|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Aug 12, 2013 19:00:30 GMT
Though of course, there is a lot "wrong" with the way Star Trek portrays things as well though.
Families and children on Star ships expecting to engage in combat? Not going to happen then, for the same reason it doesn't happen now.
Female officers and enlisted, no problem, we have those on ships, now. They get pregnant, they are rotated back stateside as soon as a replacement can be brought in, to non deployable status for the remainder of the pregnancy and a short time afterwards, though most tend to leave the service instead or move into the reserve component.
The same would go for the 24th century. If Beverly Crusher became pregnant, the next item of business would be to set course for a Star Base to dump her off for transfer back to Sector 001 and pick up a replacement CMO. (Unless of course, she chose to terminate the pregnancy, in which case, she would remain in posting, as that could probably be taken care of shipboard.)
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 12, 2013 19:56:29 GMT
The way things are going in science right now, isn't it almost rediculous to think that reproduction will be done "the old fashioned way" in the 24th century? I mean, we're already contemplating the options of eradicating diseases by cleaning them out of the DNA before the embryo has even attatched itself to the uterine wall and with the advances made in medical science in the past 150 years, can we even really imagine what it's going to be like 300 years from now?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Aug 12, 2013 22:34:08 GMT
Then you get into the problem of the Eugenics Wars (in its many forms). Remember, one of TOS's best villains was revealed to be the product of genetic manipulation--good ol' Khan Noonien Singh. I remember an interview with the Great Bird and D. C. Fontana saying that by the 24th century, we'd all be so enlightened that of course we'd take the spouse and kids along--only barbarians would break up families as we spread out to explore our full potential. In that case, pregnancy was supposedly a non-issue--philosophically just part of life and about as relevant to career prospects as current hair color. And who knows? Maybe the said "Eugenics Wars" caused humans to reevaluate the basic humanity of normal reproduction over the "horrors" of genetic programming. In short, it sounds like a matter of philosophy over medical science. I've read a few military scifi novels that just naturally assumed all personnel were covered with contraceptives, or would put any embryos in storage until they felt it was safe to reproduce naturally (or artificially). As for battle, weren't they supposed to drop the saucer off somewhere safe and then go fight from the "Battle Bridge"? But then again, it's all just a TV show. And TV shows are limited to what we can do with today's technology. So, having a pregnant actress either has to be written into (or out of) the script, or you've got to hide her behind the couch alot, or visit the planet where instead of gold lame bikinis, all the women wear big muumuus.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 12, 2013 23:24:26 GMT
The Enterprise D was meant to be an explorer ship*, with defence being a secondary function. That said the original intention was always for the civilians to be evacuated into the primary hull while the star drive section flew off to do combat**. However it was quickly realised that this just slowed episodes down, so they quickly ditched the idea***
DS9 was a space station, and always had civilians on it. So the presence of children there is not that surprising****. Voyager didn't start with any kids, picking them up later in the shows run.
(*Of course the great explorer ship Enterprise D visited a grand total of...one strange new world)
(**Because nothing shows you love your kids than sticking them in what is basically an unarmed disk that will take a few decades to get to the nearest star system at full speed.)
(***The Enterprise D would only separate twice in the first season, then once at the start of season 4. In the latter case they used it to, errm, draw fire from the Borg Cube.)
(****It's not like a vast star spanning empire was going to pour through the wormhole and...oh, right. Forgot about seasons 3-7 there....)
