43

If they are civilian in the common sense, why then do they wear military style uniforms, have a military hierarchical command and military rank structures; have a Starfleet Command and a Starfleet Academy if they aren't a military organization?

We keep hearing a touchy/feely description of Starfleet as a bunch of explorers out poking around the galaxy wanting to help people and be friends. As Guinan told Picard in TNG 3x15 'Yesterday's Enterprise', "This is a ship of peace, not a ship of war".

In the alternate timeline (2009) Star Trek movie though, Capt. Pike bluntly told pre-Starfleet Academy civilian J.T. Kirk that Starfleet was actually a 'humanitarian and peace-keeping armada'. Starfleet is obviously 'government' but is it military or civilian?

SQB
  • 38,680
  • 33
  • 212
  • 350
Morgan
  • 26,564
  • 24
  • 132
  • 232
  • 28
    Uniforms do not denote military - police, fire service, boy scouts and girl guides, are all non-military organisations and all wear uniforms and have a hierarchy. – HorusKol Apr 15 '14 at 03:31
  • 2
    @HorusKol - Those kinds of organisations are usually referred to as "paramilitary" – Valorum Apr 15 '14 at 06:10
  • 22
    @Richard - the fire service, boy scouts and girl guides are definitely not paramilitary. Some national police forces (or sections of police forces - like SWAT or GSG-9) may be - but generally not so in western democracies. – HorusKol Apr 15 '14 at 06:29
  • 1
    @horuskol - we shall have to disagree on this one. The scouting movement had had long ties with the military. In the US they're even working alongside the police to help with border security http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/us/14explorers.html?_r=0 – Valorum Apr 15 '14 at 07:15
  • 2
    In my understanding of paramilitary, one point is that they do not have de jure legalities. As Starfleet has court martial etc. it seem more to be military then para. On memory alpha the term quasi-military is frequently used, which might be better as the term paramilitary is more tainted? in our language. All in all and from what I have read and heard; in simplest terms: it *is* military, but, not in the same sense we see it in the 21st century. E.g. various handbooks etc. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Court_martial – user13500 Apr 15 '14 at 07:51
  • 2
    Strikes me that this distinction between "civilian" and "military" is coming from a very current US perspective. Most other western countries don't work that way, even today, and there's no reason to suppose that they would do so in the future. –  Apr 15 '14 at 09:31
  • 6
    @Jimmyshelter - as a Brit I can firmly state that my opinion is that any country where the military is in charge of the military is probably a tinpot dictatorship – Valorum Apr 15 '14 at 12:05
  • @Richard - Pre-2000s Turkey proves you wrong. It only became a dictatorship AFTER military was stripped of its political power. (ok, I simplified a bit) – DVK-on-Ahch-To Apr 15 '14 at 14:51
  • @dvk - Simplified quite a bit. It was hardly a paragon of freedom before or after the latest coup – Valorum Apr 15 '14 at 15:10
  • @Richard - "not a paragon of freedom"!="tinpot dictatorship" – DVK-on-Ahch-To Apr 15 '14 at 19:36
  • @DVK - note however that he said "probably". –  Apr 15 '14 at 20:55
  • @JimmyShelter - fair enough – DVK-on-Ahch-To Apr 15 '14 at 21:30
  • 1
    @Richard - that may be true of the Boy Scouts of America - but with the UK and World Scouting Movement in general, there was a very clear intent to distance Scouting from the military right from the start. – HorusKol Apr 15 '14 at 22:49
  • 2
    @Richard OK, maybe the Girl Guides are a paramilitary organization. The Hooters girls are a better example; they wear uniforms, but I'm not sure I'd call them paramilitary. – user14111 May 06 '14 at 04:21
  • I don't think your edit improved the question @morgan – Valorum May 06 '14 at 07:37
  • @Richard Do you think it was better the other way? – Morgan May 06 '14 at 07:38
  • 10
    You don’t have to be military to have an academy. I mean even Khan has an academy now. – Paul D. Waite Mar 25 '15 at 11:35
  • 1
    I would point out that "armada" means "fleet of warships" https://www.google.com/webhp?q=armada+definition – ThePopMachine Jun 26 '15 at 17:24
  • The Surgeon General wears a uniform and is apart of a uniformed service. I think NOAA also has uniformed officers. Uniforms certainly not the deciding factor of a military vs civilian organization. – Captain P Mar 22 '16 at 04:47
  • 4
    The answer to this question is "Yes." – ApproachingDarknessFish Aug 08 '16 at 23:19
  • 1
    @paul d Waite it's pronounced "Khaaaaaaasssssnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!!!" – Paul Aug 13 '16 at 20:48
  • Also, I'd like someone to keep in mind that this wasn't said by the Prime universe Captain Pike. – Sovereign Inquiry Nov 20 '20 at 22:19
  • We've often heard people saying that in the Alternate Reality, Starfleet changed to a more militaristic organization following Narada's assault. Starfleet's designs were different in the alternate reality even before Narada's time travel, as seen with the Kelvin. So is the alternate timeline and its people reliable sources of what kind of organization Starfleet/the UFP is? – Sovereign Inquiry Nov 20 '20 at 22:24
  • In the alternate timeline, we see things that the Federation would never create in the Prime Timeline, such as the Vengeance. – Sovereign Inquiry Nov 20 '20 at 22:26
  • Starfleet is equal parts NASA and Navy – lucasbachmann Jun 14 '22 at 07:48
  • "Oh, right, you guys totally aren't a pseudo navy at all. - Lower Decks: Reflections – Valorum Nov 06 '22 at 10:38

