Civilians on Starfleet ships

Major Diarrhia · Post by **Major Diarrhia** » 2004-04-08 01:27pm

Darth_Zod wrote:seeing there's a good 7 seasons worth of TNG, and they didn't spend too much time on earth it's safe to say they spent a good deal of time away from the main systems.

They weren't near the main systems offen, it seemed. But they at least always seemed to be near a Federation colony or outpost. I would be interested to know how many times they actualy left Federation space and for how long those periods of time lasted imbetwene in-Federation missions.

marty4286 · Post by **marty4286** » 2004-04-10 10:32pm

They wear military uniforms, have military ranks, and carry military traditions (among the other things already observed: armed ships, the main participant in war from the feds, etc)! How can they not be a military service?

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-04-11 12:34am

marty4286 wrote:They wear military uniforms, have military ranks, and carry military traditions (among the other things already observed: armed ships, the main participant in war from the feds, etc)! How can they not be a military service?

Starfleet is not a real military. It is an organization that does exploring. Military duty is one of it's secondary missions.

marty4286 · Post by **marty4286** » 2004-04-11 12:49am

n. pl. military, also mil·i·tar·ies
1. Armed forces: a country ruled by the military.
2. Members, especially officers, of an armed force.

From dictionary.com

Starfleet seems to be the sole armed forces organization of the Federation, which makes them the military, no matter how much you want to PC it. Just because they say their primary goal is exploration doesn't mean it's not a military organization...

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-04-11 06:19pm

evilcat4000 wrote:
marty4286 wrote:They wear military uniforms, have military ranks, and carry military traditions (among the other things already observed: armed ships, the main participant in war from the feds, etc)! How can they not be a military service?
Starfleet is not a real military. It is an organization that does exploring. Military duty is one of it's secondary missions.

They wear military uniforms. They bear military ranks. They have military offensive/defensive armament. They carry out EVERY LAST FUCKING ONE military mission the Federation ever plans.
The fact that Starfleet vessels carry civilians and do exploratory duty is an indication of the stupidity of UFP in having a combination Navy/explorer fleet, not of Starfleet not being military.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-04-11 06:58pm

Batman wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:
marty4286 wrote:They wear military uniforms, have military ranks, and carry military traditions (among the other things already observed: armed ships, the main participant in war from the feds, etc)! How can they not be a military service?
Starfleet is not a real military. It is an organization that does exploring. Military duty is one of it's secondary missions.
They wear military uniforms. They bear military ranks. They have military offensive/defensive armament. They carry out EVERY LAST FUCKING ONE military mission the Federation ever plans.

The fact that Starfleet vessels carry civilians and do exploratory duty is an indication of the stupidity of UFP in having a combination Navy/explorer fleet, not of Starfleet not being military.

I am constrained to point out that exploration and diplomatic contact with foreign principalities were once integral to the mission of the navy during the Age of Sail. The expeditions which discovered the continent of Antartica in the 1840s were entirely under the aegis of the U.S. Navy, and Charles Darwin's famous exploration of the Galapagos Islands was based aboard HMS Beagle. So there is ample historical precedence for the dual-mission nature of the naval service as seen in Star Trek. The fact that Picard chooses not to believe that Starfleet is a military organisation merely demonstrates that the man is either doctrinaire or an imbecile.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2004-04-11 07:05pm

Regardless of what they say, Starfleet is a military organization. It seems to be lip service to please themselves that they are not asking for trouble flying around the universe with out regard for what may the territory of others. Then they pretend if they show restraint that those enemies will play nice with them.

I have a suspicion that complacency has left them to thinkthe universe is a nice place because WE are nice to show we are nice will will fly around so that they can see our kids.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-04-11 07:21pm

Patrick Degan wrote:
Batman wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote: Starfleet is not a real military. It is an organization that does exploring. Military duty is one of it's secondary missions.
They wear military uniforms. They bear military ranks. They have military offensive/defensive armament. They carry out EVERY LAST FUCKING ONE military mission the Federation ever plans.
The fact that Starfleet vessels carry civilians and do exploratory duty is an indication of the stupidity of UFP in having a combination Navy/explorer fleet, not of Starfleet not being military.
I am constrained to point out that exploration and diplomatic contact with foreign principalities were once integral to the mission of the navy during the Age of Sail. The expeditions which discovered the continent of Antartica in the 1840s were entirely under the aegis of the U.S. Navy, and Charles Darwin's famous exploration of the Galapagos Islands was based aboard HMS Beagle. So there is ample historical precedence for the dual-mission nature of the naval service as seen in Star Trek. The fact that Picard chooses not to believe that Starfleet is a military organisation merely demonstrates that the man is either doctrinaire or an imbecile.