|
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Aug 12, 2013 23:33:20 GMT
Then you get into the problem of the Eugenics Wars (in its many forms). Remember, one of TOS's best villains was revealed to be the product of genetic manipulation--good ol' Khan Noonien Singh. I remember an interview with the Great Bird and D. C. Fontana saying that by the 24th century, we'd all be so enlightened that of course we'd take the spouse and kids along--only barbarians would break up families as we spread out to explore our full potential. In that case, pregnancy was supposedly a non-issue--philosophically just part of life and about as relevant to career prospects as current hair color. And who knows? Maybe the said "Eugenics Wars" caused humans to reevaluate the basic humanity of normal reproduction over the "horrors" of genetic programming. In short, it sounds like a matter of philosophy over medical science. I've read a few military scifi novels that just naturally assumed all personnel were covered with contraceptives, or would put any embryos in storage until they felt it was safe to reproduce naturally (or artificially). As for battle, weren't they supposed to drop the saucer off somewhere safe and then go fight from the "Battle Bridge"? But then again, it's all just a TV show. And TV shows are limited to what we can do with today's technology. So, having a pregnant actress either has to be written into (or out of) the script, or you've got to hide her behind the couch alot, or visit the planet where instead of gold lame bikinis, all the women wear big muumuus. There was only twice that I recall the saucer section being separated for battle. Most of the time when engagements occurred, there simply wasn't time for saucer separation, so it was full speed ahead into battle with families and children in tow. Which to me is more barbaric than leaving the families at home, where they belong, when combat can be anticipated on a fairly regular basis. We saw more than once, whole fleets of Star Fleet ships destroyed, either by Borg or Dominion forces (on DS9) and heard of the massive loss of Star Fleet personnel and their families. Edit: Cyber posted while i was composing... |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 13, 2013 5:41:10 GMT
Then you get into the problem of the Eugenics Wars (in its many forms). Remember, one of TOS's best villains was revealed to be the product of genetic manipulation--good ol' Khan Noonien Singh. I remember an interview with the Great Bird and D. C. Fontana saying that by the 24th century, we'd all be so enlightened that of course we'd take the spouse and kids along--only barbarians would break up families as we spread out to explore our full potential. In that case, pregnancy was supposedly a non-issue--philosophically just part of life and about as relevant to career prospects as current hair color. And who knows? Maybe the said "Eugenics Wars" caused humans to reevaluate the basic humanity of normal reproduction over the "horrors" of genetic programming. In short, it sounds like a matter of philosophy over medical science. I've read a few military scifi novels that just naturally assumed all personnel were covered with contraceptives, or would put any embryos in storage until they felt it was safe to reproduce naturally (or artificially). As for battle, weren't they supposed to drop the saucer off somewhere safe and then go fight from the "Battle Bridge"? But then again, it's all just a TV show. And TV shows are limited to what we can do with today's technology. So, having a pregnant actress either has to be written into (or out of) the script, or you've got to hide her behind the couch alot, or visit the planet where instead of gold lame bikinis, all the women wear big muumuus. There was only twice that I recall the saucer section being separated for battle. Most of the time when engagements occurred, there simply wasn't time for saucer separation, so it was full speed ahead into battle with families and children in tow. Which to me is more barbaric than leaving the families at home, where they belong, when combat can be anticipated on a fairly regular basis. We saw more than once, whole fleets of Star Fleet ships destroyed, either by Borg or Dominion forces (on DS9) and heard of the massive loss of Star Fleet personnel and their families. Edit: Cyber posted while i was composing... Keep in mind that the Defiant was the first purpose built warship in starfleet. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Aug 13, 2013 6:38:26 GMT
As for taking families into battle-- --ever consider that Federation humans have a completely different view of the value of human life? Maybe families aren't as important in those times. That would make them conveniently disposable. Or, conversely, maybe they are so important that it's inconceivable that they would ever separate. If I recall correctly, due to replicator technology, their economy is pretty much one of superabundance where there is no shortage of anything. The only activities one pursues are whatever the individual finds interesting, and most of those are for "personal growth". When you no longer have to strive for any material needs, then the only goals are intellectual or emotional. Intellectual goals are shown being sought by the various Dr. Gueststars researching the Technobabblium particle, or meeting the Mysterious Forehead Aliens of the week and fixing all their problems (while not interfering, of course). Emotional goals would likely consist at least partly of building a family, so taking them along could be seen as the priority, rather than the hindrance. The fact you're doing it on a starship is irrelevant--at least you're having a fulfilling life, as otherwise you're stuck on a planet somewhere safe, but dying of boredom because you have nothing to strive for. Or, maybe you got extra points for difficulty when building a family under fire? My point being is that perhaps our 21st century sensibilities are no longer valid in the 24th century.  Or, it could just be something that sounded really good to Gene on paper in the first writer's guide of TNG, but wasn't really thought out too well. Like most TV, as a matter of fact... Notice that in later shows they introduced a more conventional economy by bringing up "Gold Pressed Latinum" and "Replicator Credits"... |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 13, 2013 10:01:45 GMT
It is made fairly clear in Encounter at Farpoint that having children on star ships was a new idea. One of the first things Picard does after meeting Will Riker for the first time is ask for help dealing with the kids, noting that he is not used to having children on board and is in fact against the very idea. Since Picard has been a captain for 31 years at this point*, it is reasonable to assume that this was a new idea.
