That's The Last Straw! Now We Unleash Our Ultimate Weapon!

[The Romulan Republic]

The Federation has always been willing to fight if it has to. It simply tries to avoid war if it can, which frankly is what a responsible, ethical government does. Admittedly sometimes they go too far (for example, selling out colonies to the Cardssians or rigid adherence to the Prime Directive), but on the whole, I think they have the right idea.

[Lord Revan]

Oh and before anyone brings up America, unlike USA the United Federation of Planets has neighbours that are equal to it in power so it cannot just bully everyone as they please so the preference to peace is wise since war against the Klingons or Romulans isn't in the best intrest of the Federation.

[Chris Parr]

I thought the Federation was communist, at least in TNG era. Not so sure about TOS or the TOS (alt.)

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah, that's true.

On the other hand, the Federation didn't really need Red Matter or Super Powerful Warriors or Gods or Energy Creatures to defeat the Borg or the Dominion, so who knows? Maybe they can pull off a win this time too.

Thing is, the Federation did need divine intervention to save themselves from the Dominion: namely, the Bajoran Wormhole and the 'Prophets' that dwell inside it. Otherwise a gigantic Dominion reinforcement fleet would have swarmed through the wormhole and ruinated everything.

Likewise, the Federation still hasn't really 'dealt with' the Borg threat; the Borg are still out there, they're still dangerous or will be able to rebuild and become dangerous once again. So far, the Borg have never bothered to send more than one cube at a time into Federation space, and even one cube was enough to pose a massive threat that the Federation only defeated through various miracles of luck, skill, and circumstance.

Well, getting lucky still counts as a win in my book.

In the sense of 'do you survive,' yes. But in the sense of 'is this faction powerful enough to defeat this other faction,' it really doesn't count.

It's like, suppose an eight year old child is fighting a grown man, and the grown man slips on a banana peel and breaks his ankle, then the eight year old knocks him unconscious with a rock while he's rolling on the ground in pain.

Does that mean the eight year old child would win a rematch? Does it mean the eight year old child would win a fight against another, similarly strong and tough, opponent? No, it does not- because you can't just assume your enemies will slip on conveniently placed banana peels every single time.

You know, just as an aside, it's amazing to me that after wars with the Klingons, Romulans, Orions, Cardasians, the Borg and the Dominion that the Federation still believes it can maintain the peace by their peacenik ways. I mean, as soon as the enemy is neutralized, sometimes by some "deus ex machina", they go right back to their old "peace and love" ideal as if they don't know how naïve that is!

A few interesting points I've heard when this issue is discussed:

1) Starfleet's peaceful, science and exploration-oriented mindset means that they have a great deal of scientific and cultural knowledge that can help them understand how to defeat an enemy that would otherwise seem too powerful. I mean, look at the Klingons- they are literally all about being "willing to fight," but the Klingons don't seem to be able to defeat any outside threat the Federation couldn't handle too.

Because whereas the Klingons have aggression and killer instinct, the Federation is far more likely to understand its enemies, identify their weaknesses, find ways to talk them down without having to get into a brawl with them, and in general figure out ways to handle conflict that don't result in massive losses by attrition Every. Single. Time.

Meanwhile, the Klingons' aggressive short-sightedness sometimes gets them into trouble, as with the gigantic explosion of their homeworld's moon that was apparently caused by overmining. The Federation would probably have avoided something like that.

The cumulative result of this, from Starfleet's perspective, is that whereas the Federation was a relatively weak and primitive power compared to the Klingons in the 2150s, it is now decisively stronger than the Klingons in the 2370s. Stronger to the point where the Klingon Empire can no longer sustain a war against the Federation for long, invokes contacts within the Federation for help with important political issues, and routinely allies with the Federation against larger threats.

In which case you can interpret this is a vindication of the Federation's relatively pacifist and exploration-oriented mindset, that their pacifism has if anything made them stronger than the bold, canny, warlike Klingons. When originally, they were weaker.

I thought the Federation was communist, at least in TNG era.

The evidence for this is mixed and involves a lot of "read between the lines" stuff done by people who are trying to make very specific interpretations of what they see. The main evidence for Federation 'communism' is simply that the TNG Federation doesn't use a 20th-century style economy.

But there is a much simpler and better reason for them not to do that, replicators. Replicators drastically undermine the basic assumptions of industrial-era economics, especially when you combine them with cheap electricity to power them.

The existence of replicators, and an advanced 'Internet' that can cheaply move masses of data around, plus computers smart enough to be nearly-sentient even when they're not outright AIs, changes the basis of how an economy works so much that it would be surprising if 20th century capitalism didn't change into something unrecognizable.

And the only reason why people reviewing Star Trek sometimes call that "communism," is because they have a very primitive notion of how economics works, and think "not capitalism as we know it" and "communism" are the same thing.