14 Answers14

42

TL;DR, Starfleet isn't a military organisation, according to every relevant source both in-universe and out-of-universe.

To start with, I shall quote Captain Picard (from TNG : Peak Performance)

PICARD : Starfleet is not a military organization. Our purpose is exploration.

Lieutenant Scott from Star Trek: Beyond

SCOTT: The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.

Captain Pike from Star Trek (2009)

PIKE: ...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...

As described in the excellent Starfleet Technical Manual, Starfleet is neither wholly civilian, nor a military in the conventional sense. They are in fact best described as a "peace keeping force". They report directly to the Federation's Military Council but their Commander-in-Chief is the (civilian) Federation President who represents the elected representatives of the various Federation worlds.

enter image description here

The description of Starfleet in the factbook The Star Trek Book offers this advice to those who might conclude, through honest error, that Starfleet is a military organisation.

With its powerful armada of starships and naval rank structure. Starfleet could be mistaken for a primarily military organization. In fact, it has adopted the commitment to new technology and self-discipline that characterized Earth's martial past and directed those qualities toward a new end: peaceful, methodical exploration

The unknown factors facing each mission mean that Starfleet ships must stand ready to defend themselves, however, and with no standing army, it is logical that the Federation sees this highly mobile, widely spread fleet as its first line of defense in the event of attack. This means that Star fleet personnel must be as well versed in combat as they are in science and diplomacy.

Gene Roddenberry, in the series' original Writer/Director's Guide (the "bible") was very specific on the subject;

Starfleet is not a military organisation. It is a scientific research and diplomatic body.

Although the duties of the Enterprise may include some military responsibilities, the primary purpose of the Enterprise — as with all Starfleet vessels is to expand the body of human knowledge.

In practice this means that our armaments and militarism have been de-emphasized over the previous series and very much de-emphasized over the movies. We will not see saluting. We may hear the word "sir", but it is extended as the same kind of courtesy used by junior and senior officers on civilian airliners. It is traditional, however, to use ship's ranks on the bridge, an acknowledgment of the naval heritage of Starfleet.

As you can see, Starfleet's primary mandates are to keep the peace, to provide sufficient defence to Federation worlds and to conduct scientific research by studying and surveying the space within Federation territory.

