a past that didn't pertain to them directly. Nor were they notorious for keeping TRIBBLE stirred up for political and monetary gain. Unlike more recent generations. What was done is done, and they left it to the history books to remind us of the tribulations of the past (and rightly so). Most were more focused on moving on, starting a prosperous life for themselves in the post-war era, and looking forward to tomorrow. Or picking up where they left off when called into service. The events of World War I were the furthest thing on their minds
"Time heals all wounds", as the old saying goes. Overtime, all the historical events, even those that are still controversial, will become just another entry in the history books. Regardless if anything bigger overshadows it or not, as was the case in Star Trek's take on a hypothetical Third World War nuke-o-rama, versus the real world atomic attacks on Japan in 1945. I seriously doubt people would still be debating it as if it happened yesterday, in such circumstances.
I have no problems believing that and maybe I misphrased what I was going for. Of course, with increasing distance to an event, temporal or spatial, people's perception will change and of course things that I personally have witnessed will imprint stronger on me than events I learned about. That's out of the question. What I meant was even when people witnessed WW3 they probably won't talk about WW2 as if it was nothing or even develop a sense of longing to have one "like that" or something like this. Even and maybe especially you witnessed nuclear war yourself I'm pretty sure you won't want to name your ships symbolising a brighter future of cooperation after wartime events and mass casaulties. Of course nobody who witnessed WW3 is around when Starfleet christens their ships (not even United Earth Starfleet), but I think my point is understandable. In the end, it comes down to
Which means either someone at Starfleet command had a poor choice of names or someone behind the scenes had a poor choice in names.
(...)
That would be a stupid thing to name a ship for, whatever reason would an exploration ship ever be named for looking back? That would't fly in real life never mind in Starfleet.
Regardless of what one personally want to see in STO and whatever they like to play, the source material had a message and however you go into it and interpret the events you cannot possibly twist that in essence Star Trek was set in the spirit of going forward, be inclusive and let nations of earth and our conflicts behind us. Ships might share a warships' name just like other terms used in Star Trek resemble terms we know today like ranks and ship classification, but the meaning is different. Also, those warships had to be named after something in the first place. "Endeavour", "Enterprise", "Intrepid", "Voyager" - those are terms used in the context of exploration here. They may honour real life space probes and shuttles and they may share the name of warships, but is is a huge jump to assume Starfleet (who's credo is "Ex Astris, scientia" and not "Shoot to kill") would honour warships instead of using and maybe repurpose terms to illustrate what they want these ships to be about. Also, sites of battles are just places in the first place and even if there are ship names in canon that actually do honour RL warships it is still out-of-character.
I can honestly say that Starfleet names it ships based on more lineage rather original meaning. I imagine the ship's name origin is based on the discretion of the specific commander. Starfleet is a Military says 99% of Trek Characters, only Picard said it wasn't once but he would later recant and put battlefield commander on a list of his accomplishments. (...)
It is interesting that Picard, who didn't just voice his personal feelings but also served as a exposition mechanism for the story and universe that was painted for us, always gets cast aside as just one "deluded" individual but Kirk stating he's a soldier speaks the absolute truth about a whole franchise (which gets out of it's way, behind the scenes and during the scenes, to promote different ideals). We have very few people adressing this issue in dialogue on screen. Of the top of my head we have Kirk stating he's a soldier. Then we have Picard stating the opposite numerous times and we have O'Brien very concerned stating he's not an soldier but an engineer. Also, if you could ask any of the Doctors in Starfleet wether they would consider themselves soldiers or military personnel first and foremost... you know the catchphrase
Starfleet is a fictional organization. Why is it so hard to just accept that they perform military duties without actually considering themselves a military? They still do that stuff, but it's not that it's their credo or anything. Mentioning O'Brien, he's not a solder but an engineer - and blows bad guys up with a improvised bomb. Awesome scene, illustrating what Starfleet is - not soldiers, but they still kick your butt if they have to. What, aside from some sense of subjective "devaluation" by not using military terms, speaks against getting behind that?