Just as interestingly is the fact that we only see children on ships during the period the Enterprise D was in service - in other words the seven years between Encounter at Farpoint and Generations. All ships we see before this (Such as the Enterprise C) or later (Season 4 of DS9 onwards) don't have children aboard**, although they clearly have the space and faculties to accommodate children if they need to carry them**.
Taken in the context of the Trek universe, and its history, it seems that having Kids on-board was an experiment that started at a time when Star Fleet wasn't getting involved in many fights. The Klingons were allies, the Romulans were at home staying quiet, the Cardassians had (or were about to) sign a peace treaty and the Borg had yet to make an appearance. So some idiot much have decided that Star Fleet wasn't likely to get into any serious fights any time soon.
By the time of DS9's season 4 this had changed, and someone was presumably pointing out the stupidity of putting kids on ships that were going to get shot at***. By the time of the Dominion War they'd left the kids at home, not least because many of the ships being used were being built purely with combat in mind - the Galaxy Class ships used in the Dominion War lacked most of the equipment we saw on the Enterprise D, as this speeded up construction.
(*Picard took command of the Stargazer in 2333, and the Enterprise D in 2364. So he'd been commanding ships for 31 years at the time of Encounter at Farpoint. And for anyone who really wanted to know he was born in 2305, making him 28 when he first took command and 59 by the time of Encounter at Farpoint.)
(**As noted Voyager did end up having children on board, but this was incidental. It is also clear that the ship itself has the faculties to handle kids, pregnancy and births****. What it lacked were crewmen who were tasked specifically to take care of the kids.)
(***Well, it was either the realisation that putting kids on ships that were going to get shot at was not a good idea. Or the parents of the children on the Enterprise D sued Star Fleet after Generations. The law suite would have been for thinking that the safest place to put the kids during a crash was directly under shelving units no one had thought to bolt to the wall*****)
(****Voyager is a small ship that was clearly not meant for long voyages. So if the facilities on her could handle children and births, then presumably so could anything else the fleet was using.)
(*****Seriously, at no point does it seem anyone thought it might be a bad idea to fill a ship with shelving units that were not secured to the wall. Ben Sisko lost his wife and nearly his son because a shelving unit fell on her. Hell, Picards Lion Fish was better protected than most of the kids - it at least was swimming in a tank someone thought to bolt to the wall first.)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 13, 2013 14:19:23 GMT
It is made fairly clear in Encounter at Farpoint that having children on star ships was a new idea. One of the first things Picard does after meeting Will Riker for the first time is ask for help dealing with the kids, noting that he is not used to having children on board and is in fact against the very idea. Since Picard has been a captain for 31 years at this point*, it is reasonable to assume that this was a new idea. Just as interestingly is the fact that we only see children on ships during the period the Enterprise D was in service - in other words the seven years between Encounter at Farpoint and Generations. All ships we see before this (Such as the Enterprise C) or later (Season 4 of DS9 onwards) don't have children aboard**, although they clearly have the space and faculties to accommodate children if they need to carry them**. Taken in the context of the Trek universe, and its history, it seems that having Kids on-board was an experiment that started at a time when Star Fleet wasn't getting involved in many fights. The Klingons were allies, the Romulans were at home staying quiet, the Cardassians had (or were about to) sign a peace treaty and the Borg had yet to make an appearance. So some idiot much have decided that Star Fleet wasn't likely to get into any serious fights any time soon. By the time of DS9's season 4 this had changed, and someone was presumably pointing out the stupidity of putting kids on ships that were going to get shot at***. By the time of the Dominion War they'd left the kids at home, not least because many of the ships being used were being built purely with combat in mind - the Galaxy Class ships used in the Dominion War lacked most of the equipment we saw on the Enterprise D, as this speeded up construction. (*Picard took command of the Stargazer in 2333, and the Enterprise D in 2364. So he'd been commanding ships for 31 years at the time of Encounter at Farpoint. And for anyone who really wanted to know he was born in 2305, making him 28 when he first took command and 59 by the time of Encounter at Farpoint.) (**As noted Voyager did end up having children on board, but this was incidental. It is also clear that the ship itself has the faculties to handle kids, pregnancy and births****. What it lacked were crewmen who were tasked specifically to take care of the kids.) (***Well, it was either the realisation that putting kids on ships that were going to get shot