None of those tasks would prevent them having a military structure, indeed our own present-day peacekeepers are drawn from military backgrounds and wear uniforms, etc.

enter image description here

Valorum
  • 689,072
  • 162
  • 4,636
  • 4,873
  • 2
    Isn't it more a defense force then peacekeeping force? A peacekeeping force is usually used in regions with conflicts or catastrophes whilst a defense force has a somewhat different role. It also depends which era one talk about. FS main role started more as scientific development and exploration. Over time the role as a defense force grew stronger. It also seems like they are more into diplomacy then standing as a peacekeeping force. – user13500 Apr 15 '14 at 06:18
  • 1
    @user13500 - They keep the peace and, when required by the civilian administration also function as the military of the Federation. Since they have a "no first strikes" policy, the two aren't mututally exclusive. – Valorum Apr 15 '14 at 06:27
  • 13
    Sorry, I don't see any difference between "military" and "peacekeeping force". More specifically, the latter can be military or (rarely) not. They are not disjoint sets. Japanese Defence Force is wholly defensive (at least between 1950 and 2000) and they were in no way "not conventional military" – DVK-on-Ahch-To Apr 15 '14 at 14:53
  • @Dvk - They're more like the UNIFOR. Wholly tasked with preventing incursion rather than extending power outwards. – Valorum Apr 15 '14 at 15:12
  • @Richard - That doesn't make them (OR UNIFOR) "not military". Although UNIFOR's record clearly makes them "not military" if one's being realistic. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Apr 15 '14 at 16:32
  • 1
    In that extract from the Technical Manual: "It shall initially be comprised of..." argh unleash the grammar pedants! – ClickRick May 04 '14 at 15:10
  • 2
    The fact that the technical manual says it's not military does not make it not military. The manual lists how the show's producers would like us to perceive StarFleet. The fact that it subsumes typically civilian functions just means that the Federation is a militarized (set of) societies, on the verge of martial law. Finally, the term "peacekeeping force" is pure propaganda. We all remember the US' "Peace-keeping" war in Korea for example. – einpoklum Jan 14 '15 at 08:34
  • @einpoklum - See the latest edit. In the words of Gene Roddenberry; "Starfleet is not a military organisation**". – Valorum Jan 14 '15 at 16:13
  • @einpoklum - That technical manual was not created with any involvement from the show's producers, it was created by a technical artist named Franz Joseph who started it as an exercise to help Trek fans he knew with model-building, and after it became popular Paramount licensed it (story here). The "background information" section of the Memory Alpha article says "this book is now considered to be non-canonical". – Hypnosifl Jan 14 '15 at 16:30
  • @Hypnosifl -Which is why I felt the addition of a word-of-god answer definitely helped give the answer some more weight. – Valorum Jan 14 '15 at 16:32
  • Yes, I agree that the quote from Roddenberry is sufficient to answer the question, I just wanted to correct einpoklum's statement that the technical manual indicates the show's producers saw Star Fleet as a "peacekeeping force" (Roddenberry didn't use those words in the quote). – Hypnosifl Jan 14 '15 at 16:36
  • 12
    @Richard: Yeah, StarFleet "is not a military organization" and the US only sent "advisors" to Vietnam, and at the School of the Americas they only train "police forces" to improve "security", etc. etc. – einpoklum Jan 14 '15 at 22:33
  • 1
    @Hypnosifl: Then replace "show producers" with "Fran Joseph" in my comment. Although I'm guessing he was also willing to accept at face value statement such as the one Richard quoted from Roddenberry. – einpoklum Jan 14 '15 at 22:36
  • 2
    It's good to see that someone is willing to downvote a quote from the show's creator that specifically answers the question asked – Valorum Jan 14 '15 at 22:46
  • So where do I sign up? – Ender Mar 04 '15 at 21:33
  • 1
    Note that the Roddenberry quote is for the second series - explicitly says that the new series is different than the TOS and the movies. So it does not reflect his original intent and the original series. – Oldcat Aug 27 '15 at 21:10