My own fault for forgetting that I'm among people who have forgotten more about history than I could ever hope to learn.
Nevertheless, I actually think Degan helped my argument:While the sailing age Navies served diplomatic and exploratory functions, they nevertheless were military institutions! The ships used for those functions were warships, with the armament/defenses and crew makeup to go with it.
I don't think anybody has a problem with Starfleet serving diplomatic/scientific functions.
I also don't think anybody has a problem with Starfleet vessels carrying civilians per se.
Patricks's sailing age example actually works perfectly for TOS: A military organization doing exploratory/diplomatic work.
No problem.
The problem arises in TNG when Starfleet,while maintaining a mission profile and crew configuration geared exclusively toward peaceful exploration, is tasked with military missions.

consequences · Post by **consequences** » 2004-04-11 07:46pm

Super-Gagme wrote:Wasn't the Enterprise in TOS on a 5 year mission? That is a long time, considering the deployable time for a Galaxy class, they could have very long missions, imagine 5 years without seeing your wife or kid. It just wouldn't work. And before you suggest they make routine visits home, how can they make any progress exploring for 5 years when they must move ALL the way back along the territory covered? Okay I never watched much TNG (yeah it sucked ass) but they explored through most of it right?

Very simple solution, that has often been adopted historically, that junior officers/enlisted shouldn't get into long-term relationships. Senior officers can either be lonely, get married and live with long absences, or finagle a posting closer to home, and shoot their career in the foot. Since in the Federation they aren't even getting paid, the classic soldier gambit of getting married for the increased paycheck no longer applies either.
Of course they aren't going to make routine visits home, they should have been joining to serve, not to be on a luxury cruise.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2004-04-11 08:24pm

Major Diarrhia wrote:Think part of it is the improbability of the Borg invasion even happening. Sisko probably thought that if Picard didn't exist, Q would have never introduced humanity to the Borg, and the Borg would have never come. Plus, Picard had become the Borg's representative to humanity. That would be partially right, except the Borg would have just come later and the Federation would have been left in ruins.

No, they would've come at the same time. After all, they were just responding to the signal that the borgified shuttle sent off in the 22nd century.

InnocentBystander · Post by **InnocentBystander** » 2004-04-12 03:43am

I think the whole families onboard was for any ship that didn't have regular crew rotations.

Jon · Post by **Jon** » 2004-04-12 08:13pm

How you lot can compare the Federation Starfleet to any Earth borne navy makes me piss, even if the ranking structure, naming conventions and just about everything else was ripped from it, they're different !

When a science research vessel heads off to Antartica, there is zero chance a new civilization with far advanced technology is going to send a warship out to make first contact/blow them out of their territory. The one big difference is Starfleet vessels are primarily equipped for defence, peaceful exploration in ships which have the means to defend themselves- in space. (that place where there is lots of unexplored territory, unknowns...)

Plus, the whole 'mindset' of humanity is meant to be different at this time. Exploring is the primary role of every federation starship (Pre-Wolf 359).

Hmm, Fellow trekkies, get a grip, Starfleet are military. As some of our nice Star Wars Trek Hating friends have pointed out, they are the defensive force of the federation, they are the ones who are dispatched to deal with war etc etc, and Prometheus, Defiant, Soveriegn are just a tad bit more focused on weaponary than science labs.

I think the whole family aboard ships was dickarse roddenberrys idea, E-E has no civs (aside from bar staff

)

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-04-12 08:30pm

We can make that comparison because that is what Star Trek was modeled upon by Gene Roddenberry in the first place. The whole "Horatio Hornblower in space" angle and that.

Jon · Post by **Jon** » 2004-04-12 08:39pm

Well it's a full of shit comparison, the structure might be modelled upon Earth Borne Navies, but the way missions are conducted, the duties of the vessels, are somewhat different- what a starfleet vessel has to potentially deal with is like nothing any existing Navy has to (which is what all comparisons seemed to be based upon.. if you wanna throw old time navies in my face do so, I'll wither)- New Territory, New Frontiers and Civilizations- they have no idea what is around the corner (unless it's some soppy patrol ship spinning around the orion belt protecting sace dust)

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-04-12 08:45pm

Jon wrote:Well it's a full of shit comparison, the structure might be modelled upon Earth Borne Navies, but the way missions are conducted, the duties of the vessels, are somewhat different- what a starfleet vessel has to potentially deal with is like nothing any existing Navy has to (which is what all comparisons seemed to be based upon.. if you wanna throw old time navies in my face do so, I'll wither)- New Territory, New Frontiers and Civilizations- they have no idea what is around the corner (unless it's some soppy patrol ship spinning around the orion belt protecting sace dust)

The details may differ but the situations and the model are still comparable for dramatic purposes.