^ 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 won't go into a detailed response on the first part, since it's just the occasional snippets of trollish posting I expect from you, in an otherwise sterling record of brilliant posting. Especially when it comes to anything military related, and Star Trek, in the same thread. That's just you being you, and it does have the benefit of keeping things interesting from time to time. I hate it when things get stale.(...)
That part I wrote didn't really require any kind of response to be honest. I believe in a basic concept of balance and just think now and then you need a Targ like me to create a counterweight to those people, that definitely exist en masse, who'll switch off their brain functions the moment a uniform shows up, turning into propaganda broadcasts. If that was the topic of this thread I'd take some time to admit that neither air headed pathos on the side nor polemic sarcasm on the other side would do any good to smooth over the edges but I just need to vent from time to time, otherwise you'd had me go poof at some point
You might find it hard to believe, it's entirely possible and does still happen. And it will continue to do so. The Greatest Generation, a number I knew personally growing up, didn't make a habit of getting their panties in a wad over a past that didn't pertain to them directly. Nor were they notorious for keeping TRIBBLE stirred up for political and monetary gain. Unlike more recent generations. What was done is done, and they left it to the history books to remind us of the tribulations of the past (and rightly so). Most were more focused on moving on, starting a prosperous life for themselves in the post-war era, and looking forward to tomorrow. Or picking up where they left off when called into service. The events of World War I were the furthest thing on their minds
"Time heals all wounds", as the old saying goes. Overtime, all the historical events, even those that are still controversial, will become just another entry in the history books. Regardless if anything bigger overshadows it or not, as was the case in Star Trek's take on a hypothetical Third World War nuke-o-rama, versus the real world atomic attacks on Japan in 1945. I seriously doubt people would still be debating it as if it happened yesterday, in such circumstances.
I have no problems believing that and maybe I misphrased what I was going for. Of course, with increasing distance to an event, temporal or spatial, people's perception will change and of course things that I personally have witnessed will imprint stronger on me than events I learned about. That's out of the question. What I meant was even when people witnessed WW3 they probably won't talk about WW2 as if it was nothing or even develop a sense of longing to have one "like that" or something like this. Even and maybe especially you witnessed nuclear war yourself I'm pretty sure you won't want to name your ships symbolising a brighter future of cooperation after wartime events and mass casaulties. Of course nobody who witnessed WW3 is around when Starfleet christens their ships (not even United Earth Starfleet), but I think my point is understandable. In the end, it comes down to
Which means either someone at Starfleet command had a poor choice of names or someone behind the scenes had a poor choice in names.
(...)
That would be a stupid thing to name a ship for, whatever reason would an exploration ship ever be named for looking back? That would't fly in real life never mind in Starfleet.
Regardless of what one personally want to see in STO and whatever they like to play, the source material had a message and however you go into it and interpret the events you cannot possibly twist that in essence Star Trek was set in the spirit of going forward, be inclusive and let nations of earth and our conflicts behind us. Ships might share a warships' name just like other terms used in Star Trek resemble terms we know today like ranks and ship classification, but the meaning is different. Also, those warships had to be named after something in the first place. "Endeavour", "Enterprise", "Intrepid", "Voyager" - those are terms used in the context of exploration here. They may honour real life space probes and shuttles and they may share the name of warships, but is is a huge jump to assume Starfleet (who's credo is "Ex Astris, scientia" and not "Shoot to kill") would honour warships instead of using and maybe repurpose terms to illustrate what they want these ships to be about. Also, sites of battles are just places in the first place and even if there are ship names in canon that actually do honour RL warships it is still out-of-character.
I can honestly say that Starfleet names it ships based on more lineage rather original meaning. I imagine the ship's name origin is based on the discretion of the specific commander. Starfleet is a Military says 99% of Trek Characters, only Picard said it wasn't once but he would later recant and put battlefield commander on a list of his accomplishments. (...)
