posted
Nobody said Starfleet was pacifist. If they were pacifists they would have so many weapons or fight in wars. Of course they're not exactly militant either. Where most fan designs like this fall over is in failing to understand that while most Starfleet ships are capable (if not exactly consummate) warships, they are not designed with offensive capabilities in mind, like say a Klingon or a Jem'Hadar vessel. It's not a choice between militant an pacifist as some would claim (for a start, true pacifists wouldn't even defend themselves) it's the difference between being aggressively offensive and being tactically defensive. Sorry to go on, but this is one of my major peeves about Starfleet fan designs and has been since I started releasing my doodles on the net. It's also the reason why I stopped reviewing JoAT submissions for Bernd, I just couldn't stand the endless torrent of over powered warships with names like "Dominator" and "Battle Queen" which to me (regardless of the artwork) is totally at odds with Gene's ideal for a more "evolved" humanity and displays a sense of jingoism that I'd hope we would have grown out of.
Now while I wouldn't put this design in that category per see, it certainly leans in that direction, which to me isn't "our" Starfleet. As I said before, it's the Mirror Universe Starfleet.
posted
Well, I don't ascribe to any ownership of "our" Starfleet, so I guess it's easier for me. The realities of the Trek world dictate how I see it. The crap on screen is nothing more or less than the product of lazy writers and the needs of a particular script. Hamstrung by those faults, it's hardly surprising that the world they showcase is confusing, incoherent and often contradictory.
I guess I'm in the very small minority of fans who doesn't give a damn about 'Gene's Ideal' since, short of DS9, TOS is the most militant of all the series and the one most under the control of Roddy himself. It's only with TNG that he went insane and started spouting off all sorts of bullshit at direct odds with what was being shown on the screen. Show me the ocean surveyor or weather-tracking plane or presidential yacht in use today running around with nuclear weapons. The day that image can be reconciled with Trek's 'peaceful exploration with strategic WMDs' I'll change my mind
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
Perhaps you don't understand that just because Starfleet is peaceful, the Romulans and Cardassians and Borg and on and on and on are not. They've said and demonstrated over and over again, "We are peaceful explorers who will not hesitate to use lethal force when - and only when - it is necessary."
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
It's bedrock hypocrisy. "I'm a peaceful man, but I'll kill you if I have to." The fact that you're capable of it means you're not peaceful.
Starfleet has never been anything but a highly militant organization. Lame protestations to the contrary don't matter. The evidence is right there on the screen.
You could never protect and police an empire the size of the Federation without Starfleet being precisely what it has to be - A Warfighting Military Force.
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
First off, I didn't ascribe ownership of Trek to anyone. Secondly if " The realities of the Trek world dictate how you see it." and "The crap on screen is nothing more or less than the product of lazy writers" then I have to ask, why are you watching something that you think is crap?
As for TOS being militant, that was simply not so (nor for that matter was DS9). Again, as I pointed out before the confusion seams to come from an inability to distinguish the difference between killing someone in self defence or killing them because you didn't like they way they're looking at you. Starship Troopers is militant, Star Trek is not. TOS was certainly a bit on the cavalier side compared to TNG, as was DS9 but that had more to do with the setting than any fundamental philosophical delineation. The galaxy in TOS was a very wild place and took place mostly on the edge of what was known and as such was far more dangerous than in the time of TNG where space was by and large a much safer place, still in both shows the drama was always in the character and situations, not in the body count. DS9 on the other hand was a frontier show, like TOS and as such didn't feel as "safe as TNG did". That doesn't mean they went around looking for trouble.
As for comparing Starfleet to a modern ocean surveyor armed with nukes is a gross over exaggeration and betrays a total lack of comprehension. The oceans of today are NOTHING like space in the fictional 23rd or 24th centuries. If you must draw a nautical allegory then perhaps the Royal Navy of the 17 & 1800's would be more appropriate. Back then it wasn't unusual for a military ship to sail for reasons other than those of a purely military nature. The six gun HMS Beagle being a famous example or indeed the voyages of John Harrison. Now I wouldn't take that allegory too far as by all accounts Starfleet is primarily an exploitive agency. To my thinking they were only charged with the defence of the Federation because A) They're out there already B) in the early days they were the only organisation with sufficient experience to do the job that WASN'T a standing military (like say the Andorian Guard or the Vulcan High Command) and so were the only ones trusted by all sides to co-ordinate defence and police the mutual borders and of course B) they were open to members from all worlds. The closest thing in sci-fi that I know of would be the Rangers on B5, at least after the ISA was formed. To keep the peace, not enforce the peace. HUGE difference.
quote:Originally posted by Ahkileez: It's bedrock hypocrisy. "I'm a peaceful man, but I'll kill you if I have to." The fact that you're capable of it means you're not peaceful.