at was not a good idea. Or the parents of the children on the Enterprise D sued Star Fleet after Generations. The law suite would have been for thinking that the safest place to put the kids during a crash was directly under shelving units no one had thought to bolt to the wall*****) (****Voyager is a small ship that was clearly not meant for long voyages. So if the facilities on her could handle children and births, then presumably so could anything else the fleet was using.) (*****Seriously, at no point does it seem anyone thought it might be a bad idea to fill a ship with shelving units that were not secured to the wall. Ben Sisko lost his wife and nearly his son because a shelving unit fell on her. Hell, Picards Lion Fish was better protected than most of the kids - it at least was swimming in a tank someone thought to bolt to the wall first.) is there even a need to mention that they forgot how to install seat belts? |
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Aug 13, 2013 16:38:03 GMT
There was only twice that I recall the saucer section being separated for battle. Most of the time when engagements occurred, there simply wasn't time for saucer separation, so it was full speed ahead into battle with families and children in tow. Which to me is more barbaric than leaving the families at home, where they belong, when combat can be anticipated on a fairly regular basis. We saw more than once, whole fleets of Star Fleet ships destroyed, either by Borg or Dominion forces (on DS9) and heard of the massive loss of Star Fleet personnel and their families. Edit: Cyber posted while i was composing... Keep in mind that the Defiant was the first purpose built warship in starfleet. Yes, the Defiant was "purpose built", but was not the first warship built by the Federation. She was "purpose built" to counter the Borg threat, but was mothballed when that threat became less apparent. Later(DS9), she was pulled out of storage, improved and Defiant class ships went into full production and were used in the Dominion War. The Defiant class were technically Escorts. There were many warships, including destroyers, cruisers, heavy cruisers and the like. The Enterprise D was a Heavy Cruiser. (The Ferengi considered her a Battleship) The Constitution class Enterprise was a Type I Heavy Cruiser or "Battle Cruiser". The USS Merrimack was a Cruiser.Salidin Class DestroyersNew Orleans Class Frigate |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 13, 2013 17:30:37 GMT
The Defiant was the first starfleet ship to be designed and built purely for combat. All the other classes were multi-role vessels or designs with a very specific none-combat role in mind (typically science and explorer ships, such as the Grissom class).
Just because Starfleet might have used military classifications for its ships (and if memory serves Kirks Enterprise was simply called a 'Starship Class' vessel at one point) doesn't mean that their ships were 'warships'. The logical assumption is that they used 'military' classifications as they were convenient, and helped give some indication as to the size and capabilities of various classes - which would be invaluable when you needed to decide what ship to send off to deal with a specific problem.
By the time of the Dominion War the classes would help in the formation of fleets, as a good fleet needs to be balanced between fast moving picket ships, slower moving but more powerful cruisers/destroyers and the slow moving but powerful 'battleships'.
|
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Aug 13, 2013 20:35:23 GMT
The Defiant was the first starfleet ship to be designed and built purely for combat. All the other classes were multi-role vessels or designs with a very specific none-combat role in mind (typically science and explorer ships, such as the Grissom class). Just because Starfleet might have used military classifications for its ships (and if memory serves Kirks Enterprise was simply called a 'Starship Class' vessel at one point) doesn't mean that their ships were 'warships'. The logical assumption is that they used 'military' classifications as they were convenient, and helped give some indication as to the size and capabilities of various classes - which would be invaluable when you needed to decide what ship to send off to deal with a specific problem. By the time of the Dominion War the classes would help in the formation of fleets, as a good fleet needs to be balanced between fast moving picket ships, slower moving but more powerful cruisers/destroyers and the slow moving but powerful 'battleships'. Purely an argument of semantics. Just because a vessel also carries out a scientific or exploration role, doesn't make it any less a warship. After all, these ships were called upon to engage enemy or go into trouble spots all the time. The science and exploration roles were clearly secondary to their main function of keeping the peace of stamping out trouble and projecting the power of the Federation. Kirks Enterprise was A Constitution Class Heavy Cruiser. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 13, 2013 21:18:03 GMT
I know that the Constitution class was classified as a cruiser eventually, but like much of Trek this was worked out during production of the show. (Starfleet itself was called several different things in the course of the Original series).