It is interesting that Picard, who didn't just voice his personal feelings but also served as a exposition mechanism for the story and universe that was painted for us, always gets cast aside as just one "deluded" individual but Kirk stating he's a soldier speaks the absolute truth about a whole franchise (which gets out of it's way, behind the scenes and during the scenes, to promote different ideals). We have very few people adressing this issue in dialogue on screen. Of the top of my head we have Kirk stating he's a soldier. Then we have Picard stating the opposite numerous times and we have O'Brien very concerned stating he's not an soldier but an engineer. Also, if you could ask any of the Doctors in Starfleet wether they would consider themselves soldiers or military personnel first and foremost... you know the catchphrase
Starfleet is a fictional organization. Why is it so hard to just accept that they perform military duties without actually considering themselves a military? They still do that stuff, but it's not that it's their credo or anything. Mentioning O'Brien, he's not a solder but an engineer - and blows bad guys up with a improvised bomb. Awesome scene, illustrating what Starfleet is - not soldiers, but they still kick your butt if they have to. What, aside from some sense of subjective "devaluation" by not using military terms, speaks against getting behind that?
Because they are a military. The US and British navies, prior to the 20th Century, performed nearly the exact same mission profiles as what Starfleet would do. Actually, Picard only said that one rant in Peak Performance, and he was the only Trek character that echoed Starfleet is not a Military sentiment (which was what Roddenberry originally intended) however, O'Brien has stated that he was a soldier, Federation civilians have referred to Starfleet as the military, and Picard would later say that he was a battlefield commander. The Modern US Navy is the world's fastest supplier of humanitarian aid to any where in the world even during the last decade of warfare, the US Navy was the first on scene to help in Japan, Indonesia, and Haiti.
I won't go into a detailed response on the first part, since it's just the occasional snippets of trollish posting I expect from you, in an otherwise sterling record of brilliant posting. Especially when it comes to anything military related, and Star Trek, in the same thread. That's just you being you, and it does have the benefit of keeping things interesting from time to time. I hate it when things get stale.(...)
That part I wrote didn't really require any kind of response to be honest. I believe in a basic concept of balance and just think now and then you need a Targ like me to create a counterweight to those people, that definitely exist en masse, who'll switch off their brain functions the moment a uniform shows up, turning into propaganda broadcasts. If that was the topic of this thread I'd take some time to admit that neither air headed pathos on the side nor polemic sarcasm on the other side would do any good to smooth over the edges but I just need to vent from time to time, otherwise you'd had me go poof at some point
You might find it hard to believe, it's entirely possible and does still happen. And it will continue to do so. The Greatest Generation, a number I knew personally growing up, didn't make a habit of getting their panties in a wad over a past that didn't pertain to them directly. Nor were they notorious for keeping TRIBBLE stirred up for political and monetary gain. Unlike more recent generations. What was done is done, and they left it to the history books to remind us of the tribulations of the past (and rightly so). Most were more focused on moving on, starting a prosperous life for themselves in the post-war era, and looking forward to tomorrow. Or picking up where they left off when called into service. The events of World War I were the furthest thing on their minds
"Time heals all wounds", as the old saying goes. Overtime, all the historical events, even those that are still controversial, will become just another entry in the history books. Regardless if anything bigger overshadows it or not, as was the case in Star Trek's take on a hypothetical Third World War nuke-o-rama, versus the real world atomic attacks on Japan in 1945. I seriously doubt people would still be debating it as if it happened yesterday, in such circumstances.
I have no problems believing that and maybe I misphrased what I was going for. Of course, with increasing distance to an event, temporal or spatial, people's perception will change and of course things that I personally have witnessed will imprint stronger on me than events I learned about. That's out of the question. What I meant was even when people witnessed WW3 they probably won't talk about WW2 as if it was nothing or even develop a sense of longing to have one "like that" or something like this. Even and maybe especially you witnessed nuclear war yourself I'm pretty sure you won't want to name your ships symbolising a brighter future of cooperation after wartime events and mass casaulties. Of course nobody who witnessed WW3 is around when Starfleet christens their ships (not even United Earth Starfleet), but I think my point is understandable. In the end, it comes down to
Which means either someone at Starfleet command had a poor choice of names or someone behind the scenes had a poor choice in names.