Jon · Post by **Jon** » 2004-04-12 08:49pm

Situations... the main difference is facing the unknown, on Earth there is no chance of a US Navy defenceless survey vessel bumping into a large hostile enemy who want to destroy it (the milky way is always hostile, though if you can tell me unarmed survey science ships were still at sea and in service during ww2, my argument is pretty shot up)

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-04-12 11:32pm

Jon wrote:Situations... the main difference is facing the unknown, on Earth there is no chance of a US Navy defenceless survey vessel bumping into a large hostile enemy who want to destroy it (the milky way is always hostile, though if you can tell me unarmed survey science ships were still at sea and in service during ww2, my argument is pretty shot up)

As it seems you did not read any of my earlier posts on the subject, I was referring to navies during the Age of Sail —when large portions of the world were unknown to the Europeans through most of it and still had unexplored regions when the Americans began their ocean expeditions in the 1800s. And that is where the ST model/metaphor was drawn from.

Jon · Post by **Jon** » 2004-04-14 04:54pm

Patrick Degan wrote:
Jon wrote:Situations... the main difference is facing the unknown, on Earth there is no chance of a US Navy defenceless survey vessel bumping into a large hostile enemy who want to destroy it (the milky way is always hostile, though if you can tell me unarmed survey science ships were still at sea and in service during ww2, my argument is pretty shot up)
As it seems you did not read any of my earlier posts on the subject, I was referring to navies during the Age of Sail —when large portions of the world were unknown to the Europeans through most of it and still had unexplored regions when the Americans began their ocean expeditions in the 1800s. And that is where the ST model/metaphor was drawn from.

I read the entire thread, my comments were not aimed at soley you and what you said.

Trogdor · Post by **Trogdor** » 2004-04-14 05:10pm

In TNG it made a little sense to have families onboard the E-D because of the way the Galaxy class was designed. The idea seemed to be that if the ship got into a hostile situation it could place all the civilians into the saucer section, detach it and sending it barreling away at warp 5, and then enter combat with a supposedly more manueverable ship. How practical this actually was is questionable at best, considering they almost never did it for some reason and we've never seen them do it under fire.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2004-04-14 06:21pm

We have too seen it used under fire

BEST OF BOTH WORLDS

Now Picard chided Riker for doing it after he was braought back too!

Deathstalker · Post by **Deathstalker** » 2004-04-14 07:36pm

The point I was trying to convey in the OP, but I don't think I conveyed it well, is that if Starfleet wants to have civvies on ships, I could care less, but don't be a whiny chump when your loved ones are killed in action. Who would Sisko have blamed if the Romulans, Klingons, or maybe the Dominion had destroyed his ship and killed his wife. Picard felt bad enough, without Sisko getting in his face.

Burak Gazan · Post by **Burak Gazan** » 2004-04-14 09:44pm

As an aside, can you imagine Mr Sisko pulling that crap on a Captain who actually had a spine (Picard, lacking one, as well as balls....

) , say Ed Jellicoe perhaps?

He'd have court-martialed his ass for insubordination AFTER tearing him a new asshole for that sort of infantile display.

Hell, didnt Picard himself even mention that families was a stupid policy? With the cheerleader naturally mouthing the fed propaganda line, etc etc, he pointed out Yeah, but we might get sent to the Neutral Zone at the drop of a hat! So THEN wtf you supposed to do?

Isolder, interesting point there re Picard -- he gave Geordi hell about it too when he came back from Minos

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-04-15 03:56am

Isolder74 wrote:We have too seen it used under fire

BEST OF BOTH WORLDS

Now Picard chided Riker for doing it after he was braought back too!

I don't recall any such dialogue. Locutus of Borg said that his rescue was a mistake on Riker's part, but Picard merely said after the Cube was destroyed that Riker used "unorthodox strategy".

Isolder, interesting point there re Picard -- he gave Geordi hell about it too when he came back from Minos

You mean "The Arsenal of Freedom"? That was good-natured ribbing, and an excuse to let Geordi take the conn for a little while longer while they met up with the Saucer.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-04-15 04:09am

Trogdor wrote:In TNG it made a little sense to have families onboard the E-D because of the way the Galaxy class was designed. The idea seemed to be that if the ship got into a hostile situation it could place all the civilians into the saucer section, detach it and sending it barreling away at warp 5, and then enter combat with a supposedly more manueverable ship. How practical this actually was is questionable at best, considering they almost never did it for some reason and we've never seen them do it under fire.

The saucer seperation idea was stupid. The saucer section does not have warp drives so they will never be able to escape a combat situation.

Trogdor · Post by **Trogdor** » 2004-04-15 03:43pm

evilcat4000 wrote:The saucer seperation idea was stupid. The saucer section does not have warp drives so they will never be able to escape a combat situation.

The saucer could be made to cruise at up to warp 5, however. Granted it would be easy to intercept, but how many enemies would really waste time going to catch a bunch of civilians? As for what happened in Best of Both worlds, granted they detached it under fire, but not to let the civilians get away but so the saucer could be some weird decoy.