In fact the Enterprise A (and by default the earlier ship) wasn't officially confirmed* to be a Constitution class ship until Undiscovered Country - when we see Scotty looking at the deck plans of the ship.
(*Officially only what is seen or said on screen becomes cannon. So while Kirks Enterprises were known to be Constitution Class ships for quite some time**, this was never seen or mentioned and hence not cannon until STVI.)
(**The Constitution Class was considered official behind the scenes by the time of TNG's first season. Early on Geordi mentions a specific ship as the Constellation class - I think this was the USS Stargazer, Picards old command. If you watch the scene closely you'll notice that the line delivered doesn't quite match the lips. The reason is that the original script called the ship a Constitution Class, which they realised would have made the ship the same as the old Enterprise. They dubbed over the original line with something similar rather than just make the old Enterprise a different class.)
In regards the Defiant, like I said she was the first ship Starfleet had designed and built purely for raw firepower. Prior classes had good firepower, but were built first and foremost for defence - shields over firepower*. This can be seem by the Defiant kicking the stuffing out of an upgraded Excelsior class cruiser, even though she was rather clearly holding back, as well as her ability to cripple or destroy even fully shielded craft with a single salvo - something that even the Galaxy class ships proved incapable of doing at the time the Defiant was introduced.
(*Which explains why the Enterprise D's crew's standard tactic when attacked was to sit there and ask for damage reports. Instead of, oh, say, returning fire.)
By the time of the Dominion War things had clearly changed, as Starfleet was starting to build and deploy more combat oriented ships - such as the Sabre, Akira, Sovereign and Prometheus Classes.
|
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Aug 13, 2013 22:47:05 GMT
You seem to be stuck in the notion that because the Defiant class ships were built solely as combat vessels, that must mean that a multi-role ship can't be considered a warship. That is not logical. Since you brought up Canon, canon supports my argument. |
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Aug 14, 2013 2:10:31 GMT
The way things are going in science right now, isn't it almost rediculous to think that reproduction will be done "the old fashioned way" in the 24th century? I mean, we're already contemplating the options of eradicating diseases by cleaning them out of the DNA before the embryo has even attatched itself to the uterine wall and with the advances made in medical science in the past 150 years, can we even really imagine what it's going to be like 300 years from now? My money is on the "old fashioned way". Each day 19.14 babies per 1000 people are born after a gestation period of nine months. For any machine/device to achieve the same it would be required to provide the correct level of nutrients, hormones and environmental stimulus while also maintaining a fluid "sack" at a constant temperature.I have not calculated the energy requirements for such a system nor will I, but it is not a small number for 19.14 babies per 1000 people per day. When compared with the current method, a system evolved specifically for the task I don't think it compares at least in economy or environmental impact. Besides its fun to watch futuristic doctors operate with devices that emit blue light. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 14, 2013 3:26:18 GMT
You seem to be stuck in the notion that because the Defiant class ships were built solely as combat vessels, that must mean that a multi-role ship can't be considered a warship. That is not logical. Since you brought up Canon, canon supports my argument. right, just because it is a multiuse ship doesn't mean it's not a purpose built warship. I guess by that logic, a HMMWV is a purpose built APC, and a C-130 is a purpose built gunship. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 14, 2013 12:14:33 GMT
You seem to be stuck in the notion that because the Defiant class ships were built solely as combat vessels, that must mean that a multi-role ship can't be considered a warship. That is not logical. Since you brought up Canon, canon supports my argument. right, just because it is a multiuse ship doesn't mean it's not a purpose built warship. I guess by that logic, a HMMWV is a purpose built APC, and a C-130 is a purpose built gunship. Cannon in fact supports me - it is noted several times that Starfleet is not a military force*. It is described as an exploration and peacekeeping force**, with even Kirk correcting people who refer to it as being 'military'***. The ships they use would be more akin to armed merchant ships in the Indian and Pacific Oceans circa 1800 - considerably more advanced, powerful and larger than what they would usually run into. But in serious trouble if someone of equal or better technology turned up with a ship that was designed purely to fight. (*That the first thing you do when the Federation is attacked is call Starfleet is besides the point.) (**Yes, I know peacekeeping is one of the tasks given to the military.) (***Why would anyone think that Starfleet, which uses military ranks and uses ships that have enough firepower to level a city in seconds, is a military force is obviously deaf to the words of the Great Bird. Who clearly said Starfleet isn't a military organisation....) |