  • 3
    @Richard: The show's creator is a creature of the political culture of his surrounding society. His beliefs can be questioned (and downvoted) - both in the context of the real world and in the context of his projections from the real world into a fictional one. IMO. – einpoklum Sep 06 '15 at 11:35
  • @Oldcat: But weren't the characteristics of the federation mostly similar in TOS (I mean, those characteristics which were explored on-screen)? – einpoklum Sep 06 '15 at 11:36
  • 2
    Last time I looked, scientific research vessels don't carry weapons powerful enough to vaporize cities. Same thing with exploration vessels. Aside from Political Correctness, these are Military Vessels. The US carrier fleets did great rescue work in the recent tsunamis and other natural disasters. This did not affect their prime mission of warfare. – Oldcat Oct 28 '15 at 21:07
  • 2
    @Oldcat - I remain of the opinion that if people are downvoting a direct quote from both in-universe and out-of-universe, you seriously have to question what answer would ever satisfy them. Are they merely downvoting because they don't like that the answer doesn't conform with their headcanon. – Valorum Oct 28 '15 at 21:10
  • 1
    Well, I didn't downvote the answer, but I don't believe Roddenberry's quote applies. It was common knowledge that Rod was trying to be PC when he created the Next Gen, but even then couldn't hide the military reality. That's why I scornfully called the series "The Love Boat" in its first few seasons. – Oldcat Oct 28 '15 at 21:14
  • 2
    There is a big difference between not being a military organization, and not be focused on military. Starfleet is the one and only military organization for the Federation. When they go to war, you don't see any local militia or anything else, you see starfleet blowing shit up and taking names. – Jonathon Nov 28 '15 at 13:59
  • 2
    Roddenberry's quote that Starfleet is not military carries as much weight as a statement that there are no chairs on the Enterprise. I can see that there are chairs on the Enterprise, and I can see that Starfleet is military. The entire body of work carries more weight than a clearly erroneous statement. – DCShannon Mar 22 '16 at 05:44
  • @DCShannon - Picard said it as well... – Valorum Mar 22 '16 at 09:15
  • 1
    @Richard If Picard were here, I would ask him what definition of 'military' he is using. A formally organized force with military hierarchy, ranks, orders, and weapons that protects their government's territory from foreign forces is pretty clearly military. – DCShannon Mar 22 '16 at 09:20
  • 1
    Just because a writer writes something down it doesn't make it correct with regards to an answer. Writers say a lot of dumb stuff, but when analyzed what they are saying is wrong and it stems from them not knowing that what they are saying is wrong so such questions are better regarded as asking "If starfleet existed in the real world and followed our naming conventions would they be regarded as Military" rather than "Does a writer say it's a military or not" In this case the writers got it right, but they don't always. – Durakken Sep 10 '16 at 13:33
  • @Durakken - In this case you have the show writers, writers bible, creator, main actors, the writer of the film and the main actors of the film all saying the same thing. – Valorum Sep 10 '16 at 13:56
  • @Valorum and Gene Rodenberry was also in the military and police if I remember right so you'd think he would know the difference between the two. – Durakken Sep 10 '16 at 15:01
  • 2
    Historically, there have been armed merchant ships capable of "winning" engagements against dedicated warships, for example, ships operated by the East Indian Trading Company (East Indiaman). The primary purpose of those types of ships was commerce, though when needed they could fight. – erdiede Sep 10 '16 at 16:41
  • 1
    You mention "peacekeeping force" like it is an argument against them being a military organization. But aren't all peacekeeping forces military organizations? – Jonathon Sep 10 '16 at 18:56
  • @JonathonWisnoski - I'd argue that peacekeeping troops aren't necessarily a military force. – Valorum Sep 10 '16 at 19:25
  • 2