Starfleet has never been anything but a highly militant organization. Lame protestations to the contrary don't matter. The evidence is right there on the screen.
You could never protect and police an empire the size of the Federation without Starfleet being precisely what it has to be - A Warfighting Military Force.
Ok, right there is where the problem is. The Federation is NOT an Empire. An Empire is a totalitarian institution, a Federation is a co-operative group of independent worlds that in this case also happens to be a Democracy.
As in no way is it hypocrisy to use lethal force force in self defence without being aggressive. To be militant is to be aggressive which means when you attack someone it's because you feel like it, or because you're angry or have something to gain. To be peaceful is to live and let live as far as the other person will allow. As I pointed out before, Starfleet and the Federation are NOT Pacifists but they're not Warmongers either. Just because they have power and the capability to level a planet doesn't mean they strut around like the galactic bullies making everyone do things their way.
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
Actually, have we ever seen on-screen that the Federation is a democracy? I don't remember ever hearing about elections, for example.
I'll reiterate what Reverend said twice...there's a difference between being peaceful and willing to defend yourself with lethal force, and being 'non-peaceful' or aggressive. What do you expect them to do, sit there and allow the Romulans or Klingons or Dominion to just kill them and devastate whole worlds full of people and art and life? That doesn't mean you're not 'peaceful.' Perhaps you're confusing the definition of 'peaceful' with that of 'pacifistic.'
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: First off, I didn't ascribe ownership of Trek to anyone. Secondly if " The realities of the Trek world dictate how you see it." and "The crap on screen is nothing more or less than the product of lazy writers" then I have to ask, why are you watching something that you think is crap?
The answer to that is simple, if self-serving. I like blinky lights. I like technowidgets. I loved DS9 because behind the widgets there was solid acting and a good story. I liked all the shows, but TNG the least. But I never have bought into the 'ideal' of Trek, because no matter how much Picard ran down 'lesser' peoples from his high-horse, he solved 90% of his problems with his ship's guns.
quote:As for TOS being militant, that was simply not so (nor for that matter was DS9). Again, as I pointed out before the confusion seams to come from an inability to distinguish the difference between killing someone in self defence or killing them because you didn't like they way they're looking at you.
I don't see where the need is for insulting my comprehension. DS9 and TOS' trek worlds were much different than the tripe offered up by TNG. They were darker, and the original Enterprise had a far more miltiary feel, despite the spandex and miniskirts. It's TNG that turned Trek into a hippie commune in space.
quote:As for comparing Starfleet to a modern ocean surveyor armed with nukes is a gross over exaggeration and betrays a total lack of comprehension.
Again with the insults. Can't you argue intelligently without ad hominem attacks?
quote:The oceans of today are NOTHING like space in the fictional 23rd or 24th centuries. If you must draw a nautical allegory then perhaps the Royal Navy of the 17 & 1800's would be more appropriate. Back then it wasn't unusual for a military ship to sail for reasons other than those of a purely military nature. The six gun HMS Beagle being a famous example or indeed the voyages of John Harrison.
The fact that these ships were built, first and foremost, as warships is somehow negated because they were temporarily assigned to other duties? If somewhere in the oceans a vessel belonging to one of the navies of the world is carrying food to a storm-ravaged island, does that make that navy a peaceful, humanitarian organization? It does not, because the core of that organization is always the same: Military.
How many times does one have to be slapped in the face by uniforms, ranks, badges, court martials, stockades, orders, mission reports, promotions and outright warfare before admitting Starfleet is not the NOAA?
quote:Now I wouldn't take that allegory too far as by all accounts Starfleet is primarily an exploitive agency. To my thinking they were only charged with the defence of the Federation because A) They're out there already B) in the early days they were the only organisation with sufficient experience to do the job that WASN'T a standing military (like say the Andorian Guard or the Vulcan High Command) and so were the only ones trusted by all sides to co-ordinate defence and police the mutual borders and of course B) they were open to members from all worlds.