(...)
That would be a stupid thing to name a ship for, whatever reason would an exploration ship ever be named for looking back? That would't fly in real life never mind in Starfleet.
Regardless of what one personally want to see in STO and whatever they like to play, the source material had a message and however you go into it and interpret the events you cannot possibly twist that in essence Star Trek was set in the spirit of going forward, be inclusive and let nations of earth and our conflicts behind us. Ships might share a warships' name just like other terms used in Star Trek resemble terms we know today like ranks and ship classification, but the meaning is different. Also, those warships had to be named after something in the first place. "Endeavour", "Enterprise", "Intrepid", "Voyager" - those are terms used in the context of exploration here. They may honour real life space probes and shuttles and they may share the name of warships, but is is a huge jump to assume Starfleet (who's credo is "Ex Astris, scientia" and not "Shoot to kill") would honour warships instead of using and maybe repurpose terms to illustrate what they want these ships to be about. Also, sites of battles are just places in the first place and even if there are ship names in canon that actually do honour RL warships it is still out-of-character.
I can honestly say that Starfleet names it ships based on more lineage rather original meaning. I imagine the ship's name origin is based on the discretion of the specific commander. Starfleet is a Military says 99% of Trek Characters, only Picard said it wasn't once but he would later recant and put battlefield commander on a list of his accomplishments. (...)
It is interesting that Picard, who didn't just voice his personal feelings but also served as a exposition mechanism for the story and universe that was painted for us, always gets cast aside as just one "deluded" individual but Kirk stating he's a soldier speaks the absolute truth about a whole franchise (which gets out of it's way, behind the scenes and during the scenes, to promote different ideals). We have very few people adressing this issue in dialogue on screen. Of the top of my head we have Kirk stating he's a soldier. Then we have Picard stating the opposite numerous times and we have O'Brien very concerned stating he's not an soldier but an engineer. Also, if you could ask any of the Doctors in Starfleet wether they would consider themselves soldiers or military personnel first and foremost... you know the catchphrase
Starfleet is a fictional organization. Why is it so hard to just accept that they perform military duties without actually considering themselves a military? They still do that stuff, but it's not that it's their credo or anything. Mentioning O'Brien, he's not a solder but an engineer - and blows bad guys up with a improvised bomb. Awesome scene, illustrating what Starfleet is - not soldiers, but they still kick your butt if they have to. What, aside from some sense of subjective "devaluation" by not using military terms, speaks against getting behind that?
Because they are a military. The US and British navies, prior to the 20th Century, performed nearly the exact same mission profiles as what Starfleet would do. Actually, Picard only said that one rant in Peak Performance, and he was the only Trek character that echoed Starfleet is not a Military sentiment (which was what Roddenberry originally intended) however, O'Brien has stated that he was a soldier, Federation civilians have referred to Starfleet as the military, and Picard would later say that he was a battlefield commander. The Modern US Navy is the world's fastest supplier of humanitarian aid to any where in the world even during the last decade of warfare, the US Navy was the first on scene to help in Japan, Indonesia, and Haiti.
The discussion whether Starfleet is military or not is rather academic in my opinion. Maybe it ultimately is, maybe it isn't.
What is however the case that Starfleet works in Starfleet ways. Sometimes that is like a military, but sometimes it's not like a military.
It allows stuff like intimate relationships between crew members, for example, even married couples can serve on the same ship in close proximity and possibly within a direct chain of command. Some say a military would never allow that, but - on screen evidence suggests Starfleet does. Whether that makes it a military, or a special kind of military, or not at all doesn't matter.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
The more this goes on the more I am sure to keep the Chin'toka named as it is. The one thing I DO take into account when I name a ship is its class.
The Chin'toka is an escort. The most aggressive ship names SHOULD be given to the warships IMO (similar to the Defiant...what possibly could sound peaceful about a name that's basically a warning that if you mess with me you'll get your butt handed to you?).