    They are all (Roddenberry included) clearly using 'military' to contrast with 'peaceful'. 'Military' is a synonym of 'warmonger' here. This question is asking about to contrast civilian vs military. Not, militaristic vs peaceful. Your answer doesn't address their organizational structure at all. Not to mention that starfleet officers repeating starfleet's propaganda isn't very compelling evidence. – Shane Sep 29 '16 at 16:06
  • 1
    @Shane - As I've said before, please feel free to downvote multiple quotes from the show's creator and the show's protagonists that specifically answer the question asked. At some point you have to ask what level of proof is required to get past someone's headcanon. – Valorum Sep 29 '16 at 16:16
  • Can you clarify the indian peace keeping force photo by adding text of what you refer to? Ideally also add source, I can only find http://www.mea.gov.in/photo-features.htm?842/Indias+co and they don't seem to be permissive http://www.mea.gov.in/copyright-policy.htm – qubodup Sep 29 '16 at 17:57
  • @qubodup - They're welcome to request that the picture be removed. I'm unaware of SE ever having received (let alone honoured) a takedown request from an overseas government, but I'm sure there's a first time :-) – Valorum Sep 29 '16 at 18:10
  • @qubodup - As regards the content of the photo, I've already made it clear in the preamble that these are peacekeepers (in this instance UNIFIL) drawn from their home military. – Valorum Sep 29 '16 at 18:11
  • 1
    @Valorum In an interview in 1989 he said "Yes, yes, it is." Does that mean that starfleet is structured as a civilian organization rather than as a military one? No. Why not? Because just like in your quote that isn't what he was talking about at the time. – Shane Oct 03 '16 at 13:51
  • 1
    In fact, he literally goes on to say that they are the federation's military in the next sentence. – Shane Oct 03 '16 at 13:53
  • @Shane - I'm still waiting for a link to that interview. It would make a fine addition to my answer or possibly even the basis for a counter-answer... – Valorum Apr 02 '17 at 19:14
  • I would like to cite the stalinist constitution of the CCCP: "In the USSR all power belongs to the working people of town and country as represented by the Soviets of Working People’s Deputies." Does it mean that the CCCP in the Stalin era was a democracy? – Gray Sheep Jun 09 '17 at 16:49
  • @MorningStar - That depends on your definition of the term. During Stalin's time in office, elections were held regularly; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_Soviet_Union – Valorum Jun 09 '17 at 17:10
  • 1
    @Valorum I think, you are an evil, very evil person. – Gray Sheep Jun 11 '17 at 23:35
  • @Ender - Service guarantees citizenship – Valorum Oct 28 '18 at 23:21
  • How fun that there are so many people trying to argue based on some definitions they made up themselves. Wikipedia, first sentence: "A military, also known collectively as armed forces, is a heavily armed, highly organized force primarily intended for warfare". @Valorum maybe add that to the answer and then this whole unnecessary comment chain can just be thrown away. – R. Schmitz Nov 14 '20 at 11:52
  • @R.Schmitz - Wikipedia is fan-edited nonsense. I fail to see why I should add that to my (pretty much perfect) answer. – Valorum Nov 14 '20 at 11:53
  • @Valorum Well, if you really hold that "fake news" stance towards Wikipedia and enjoy all that doubt on your answer instead of having clarity, sure, leave it as it is. – R. Schmitz Nov 14 '20 at 11:59
  • @R.Schmitz - I don't see any doubt whatsoever on my answer. I see people disagreeing with the direct word of the creator and in-universe principals, largely based on their own desire to engage in historical revisionism and narrative deconstruction, as is so common nowadays. – Valorum Nov 14 '20 at 12:00
  • 20+ comments on an SE answer != no doubt – R. Schmitz Nov 14 '20 at 12:02
  • @R.Schmitz - Yeah, but it's largely the same comment over and over again. "I don't agree with what Roddenberry said because (insert personal opinion)." – Valorum Nov 14 '20 at 12:04
  • 1
    Yes, exactly! All of them are people who try to argue based on "the real world" definition being at odds with "word of god"/the in-universe definition - when in fact the out-of-universe definition also fits 100%. There's simply no argument to be had about it. – R. Schmitz Nov 14 '20 at 12:31
31