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Aug 14, 2013 14:16:23 GMT
right, just because it is a multiuse ship doesn't mean it's not a purpose built warship. I guess by that logic, a HMMWV is a purpose built APC, and a C-130 is a purpose built gunship. Cannon in fact supports me - it is noted several times that Starfleet is not a military force*. It is described as an exploration and peacekeeping force**, with even Kirk correcting people who refer to it as being 'military'***. The ships they use would be more akin to armed merchant ships in the Indian and Pacific Oceans circa 1800 - considerably more advanced, powerful and larger than what they would usually run into. But in serious trouble if someone of equal or better technology turned up with a ship that was designed purely to fight. (*That the first thing you do when the Federation is attacked is call Starfleet is besides the point.) (**Yes, I know peacekeeping is one of the tasks given to the military.) (***Why would anyone think that Starfleet, which uses military ranks and uses ships that have enough firepower to level a city in seconds, is a military force is obviously deaf to the words of the Great Bird. Who clearly said Starfleet isn't a military organisation....) Sorry, but cannon supports that the ships were warships with a science and exploration role. Despite what Roddenberry said, if his intention was to depict Star Fleet as a non military organization, then he failed miserably. Very, very miserably. As on screen, which IS cannon, Star Fleet personnel and ships engaged in many wars and war like activities on nearly a every show basis. Star Fleet participated in everything from covert special operations to full out war. Memory Alpha makes it pretty clear that StarFleet and the Federation had their military roles AND their science, exploration roles. Edit: it is even made clear, on screen and thus canon, that military and command training are of the highest priority at the Academy. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 14, 2013 14:42:51 GMT
Cannon in fact supports me - it is noted several times that Starfleet is not a military force*. It is described as an exploration and peacekeeping force**, with even Kirk correcting people who refer to it as being 'military'***. The ships they use would be more akin to armed merchant ships in the Indian and Pacific Oceans circa 1800 - considerably more advanced, powerful and larger than what they would usually run into. But in serious trouble if someone of equal or better technology turned up with a ship that was designed purely to fight. (*That the first thing you do when the Federation is attacked is call Starfleet is besides the point.) (**Yes, I know peacekeeping is one of the tasks given to the military.) (***Why would anyone think that Starfleet, which uses military ranks and uses ships that have enough firepower to level a city in seconds, is a military force is obviously deaf to the words of the Great Bird. Who clearly said Starfleet isn't a military organisation....) Sorry, but cannon supports that the ships were warships with a science and exploration role. Despite what Roddenberry said, if his intention was to depict Star Fleet as a non military organization, then he failed miserably. Very, very miserably. As on screen, which IS cannon, Star Fleet personnel and ships engaged in many wars and war like activities on nearly a every show basis. Star Fleet participated in everything from covert special operations to full out war. Memory Alpha makes it pretty clear that StarFleet and the Federation had their military roles AND their science, exploration roles. Edit: it is even made clear, on screen and thus canon, that military and command training are of the highest priority at the Academy. and how many archaeological missions were you deployed on while you were in the marines? How many dignitaries were you assigned to chauffeur from one country to another? How many scientists did you transport to laboratories? |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 14, 2013 15:36:05 GMT
Cannon in fact supports me - it is noted several times that Starfleet is not a military force*. It is described as an exploration and peacekeeping force**, with even Kirk correcting people who refer to it as being 'military'***. The ships they use would be more akin to armed merchant ships in the Indian and Pacific Oceans circa 1800 - considerably more advanced, powerful and larger than what they would usually run into. But in serious trouble if someone of equal or better technology turned up with a ship that was designed purely to fight. (*That the first thing you do when the Federation is attacked is call Starfleet is besides the point.) (**Yes, I know peacekeeping is one of the tasks given to the military.) (***Why would anyone think that Starfleet, which uses military ranks and uses ships that have enough firepower to level a city in seconds, is a military force is obviously deaf to the words of the Great Bird. Who clearly said Starfleet isn't a military organisation....) Sorry, but cannon supports that the ships were warships with a science and exploration role. Despite what Roddenberry said, if his