With other classes of starship I might assign different names--Galaxies in particular, I do use an exploration theme (in my stories, names given to Gal-X's include [i]Zheng He[/i], [i]Mugharrarin[/i], and [i]Avandar[/i]...the last one being soft canon for a Betazoid exploring vessel), and I have a few ships named in my stories for musicians (one due to Alyosha being music-obsessed). So far I haven't pinned down the science ships to all one thing (names range from [i]Le-Matya[/i] to [i]Akellen Macet[/i], who in my headcanon realized too late that Gul Madred had taken his words as inspiration for terrorism, tried to speak out against Madred, and his family paid a heavy price for his defiance).
But if the name suits the particular starship, I don't hesitate. That's something I think about before I name a ship I intend to spend any length of time in.
Post edited by gulberat on
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Comments
And a forgotten Soviet invasion of Manchuria, the shock of the 2 bombs and the Soviets wiping out their last remaining intact land forces in mainland Asia ended the war
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
All of the targets selected, including Kyoto (which was a major industrial center), were of military importance to the Empire of Japan. And since the conflict was fought under total war doctrines, demoralization was a major aim of ALL bombing campaigns conducted in Europe and the Pacific. Which is a big reason why those aims were mentioned in the Los Alamos Targeting Committee (in addition to bringing the war to a more favorable conclusion). It was a given, considered of "great importance". But it wasn't the SOLE aim of using the bombs on hand against the Japanese main islands. That was my point. It wasn't solely for the aim of demoralizing Japan, but also destroying it's remaining capacity to wage war in the process. k20vtec's point of the attacks being only a "demonstration of firepower" is incorrect. Nor was it intended to be solely a message to Stalin, as some revisionists like to claim.
Japan's ability to PROJECT power was smashed. But it still had enough left to put up furious resistance on the homefront. Something the war weary Allies wanted to avoid if possible. The bombs were a way out, and a chance to end the war without a major slaughter, something too good to pass up.
On the last point, I'm total agreement. A survivor of the (fictional) Third World War, and large scale use of nuclear weapons, might look at the bombings of 1945, and snort at all the hoopla over them, even if they agree that they were a bad thing.
There was and NEVER have been a CVN 6... you know what the N stand for right? A ship that have Nuclear Reactors as a Power-plant they would have to tear out the hull and it much cheaper to build a new ship... that where CVAN 65 came in. Yes the 65 was at first called CVAN 65 and then later CVN 65.
CVAN was Attack Carrier Vessel Nuclear.
CVN is Carrier Vessel Nuclear.
CV was Carrier Vessel
CVA was Attack Carrier Vessel.
When ST: TVH was filmed CVN65 was on deployment. The ship that was shown was the U.S.S. Ranger CV 61
Yes, there was a CV(N)-6. The N stood for night operations and used in 1945. Its actually in the wiki article.
It is arguable that perhaps what really happened is humanity's sense of the "other" merely shifted outward. At times, I hear statements about alien species that would be pretty inexcusable if said about Earth cultures. But Picard's speeches aside (and disproven speeches, I might add, as First Contact made a really memorable scene to demonstrate), human nature doesn't really change that much through the years.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
I see, but the way he said it CVN.. Not CV(N)... he made it sound like she have a Nuclear reactor on it, which she never did.
A minor part. Until DS9 there were no ships specifically built far war, just armed exploration ships, it's massively out of place to name a vessel designed to seek out new life and new civilisations after an old ship that got famous by killing more people than other old ships.
Not really, you can't fit every Enterprise on the wall and the best ones were chosen.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
To be fair, I don't think the majority of players in STO does care about the actual game universe lore but want to play battleship in space. That and people have huge pant tents for guns and war in general
It's difficult to speak of how a fictional person would think about historical and fictional historical events but I have a hard time believing historical relativization would come that easy. Or do WW2 veterans generally shrug off WW1 events, for example?