At first glance this question is easily answered: Gene Roddenberry says it isn't, Picard says it isn't, and so it isn't.

It is not that simple. It is completely dependent on how narrowly you define the word military.

  • Is Starfleet an armed force? Yes. (any episode where armaments are used)
  • Is it tasked with protecting the Federation from foreign enemies? Yes. (e.g. DS9's Dominion War, many Borg incursions).
  • Is it an authoritarian operations consistent with contemporary militaries? Yes. (Any episode where someone is threatened with an insubordination charge for disobeying orders).
  • Does it have a separate judicial system separate from civilian Federation courts? Yes. (TNG:The Measure of the Man, TNG:The Drumhead).

If you take the broadest definition of military - that is, armed forces - then Starfleet is clearly a military organization. Starfleet has similar structure, operations and authority to contemporary militaries.

However, if you narrow that definition of military to be: forces with the primary mission of making war, they absolutely are not.

It's not the size of your gun, it's how you use it.

The military in the United States is somewhat unique in the world because it does not engage in domestic police actions (this is reflected in the Posse Comitatus Act). The military training reflects their primary mission: destroy the enemy. It is a war-fighting force in the same way the militaries of this world's past: us versus them, destroy or be destroyed, and win at almost any cost.

Starfleet's primary mission isn't to make war - that is until the Federation is drawn into a war. DS9's Dominion War undeniably cast Starfleet as a military operation. Similarly, TNG:Yesterday's Enterprise shows Starfleet operating in a fully militarized manner. These are undeniable examples of Starfleet functioning as the de facto military of the Federation.

However, those exceptions seem to prove the rule that, when compared with contemporary and historical military forces, Starfleet is not about making war but enabling the Federation's peaceful exploration.

Put another way, by today's definition of military, which appears consistent with Gene Roddenberry's usage, Starfleet isn't a military.

What's in a name?

More importantly, Starfleet is a realization of changed values. Military tactics have evolved over time on Earth to recognize laws that define what sort of violence is allowed (chemical weapons are banned, for example). All of this points to a higher appreciation for life, the value of life, as expressed so often in Star Trek: to seek out new life and civilizations. Implied in that statement is that life of all kinds is to be valued. The Prime Directive indicates that life should be valued, even when we disagree with their values.

National military operations in the world today don't operate that way (World War I, World War II, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan). No contemporary military values life in the way that Starfleet does. Our military's primary mission is always to complete the objectives given, regardless of the number of casualties on the opposing side (and often without much consideration to risking civilian life).

That is a very distinct and profound difference. That is likely what Gene Roddenberry was referring to and the major difference Picard would understand when using the word "military."

In the same episode where Picard says, "Starfleet is not a military organization." Just prior to that line he also says:

Despite misgivings, I have agreed to Starfleet's request that we take part in these wargame exercises.

Wargames. Why does a non-military organization engage in war games?

He answers:

Because with the Borg threat, I have decided that my officers and I need to hone our tactical skills. In a crisis situation, it is prudent to have several options.

Starfleet clearly recognizes the safety and security of the Federation are important and that training for that possible military action is important.

Is Starfleet civilian or military?

The author's original question was which, civilian or military?

By today's standards, it is neither military or civilian.

The closest (poor) analog I could muster is the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which does conduct law enforcement operations (meaning they are armed) for limited purposes but NOAA's primary mission is scientific.

Using the 24th century standards, Starfleet is absolutely not like the Cardassian, Romulan, or Dominion operations which are very clearly military forces as we would define them today - meant for making war - so Picard's remarks are consistent with a more nuanced understanding of what a military does.

And so, in the 24th century, clearly Starfleet is not a military though it will engage in military operations when necessity dictates.