[biostem]

Regarding the Klingons - my personal opinion is that they had some sort of "golden age" before even Start Trek Enterprise, and developed FTL technology much earlier than the Federation. At some point, there must have been a strong cultural push to go back to more traditional ways, and they kind of stagnated. You just don't see the kind of technological advancement with the Klingons that you did with the humans from pre-warp to TNG era, and I don't think it just has to do with the Federation's propensity to pack their ships with non-military personnel.

I'd also like to point out that the Federation has never pursued a defeated enemy so as to iron out any kind of official peace accord - the only treaties we hear about were ones mutually agreed to. It'd be funny to see the Federation impounding the vessels of defeated enemies.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, ultimately the Federation's having nonmilitary personnel on its ships* is really only a very small part of the ways in which the Federation is 'nonmilitaristic.' Far more of it comes from Starfleet's constant preoccupation with exploration, scientific discovery, diplomacy, and adherence to proper anthropological procedures at the expense of its own strategic interests and the wishes of its crews.

And all those features of Starfleet policy and doctrine do pay off. Some of them pay off in a big way. Their focus on science and exotic natural phenomena may well help them keep coming up with new tricks to use on the Borg. And as I recall it, their collective willingness to actually pay attention to Bajoran spirituality rather than just ignoring and laughing at it seems to have helped them grasp that the Prophets were real entities they could entreat for help during the Dominion War, and that The Sisko wasn't just a lunatic for thinking that might work.

And add to that, of course, any number of other strange and unknown threats that the Federation has dealt with over its history through negotiation, clever scientific gambits that exploited weaknesses in a creature's biology, or the like.

The Federation's values work quite well for them, thankyouverymuch.
___________________

*And for that matter, we really only saw a lot of noncombatants in The Next Generation, aside from civilian experts such as envoys and diplomats. It might be that this practice was unique to the 2350s era, or unique to very large ships such as the Galaxy-class that are specifically designed for long expeditionary missions. It's not like the crew of Voyager all have their own families aboard; if anything it's the opposite.

[The Romulan Republic]

Still, their are areas where they might be able to improve in terms of combat capability. Body armour for their personnel, for example. Also better phaser design (as I recall, the main site attached to these forums goes into some detail about the flaws in phaser design).

Their ship designs aren't too bad though, aside from some specific technology, much of it non-essential, that tends to be problematic (mainly transporters, holodecks, and sometimes warp cores if the ejection feature doesn't work). And given the tremendous advantage anyone with orbital support has in a setting where planetary shielding is apparently not widespread, success in space combat counts for much more than success in ground combat.

That said, I do think that seat belts on the bridge and taking a page out of Honour Harrington and having the crew don space suites when going into battle in case of a hull breach are not bad ideas. Not that these are in any way new ideas, of course.

Edit: All things considered, though, I'd say the Federation's priorities are often pretty reasonable.

[Lord Revan]

the main problems with TNG era phasers was that the ergonomics were bad, so bad in fact that main reason for the constant redesigns wass that actors were complaining about how hard the type-II phasers props were to use.

then there's the fact that all type-II designs lack sights or trigger guards, some of the later rifle designs have trigger guards and possibly sights as well.

[Elheru Aran]

You haven't watched Star Trek Into Darkness, have you?

[Chris Parr]

I think he's talking about TNG era. TOS era phasers had much better ergonomics, being shaped more like pistols than dust busters.

[Elheru Aran]

Er, context for the above post. Asking Chris Parr if he has seen ST:ID as that is relevant to his post here:

You know, just as an aside, it's amazing to me that after wars with the Klingons, Romulans, Orions, Cardasians, the Borg and the Dominion that the Federation still believes it can maintain the peace by their peacenik ways. I mean, as soon as the enemy is neutralized, sometimes by some "deus ex machina", they go right back to their old "peace and love" ideal as if they don't know how naïve that is!

Well, maybe in the alternate Trek things are different. Maybe there they know the only way to maintain peace is with a strong Starfleet that is actually willing to fight. I can only hope so, anyway.

That'll teach me to not scroll to the actual end of the thread. Damn pages.

[cmdrjones]

Yeah, that's true.

On the other hand, the Federation didn't really need Red Matter or Super Powerful Warriors or Gods or Energy Creatures to defeat the Borg or the Dominion, so who knows? Maybe they can pull off a win this time too.

Thing is, the Federation did need divine intervention to save themselves from the Dominion: namely, the Bajoran Wormhole and the 'Prophets' that dwell inside it. Otherwise a gigantic Dominion reinforcement fleet would have swarmed through the wormhole and ruinated everything.

Likewise, the Federation still hasn't really 'dealt with' the Borg threat; the Borg are still out there, they're still dangerous or will be able to rebuild and become dangerous once again. So far, the Borg have never bothered to send more than one cube at a time into Federation space, and even one cube was enough to pose a massive threat that the Federation only defeated through various miracles of luck, skill, and circumstance.