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
It's for that reason I think there is MORE than enough precedent for Alyosha's ship to be named after a battle of the Dominion War, and I have zero intention of changing it.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Sigh, do you want to make me dig out all the non-warship names?Also, Melbourne is a city, Bellerophon is a hero, Yamaguchi is a place, Saratoga is a place, Bonestell is an artist, etc. What have they got to do with warships?
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I refer to you again to my earlier reply to you. Sadly these forums won't let me link a specific post/reply number so I have to be crude and copy & paste it.
========
I would figure that the super-enlightened Federation citizens on Earth would not about a war that occurred hundreds of years prior. Hell, Starfleet personnel can't even remember how Starfleet uniforms worked from a few decades prior.
You already have the USS Enterprise that has existed on several different ship classes.
There's also canon used:
USS Intrepid, which had a WWII use namesake that saw very heavy action in the war (especially considering Star Trek was a U.S. made show of the 60's).
USS Lexington - U.S. Revolutionary War source. Think about the British in the crews of Starfleet! Not to mention there were 2 USS Lexingtons in WWII, the first being sunk early in the war and a later Essex-class that saw heavy action against Japan.
USS Yamato? What would the old nationalities that fought Japan in WWII think?
Would anyone have cared in the timeframe of TOS onwards? Hell, do the humans on Earth even think of themselves in the dividing lines of nationalities, races from an old Earth that nearly destroyed itself to even bother to care?
=========
End of my copy & paste.
Also, Saratoga isn't just a place but a American Revolutionary War battle. When TOS came out, there were numerous ships named after battles, as some of the ships I listed have.
Personally, I have no qualms about players ingame using Non-U.S. battles. I don't have issue with guys having Jutland, etc. Hell, some of my Fed characters have ships named:
Leyte Gulf
Tassafaronga
Surigao Strait (I particularly like how snazzy this sounds)
Essex
Zuikaku
Midway
Bismarck Sea
Chin'toka
Etc.
The last is Dominion War. Most of the others are WWII Pacific War battles with 1 lopsided Japanese victory in there. I got no problems with it at all.
Emil Konopinskj:
Gene Roddenberry:
Because it's massively out of character.
By and large nobody nowadays cares about old wars beyond the turn of the last century, would it be appropriate to name a probe bound for Pluto the Agincourt? Yes, maybe, but would it be an appropriate name? Would't Voyager be better? Are lifeboats named Bosworth Field? Or are they named things like 'Spirit of the Sea'?
I suspect it's more likely the U.S.S. Saratoga is named after a place not the warship, the Intrepid after the concept not the warship, the Enterprise after the concept or the shuttle not the warships.
Starfleet vessels are science ships, colonisation ships, medical ships, transport escorts, exploration ships etc.
"So Admiral, how did this fine vessel get its name?"
"Well ambassador, it's named after an old Earth ship famous for killing a metric shittonne of people and sending their bodies to a watery grave before moving onto bomb the TRIBBLE out of a small island. We figured it was a good name for this hospital ship."
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
But I've just pointed out they're not. There's no reason why a Starfleet vessel would be named after warship even if the warship shares the same name. It's not part of a lineage.
Wrong. The reason it's not listed is because wall space is limited and reserved for ships that appeared in the shows or films. And no, you don't need to rename the majority of them, sometimes a place is a place and not a warship.
Agamemnon is mostly mythological, The Cook could have been named after (not for) anybody, Endeavour may be named after the shuttle, anyway bloody or not, it's still an exploration vessel. It at least fits the theme of exploration coupled with the apparent lack of caring the Federation would have towards the past.
Essentially, having an impressive war record should not get a ship wall space when other ships would fit better. The only example would be the Mirror Universe where the Terrans would probably have the captains skull on the wall or something.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Laughed.Out.Loud.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
"It's a reminder of the dark aspects of our past, and serves as motivation for the crew to overcome the dark and replace despair and death with hope and healing."
"An interesting view point. I think I understand. You Earthers are still strange, though."
"Thanks."
And what was the original Endeavor named for?
That was me that pointed it out.
I never said there were no ships named after military ships, I said it's out of character, then I said there's no reason to believe the majority of the ships were named after the military ships but after the things those ships were named after.