Captain P
  • 1,281
  • 11
  • 13
  • Lots of organisations engage in wargames including healthcare providers and financial services companies. The term simply means 'a live exercise' – Valorum Mar 22 '16 at 09:29
  • 4
    In the context of the episode, it's clear they were referring to real war. Specifically, battle tactics. Though I confess I had never heard the term used outside the military context and 'live exercise' is certainly not the dictionary definition of the word. That said, I am aware of an "emergency response and coordination center" that was referred to simply as the "war room." The examples you cite seem to refer to strategic response and their use of "war" is clearly hyperbolic (they seemed to have less to do with being 'live exercises' and more to do with testing contingency plans). – Captain P Mar 22 '16 at 15:09
  • 3
    The assertion that our military doesn't care about civilian casualties seems ridiculous. We have rules of engagement strict enough that some military personnel (and plenty warhawk politicians) believe that they are being kept from performing their duties. – DCShannon Mar 30 '16 at 22:05
  • Nor did I say that, DC. However, your follow-up that 'the rules are so strict that some military personnel believe they can't perform their duty' reflects exactly my point: If contemporary military personnel recognize their duty is to "win the war" then the best way to perform that duty means you must (sometimes) disregard civilian life. Caring about the public perception and caring about the deaths are distinct. – Captain P Apr 04 '16 at 00:51
  • Your answer is very thorough, and complements the accepted answer's unambiguous quotes with a philosophically and linguistically more complete write-up. However, I think that the modern-day, country-specific political musings and soapbox editorials are totally unnecessary. I don't think the OP was interested in the US Military's justification of the Doctrine of Double Effect (the ethical point at which civilian lives are worth the loss to attain a military goal) in Afghanistan. – Xodarap777 Oct 31 '16 at 21:09
  • "The military in the United States is somewhat unique in the world because it does not engage in domestic police actions" - isn't this the case for most western democracies? – nikie Jul 09 '18 at 19:33
11

The Federation Starfleet is a military organisation - but that doesn't mean their sole purpose is martial.

Their primary mission is exploration and humanitarian - but they also fight off threats as necessary (the Klingons, the Romulans, the Borg, the Dominion). It is this secondary role as defenders of the Federation that makes them military.

HorusKol
  • 45,787
  • 9
  • 142
  • 202
  • I don't quite know yet if they're a primarily military organization with exploration and humanitarian duties or a rigid civilian organization that can throw-down a bit. – Morgan Apr 15 '14 at 04:29
  • 2
    They're military, but their primary mission is exploration and humanitarian aid. – HorusKol Apr 15 '14 at 05:14
  • 1
    You are demonstrably correct. Starfleet is military at it's core... though they don't seem to be too good at it. – Morgan Apr 15 '14 at 05:56
  • More episodes of TNG and TOS are giving over to exploration and humanitarian missions. Even DS9, with the backdrop of war, still has a strong focus on exploration and humanitarian missions. – HorusKol Apr 15 '14 at 06:32
  • 7
    When everyone in Starfleet's name starts with a military rank designation, that tends to tell me they're military first. – Morgan Apr 15 '14 at 09:43
  • 4
    When they send the real military after the enemy bent on destroying the home planet rather than a Starfleet vessel, then I'll buy the non military role of Starfleet. – Oldcat Aug 27 '15 at 21:11
  • The thing is, the federation is run through StarFleet - on the interstellar level, the society is so militarized that the military does everything. That's why it's a bit difficult for show viewers to bear in mind they're watching military personnel exploring, doing diplomacy, medical rescue, trade deals etc. etc. Bearing that in mind would make them think of countries like Egypt or Iran (and even there it's not so extreme). – einpoklum Apr 12 '16 at 16:04
7

Interestingly, this issue crops up briefly in the novel "Federation". Kirk and an admiral who came on board end up discussing the issue near the end of the main plotline, with Kirk arguing the military side and the admiral arguing (as she has repeatedly done elsewhere) the exploration side. Finally a tired Kirk says

“Admiral, we’re both part of Starfleet,” Kirk began after a long moment. “Perhaps the question is not whether or not we have to label ourselves as a military organization or a science organization. Perhaps we should just say we’re Starfleet and leave it at that. Something new. A label all its own. Let the conflict go.