intention was to depict Star Fleet as a non military organization, then he failed miserably. Very, very miserably. As on screen, which IS cannon, Star Fleet personnel and ships engaged in many wars and war like activities on nearly a every show basis. Star Fleet participated in everything from covert special operations to full out war. Memory Alpha makes it pretty clear that StarFleet and the Federation had their military roles AND their science, exploration roles. I agree that trying to claim that Starfleet isn't a military organisation doesn't make sense in terms of what we see. From its structure, ranks and the missions the Enterprises ended up performing over the years it is hard to view it as anything else. Then again we only pick up the voyages of the ships when they are doing something 'interesting', and tended not to be shown the times they spent weeks mapping star systems. We can (obviously) make a strong argument that the ships (with notable exceptions such as the Grissom class) were warships of a sort, and even the official guides note that one of the primary roles of Starfleet is to defend the Federation. However it may be that Starfleet simply fell into this role rather than being specifically created to perform it. This would in fact jibe with what we see in Star Trek; Enterprise. When originally launched the NX Enterprise was effectively unarmed, and while its weapons increased in number and power over the course of the show. This increase was a result of being attacked frequently rather than specifically because they were tasked with defending Earth - and even when they did end up having to defend Earth it seems this was because they were the only ones in a position to do so. ST Enterprise also introduced us to the MACO's, who were very clearly identified as being Earth's military force and implied to be much smaller and lacking warships of their own. The MACO's used army ranks (such as Major), rather than Starfleets naval ranks. As we hear the (none Starfleet) rank of Colonel being used in STVI the implication is that MACO's - and hence the 'military' - still existed in Kirks time as a different organisation. Starfleet may not see itself as being military, but clearly understood that it was going to have to defend itself and the Federation. The Federation (and before that Earth) would have quickly discovered that military or not Starfleet was quite capable of protecting it, and creating a second fleet of 'pure' warships would probably strain resources to duplicate what Starfleet was already doing. Politically the Federation was meant to be a peaceful power, who expanded though none-violent means and who was quite willing to leave other powers alone. Kind of hard to convince newly encountered species of that when your opening line is 'This is the warship Enterprise...'. Starship sounds far less aggressive, as does 'cruiser', which is probably why such terms were used for ships that others might consider Battleships. The make up of the crews also seems to support the idea that the fleet didn't view itself as being military. Even on Kirks Enterprise there were quite a lot of departments and positions that had nothing to do with combat - from historians to pure scientists. Picard's Enterprise was even worse in this regard, as according to several sources circa Encounter at Far point (including the novel) almost 2/3rds of the crew wasn't needed to fight the ship at its full potential*. This figure included the barber and the entire staff in Ten Forward - who were all civilians - and members of some of the science departments. Keiko O'Brien was a Botanist on the Enterprise D, but not in Starfleet. (*The crew complement of the Enterprise D, and the Galaxy class in general, was given several times as 1012. The novel of Encounter at Far Point notes that the ship only really needed a crew the size of Kirks Enterprise to run her effectively. Which would put the minimum required crew of the first season Enterprise D at some 400-450 personal, which in turn was twice the number of personal Kirks Enterprise had when Captain Pike was in command. So clearly most of the crews of Starfleet ships were not involved or needed to keep the ships in fighting condition.) My best guess (or argument) boils down to the whole 'humans are enlightened' and 'Have got rid of war and conflict' angle and background Trek is meant to have*. In this regards they probably didn't want to see themselves as being 'military' - especially if they had the biggest fleet around. They might have also found it difficult to get enough recruits or support for maintaining a large fleet if they were viewed as a military force, or designing and building ships that you couldn't really pass off as being armed purely for defence and exploration. This would make sense in a culture where the vast majority of the population would never have had to really face the possibility of being attacked by an outside force. Remember that until the Breen entered the Dominion War it had been some 200 years - during the Romulan war - since Earth had been attacked**. (*Which ignores that the Federation had wars or conflicts with the Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, Gorn, and Tholians in the one hundred years or so between TOS and TNG.) (**Ignoring V'Ger and the Whale Probe from TOS films - neither of which actually did any damage) |
|