Endeavour has a 'U' in it no matter where you're from. The shuttle existed when the Enterprise was launched, in universe isn't the same as out of it obviously.
Which means either someone at Starfleet command had a poor choice of names or someone behind the scenes had a poor choice in names.
Above all Starfleet is not a military organisation Picard said so many times. No matter if they have to shoot people occasionally their focus is on science and exploration.
That would be a stupid thing to name a ship for, whatever reason would an exploration ship ever be named for looking back? That would't fly in real life never mind in Starfleet.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Besides, nearly all the Constitution-class ships are named after warships, weapons, and battlefield commanders. Enterprise, Yorktown, Hood, Potemkin, Lexington, Constitution, Constellation, Republic, Essex, Emden, Eagle, Merrimac, Kongo, Farragut, and Olympia. Only Endeavour, Korolev, and Ahwahnee were the exceptions.
You are completely forgetting that Star Trek was an American made TV show made in the years after WWII with a good number of people working in the entertainment industry having served in the military in WWII. Roddenberry himself was a B-17 crewman for the war.
Do you really think the naming of a ship like USS Saratoga had no significance made by a U.S. TV production and simply named a ship out of a blue with "Saratoga?" Just because?
Established lore doesn't support your statement or belief. Defense of the UFP (thus warfighting capability) is just as much a part of Starfleet's mission as exploration and humanitarian efforts. Period.
And the UFP Starfleet has long used starships named after military vessels, military officers, or campaigns from Earth's past. That is also established in lore. No matter how much you don't want it to be so.
I won't go into a detailed response on the first part, since it's just the occasional snippets of trollish posting I expect from you, in an otherwise sterling record of brilliant posting. Especially when it comes to anything military related, and Star Trek, in the same thread. That's just you being you, and it does have the benefit of keeping things interesting from time to time. I hate it when things get stale.
Anyway...
You might find it hard to believe, it's entirely possible and does still happen. And it will continue to do so. The Greatest Generation, a number I knew personally growing up, didn't make a habit of getting their panties in a wad over a past that didn't pertain to them directly. Nor were they notorious for keeping TRIBBLE stirred up for political and monetary gain. Unlike more recent generations. What was done is done, and they left it to the history books to remind us of the tribulations of the past (and rightly so). Most were more focused on moving on, starting a prosperous life for themselves in the post-war era, and looking forward to tomorrow. Or picking up where they left off when called into service. The events of World War I were the furthest thing on their minds
"Time heals all wounds", as the old saying goes. Overtime, all the historical events, even those that are still controversial, will become just another entry in the history books. Regardless if anything bigger overshadows it or not, as was the case in Star Trek's take on a hypothetical Third World War nuke-o-rama, versus the real world atomic attacks on Japan in 1945. I seriously doubt people would still be debating it as if it happened yesterday, in such circumstances.
That part I wrote didn't really require any kind of response to be honest. I believe in a basic concept of balance and just think now and then you need a Targ like me to create a counterweight to those people, that definitely exist en masse, who'll switch off their brain functions the moment a uniform shows up, turning into propaganda broadcasts. If that was the topic of this thread I'd take some time to admit that neither air headed pathos on the side nor polemic sarcasm on the other side would do any good to smooth over the edges but I just need to vent from time to time, otherwise you'd had me go poof at some point
I have no problems believing that and maybe I misphrased what I was going for. Of course, with increasing distance to an event, temporal or spatial, people's perception will change and of course things that I personally have witnessed will imprint stronger on me than events I learned about. That's out of the question. What I meant was even when people witnessed WW3 they probably won't talk about WW2 as if it was nothing or even develop a sense of longing to have one "like that" or something like this. Even and maybe especially you witnessed nuclear war yourself I'm pretty sure you won't want to name your ships symbolising a brighter future of cooperation after wartime events and mass casaulties. Of course nobody who witnessed WW3 is around when Starfleet christens their ships (not even United Earth Starfleet), but I think my point is understandable. In the end, it comes down to
Regardless of what one personally want to see in STO and whatever they like to play, the source material had a message and however you go into it and interpret the events you cannot possibly twist that in essence Star Trek was set in the spirit of going forward, be inclusive and let nations of earth and our conflicts behind us. Ships might share a warships' name just like other terms used in Star Trek resemble terms we know today like ranks and ship classification, but the meaning is different. Also, those warships had to be named after something in the first place. "Endeavour", "Enterprise", "Intrepid", "Voyager" - those are terms used in the context of exploration here. They may honour real life space probes and shuttles and they may share the name of warships, but is is a huge jump to assume Starfleet (who's credo is "Ex Astris, scientia" and not "Shoot to kill") would honour warships instead of using and maybe repurpose terms to illustrate what they want these ships to be about. Also, sites of battles are just places in the first place and even if there are ship names in canon that actually do honour RL warships it is still out-of-character.