Sounds like wishful thinking to me. Ascribing motivations without foundation. Calling Earth's space program "Starfleet" was the most colossal blunder Enterprise made, but it doesn't justify thinking that huge alien states like the Vulcans and the Andorians, with much larger space forces and far better equipped vessels would roll over simply because Archer and his friends smiled a lot and happened to be out there.
quote:The closest thing in sci-fi that I know of would be the Rangers on B5, at least after the ISA was formed. To keep the peace, not enforce the peace. HUGE difference.
I'd love to know how one keeps the peace without enforcing it.
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Well I wouldn't expect Post WW3 humans to willingly accept a non-democratic government. Although, Enterprise did make it seem that future Federation members the Vulcans and the Andorians were not exactly democrats, perhaps as a result of the conflict between the two. Plus, I seem to recall something about criminals going to "rehabilitation centers" which also raises questions.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Ok, right there is where the problem is. The Federation is NOT an Empire. An Empire is a totalitarian institution, a Federation is a co-operative group of independent worlds that in this case also happens to be a Democracy.
A cooperative group of independent worlds where the largest military organization in evidences seems to have authority over every single person, planet and law yet shown on screen. No, that's not fascism - oh no. As your esteemed colleague has pointed out, not once have I heard of an election in Trek. The English language does not have a good enough term for what the Fed is, Empire fits the best.
quote:As in no way is it hypocrisy to use lethal force force in self defence without being aggressive. To be militant is to be aggressive which means when you attack someone it's because you feel like it, or because you're angry or have something to gain. To be peaceful is to live and let live as far as the other person will allow. As I pointed out before, Starfleet and the Federation are NOT Pacifists but they're not Warmongers either. Just because they have power and the capability to level a planet doesn't mean they strut around like the galactic bullies making everyone do things their way.
That sounds like the entire run of The Next Generation to me. The plot of every episode. Show up in their giant battleship, talk down to the locals, in the end 'they'll see it our way - they're not intimidated in the least by our planet-cracking weaponry'.
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: Well I wouldn't expect Post WW3 humans to willingly accept a non-democratic government. Although, Enterprise did make it seem that future Federation members the Vulcans and the Andorians were not exactly democrats, perhaps as a result of the conflict between the two. Plus, I seem to recall something about criminals going to "rehabilitation centers" which also raises questions.
I want to know how it seemed that Starfleet could show up on any planet and order the civilians and civilian governments around with impunity. They never seemed to answer to the public sector at all.
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Well in "A Piece of the Action" doesn't Kirk essentially setup a non-democratic puppet government which will answer to the Federation? For me the root of the problem is that I've always been told the Federation and Starfleet can do no wrong. But why not?
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't remember that episode, but I wouldn't doubt it. "The Father-Fed knows Best" seemed to be the theme throughout Trek.
What I particularly liked about DS9 was it showed some of the dirty underbelly for the first time. Not enough, by any means, but finally we got to see some of it.
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Why can't it be accepted that Starfleet is like the NAVY of the Federation. Like a modern day navy, it has a science branch ( Oberth class, nova class), but it's main goal is to protect the space of the Federation. It's ships may make contact with planets and other governments, but who's to say that there isn't a diplomatic branch of the federation, that is completely different from starfleet. That branch has it's own ships, whose crews are less militaristic, like on a fishing boat. There are positions to be filled, and everyone has his/her place, but it is somewhat casual. We've seen Science vessels that are not Starfleet's, like the Vico, the Raven, or possibly the ship that Jillian Taylor is assigned to at the end of ST IV. She was, afterall wearing a uniform that looked a lot different from Starfleet standard issue. Even though Starfleet may send a ship in to an area to take scans and "discover " what ever weekly anomaly is there to be found, after the area is deemed safe, this Federation science organization may be sent in after the SF ship, or after the SF science ship that comes in second. SF may have a cargo division, but that may be used only for starfleet specific needs. Maybe the Federation has a Cargo organization, that is used to keep the infastructure of the ENTIRE Fed. flowing smoothly. Also, following in the lines of my rant, the Fed. would also have a transportation service. WHy would SF have to ferry everyone around to their destinations? The Fed. would also have an ARMY, used on planets to keep the peace, after the SF marines have landed and done their jobs. If you think of The Federation as a giant country, composed of thousands of islands, it would make sense that we see more of Starfleet( the navy) than anything else, but that doesn't mean that it is the ultimate multitasking orginization, the only organization that keeps the Federation alive.
I probably just caused more confusion than I hoped to help solve. Sorry for that.
-------------------- "Kosh, I'd like to introduce you to our Resident schmuck and his side kick Kick Me."-Ritten
"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity". -George Carlin
Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