Well, getting lucky still counts as a win in my book.

In the sense of 'do you survive,' yes. But in the sense of 'is this faction powerful enough to defeat this other faction,' it really doesn't count.

It's like, suppose an eight year old child is fighting a grown man, and the grown man slips on a banana peel and breaks his ankle, then the eight year old knocks him unconscious with a rock while he's rolling on the ground in pain.

Does that mean the eight year old child would win a rematch? Does it mean the eight year old child would win a fight against another, similarly strong and tough, opponent? No, it does not- because you can't just assume your enemies will slip on conveniently placed banana peels every single time.

What you're forgetting is that a fully grown man has at LEAST one HD, and the 8 year old probably 1/4 of a HD... therefore with Story experience and making use of a convenient rock AND disabling his opponent rather than killing him (playing in character bonus) that 8 year old has probably just advanced to become a 1st level rogue... then if he takes improved initiative and skill focus [Bluff] h can probably get that extra D6 sneak attack damage Every Single Time... good luck against that kid now Mr 1st level warrior with the Limp trait!

[DarthPooky]

The evidence for this is mixed and involves a lot of "read between the lines" stuff done by people who are trying to make very specific interpretations of what they see. The main evidence for Federation 'communism' is simply that the TNG Federation doesn't use a 20th-century style economy.

Its not just the no money aspect but as the main site points out theres the fact that most people in the federation are not religus or at most aitheistic. Thers also the aspect that it seems like the government has control of the civil services like communications and transportation.

But there is a much simpler and better reason for them not to do that, replicators. Replicators drastically undermine the basic assumptions of industrial-era economics, especially when you combine them with cheap electricity to power them.

The existence of replicators, and an advanced 'Internet' that can cheaply move masses of data around, plus computers smart enough to be nearly-sentient even when they're not outright AIs, changes the basis of how an economy works so much that it would be surprising if 20th century capitalism didn't change into something unrecognizable.

And the only reason why people reviewing Star Trek sometimes call that "communism," is because they have a very primitive notion of how economics works, and think "not capitalism as we know it" and "communism" are the same thing.

This has been done before but I'm going to say it. Your forgetting that replicators recouire the matirials to make whatever there making and even if thay did only use energy it would still recouirer a cost such as the cost of the energy whitch would be a lot because of turning energy to matter is very energy inefitiont. theres also the rest of the infrastructure sourounding replicators like the technitions and mechanics who would need to be paid for there work for repairing replicators there's the power generation plant and the workers there and the energy transmission like power lines or whatever and when you consider that fact that they do require the material's to make whatever that just means more infrastructure.

[NecronLord]

Still, their are areas where they might be able to improve in terms of combat capability. Body armour for their personnel, for example. Also better phaser design (as I recall, the main site attached to these forums goes into some detail about the flaws in phaser design).

They did indeed design better phasers, at least phaser rifles.

[Lord Revan]

Still, their are areas where they might be able to improve in terms of combat capability. Body armour for their personnel, for example. Also better phaser design (as I recall, the main site attached to these forums goes into some detail about the flaws in phaser design).

They did indeed design better phasers, at least phaser rifles.

They also improved the Type-II design with the handle getting a stronger curve making them better to aim.

[Simon_Jester]

Things like the design of phasers are the sort of thing I would normally blame on "stupid show producers don't know how to design a plausible ray gun" and not "the Federation is secretly a pacifist idiot-topia." They have engineers, engineers quite capable of designing ergonomic products (e.g. furniture), and who have plenty of access to past weapons designs (e.g. holodecks know exactly what a Tommy gun looks like).

And they're quite familiar with the idea of Starfleet officers needing to use weapons to defend themselves. That has been happening in basically every movie and every season of every iteration of Star Trek, so it beggars the imagination that in character, the Federation doesn't know it needs effective, aimable weapons for its military.

So I'd call it a prop designer fail (especially since even the actors were complaining, and since literally nobody involved in producing the show has come out and said "we made the guns impossible to aim because we're trying to portray the Federation as pacifist."

The evidence for this is mixed and involves a lot of "read between the lines" stuff done by people who are trying to make very specific interpretations of what they see. The main evidence for Federation 'communism' is simply that the TNG Federation doesn't use a 20th-century style economy.

Its not just the no money aspect but as the main site points out theres the fact that most people in the federation are not religus or at most aitheistic. Thers also the aspect that it seems like the government has control of the civil services like communications and transportation.

Since you have not advanced any new arguments of substance, aside from tritely repeating the claims on the main page without bothering to advance the supporting evidence I see no reason to change my opinion.