It is interesting that Picard, who didn't just voice his personal feelings but also served as a exposition mechanism for the story and universe that was painted for us, always gets cast aside as just one "deluded" individual but Kirk stating he's a soldier speaks the absolute truth about a whole franchise (which gets out of it's way, behind the scenes and during the scenes, to promote different ideals). We have very few people adressing this issue in dialogue on screen. Of the top of my head we have Kirk stating he's a soldier. Then we have Picard stating the opposite numerous times and we have O'Brien very concerned stating he's not an soldier but an engineer. Also, if you could ask any of the Doctors in Starfleet wether they would consider themselves soldiers or military personnel first and foremost... you know the catchphrase
Starfleet is a fictional organization. Why is it so hard to just accept that they perform military duties without actually considering themselves a military? They still do that stuff, but it's not that it's their credo or anything. Mentioning O'Brien, he's not a solder but an engineer - and blows bad guys up with a improvised bomb. Awesome scene, illustrating what Starfleet is - not soldiers, but they still kick your butt if they have to. What, aside from some sense of subjective "devaluation" by not using military terms, speaks against getting behind that?
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Because they are a military. The US and British navies, prior to the 20th Century, performed nearly the exact same mission profiles as what Starfleet would do. Actually, Picard only said that one rant in Peak Performance, and he was the only Trek character that echoed Starfleet is not a Military sentiment (which was what Roddenberry originally intended) however, O'Brien has stated that he was a soldier, Federation civilians have referred to Starfleet as the military, and Picard would later say that he was a battlefield commander. The Modern US Navy is the world's fastest supplier of humanitarian aid to any where in the world even during the last decade of warfare, the US Navy was the first on scene to help in Japan, Indonesia, and Haiti.
What is however the case that Starfleet works in Starfleet ways. Sometimes that is like a military, but sometimes it's not like a military.
It allows stuff like intimate relationships between crew members, for example, even married couples can serve on the same ship in close proximity and possibly within a direct chain of command. Some say a military would never allow that, but - on screen evidence suggests Starfleet does. Whether that makes it a military, or a special kind of military, or not at all doesn't matter.
The Chin'toka is an escort. The most aggressive ship names SHOULD be given to the warships IMO (similar to the Defiant...what possibly could sound peaceful about a name that's basically a warning that if you mess with me you'll get your butt handed to you?).
With other classes of starship I might assign different names--Galaxies in particular, I do use an exploration theme (in my stories, names given to Gal-X's include [i]Zheng He[/i], [i]Mugharrarin[/i], and [i]Avandar[/i]...the last one being soft canon for a Betazoid exploring vessel), and I have a few ships named in my stories for musicians (one due to Alyosha being music-obsessed). So far I haven't pinned down the science ships to all one thing (names range from [i]Le-Matya[/i] to [i]Akellen Macet[/i], who in my headcanon realized too late that Gul Madred had taken his words as inspiration for terrorism, tried to speak out against Madred, and his family paid a heavy price for his defiance).
But if the name suits the particular starship, I don't hesitate. That's something I think about before I name a ship I intend to spend any length of time in.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.