Now, if you were sincerely curious and saying "Why did you say that, Simon? I always thought the Federation was full of atheists and controlled all communications and transportation..." that would maybe be worth bothering to respond to you. But if you really want me to explain myself... start by spelling your damn question correctly, okay?

This is not me outright refusing the challenge to explain myself if you are serious, but I decline to take up the challenge of a spammer or an illiterate.

This has been done before but I'm going to say it. Your forgetting that replicators recouire the matirials to make whatever there making and even if thay did only use energy it would still recouirer a cost such as the cost of the energy whitch would be a lot because of turning energy to matter is very energy inefitiont. theres also the rest of the infrastructure sourounding replicators like the technitions and mechanics who would need to be paid for there work for repairing replicators there's the power generation plant and the workers there and the energy transmission like power lines or whatever and when you consider that fact that they do require the material's to make whatever that just means more infrastructure.

I'm not sure if this is an original argument or not; I'm prepared to address it if you're prepared to learn how to spell it.

Or if anyone else feels this is worth addressing, I would be happy to do that too.

[Batman]

I don't have a source handy at the moment but didn't Roddenberry once say he didn't want phasers to look like weapons? That would modify the problem from 'producers don't know to design a plausible ray gun' to 'producers aren't allowed to' which would put the problem back in the real world's lap (as I said no source, this is from memory, but it would be perfectly in line with Gene's dislike for Starfleet being military).

[Simon_Jester]

Well, to be fair, if Roddenberry said so, since he created the setting, it's reasonable to suppose that he's right. The Federation does in fact reflect his artistic vision. So if he says phasers look unwarlike because the Federation is 'beyond' such petty squabbles, that's pretty much got to be the reason.

[Elheru Aran]

Well, to be fair, if Roddenberry said so, since he created the setting, it's reasonable to suppose that he's right. The Federation does in fact reflect his artistic vision. So if he says phasers look unwarlike because the Federation is 'beyond' such petty squabbles, that's pretty much got to be the reason.

How do you square that with his increasing marginalization in TNG though? After the first season IIRC he had little to no involvement with the series other than being 'cranky old guy who bothers the people making the show'.

[biostem]

I don't have a source handy at the moment but didn't Roddenberry once say he didn't want phasers to look like weapons? That would modify the problem from 'producers don't know to design a plausible ray gun' to 'producers aren't allowed to' which would put the problem back in the real world's lap (as I said no source, this is from memory, but it would be perfectly in line with Gene's dislike for Starfleet being military).

In terms of in-universe reasons, though, can we really take that into account?

I know it sounds silly, but at least with early TNG, I kind of got the impression that there was a very strong aesthetic that Starfleet was going for, since their designs didn't seem to be focused on usability first, (in other words, they put form before function).

One notable exception would be the much smaller hand phasers, which were very concealable.


One thing I am also drawing from is the difference between the Starfleet hand weapons and the MACO ones in Enterprise - perhaps, at least at that point in time, there were independent manufacturers of these weapons.

[Batman]

No need to invoke the abomination that was ENT, TOS Type 2's where perfectly useable pistol phasers.
TOS also had the rather conceilable Type 1s.

[Elheru Aran]

Taking out-of-context remarks by a creator into account can be problematic. You can have happy situations where the out-of-context stuff isn't so bad, such as something like 70% of Tolkien's published material-- it tends to line up with his mythology fairly well, and the stuff that doesn't is fairly clearly delineated. Random remarks by Roddenberry though, cannot necessarily be rationalized with what is shown onscreen.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, to be fair, if Roddenberry said so, since he created the setting, it's reasonable to suppose that he's right. The Federation does in fact reflect his artistic vision. So if he says phasers look unwarlike because the Federation is 'beyond' such petty squabbles, that's pretty much got to be the reason.

How do you square that with his increasing marginalization in TNG though? After the first season IIRC he had little to no involvement with the series other than being 'cranky old guy who bothers the people making the show'.

Hadn't the phasers already been created by the first season?

[Lord Revan]

Well, to be fair, if Roddenberry said so, since he created the setting, it's reasonable to suppose that he's right. The Federation does in fact reflect his artistic vision. So if he says phasers look unwarlike because the Federation is 'beyond' such petty squabbles, that's pretty much got to be the reason.

How do you square that with his increasing marginalization in TNG though? After the first season IIRC he had little to no involvement with the series other than being 'cranky old guy who bothers the people making the show'.

Hadn't the phasers already been created by the first season?

well you had 2-3 designs of phasers during the seven year run of TNG, the first (and worst) design was the season 1 (and possibly 2) design then you had design they used in early DS9 and Voyager then you have slightly evolution of that desgin that might have been use on the last season of TNG as well.

[Batman]

None of which was particularly ergonomic. They just got slightly less shitty over time. bUt then they never developed proper holsters for the things either-just those shallow PJ pockets that begged for the things to fall out if you did anything more energetic than walk in a straight line.