I think that's the best take on the issue.

Community
  • 1
PMar
  • 321
  • 4
  • 2
6

I've always likened them to the Coast Guard, actually. A civilian organization, mainly for exploration, rescue, defending the border, and upholding maritime (or in this case, space) law. However, in times of conflict, the Coast Guard has been suborned to the Navy.

I kind of see that in TOS, even more so in TNG.

Bob Stout
  • 339
  • 3
  • 6
  • 2
    The US Coast Guard is one of the seven branches of the United States Armed Forces. It is unique among the military branches by having a maritime law enforcement mission. During peacetime, it is run from the Department of Homeland Security. It can be transferred to the Navy upon request by the President or the US Congress. Title 10 defines the Armed Services and Title 14 defines the USCGS as a military service that law enforcement powers (Title 18 prevents the other services from doing this). So it is always military, but civilian duties in addition to a military role. – Walter Jan 11 '16 at 02:33
  • Yep, fully aware. My son was a Coastie. :) – Bob Stout Jan 11 '16 at 13:17
3

There are no real world equivalents, I think that is pretty clear at this point. By the Federation's own definition, Starfleet is legally the de jure armed forces of the Federation.

How starfleet discharges those responsibilities is a matter for the government of the Federation to decide. If it chose to do so, it's likely that they could do away with the "no first strike" policy if it so decided.

We've seen before that starfleet's purposes changes as the needs of the government changes, such as becoming fairly militarized during the Dominion War. There are many ways in which the terms 'peace-keeping' can be interpreted, and I'm sure that you could successfully argue that waging an offensive war could be one of those ways in ensuring that peace is kept.

As far as what Picard said: Starfleet is not a military organization. Our purpose is exploration. Well, he's downright wrong if we're to believe Chapter VIII of the charter, which states that the primary purpose of the organisation is to discharge 'the maintenance of interplanetary peace and security.' That is a military function. And while the argument could be made that Starfleet isn't a military organisation, it discharges duties that are military in nature.

As far as the peacekeeping line of questioning goes, I'll point out that peacekeeping forces are military forces who operate in a defensive posture under an international (and generally accepted) mandate granted to them by the UN. They can also be offensive forces operating under an international mandate, such as the mandate which was used during the 1991 Gulf War, or the US-led intervention in Korea in the 50's.

Ben.
  • 41
  • 1
3

After carefully reading & considering the definition & factors that characterize military forces, I've come to the conclusion that Star Fleet is indeed a military organization.

"The military are forces authorized to use lethal force, and weapons, to support the interests of the state and some or all of its citizens. The task of the military is usually defined as defense of the state and its citizens, and the prosecution of war against another state. The military may also have additional sanctioned and non-sanctioned functions within a society, including, the promotion of a political agenda, protecting corporate economic interests, internal population control, construction, emergency services, social ceremonies, and guarding important areas. The military can also function as a discrete sub-culture within a larger civil society, through the development of separate infrastructures, which may include housing, schools, utilities, food production and banking."(Wikipedia)

Valorum
  • 689,072
  • 162
  • 4,636
  • 4,873
Peter
  • 55
  • 1
  • 1
  • This definition doesn't appear to be an official one. It's just something that someone on the Galnet Wiki wrote; http://galnet.wikia.com/wiki/Military – Valorum Oct 06 '18 at 18:07
2

Starfleet is best understood as very similar to the JSDF (Japanese Self-Defense Force). After World War II the Japanese were banned from having a military, but the need of a way to defend themselves was eventually recognized and as such National Police was formed which eventually turned into the JSDF.

The JSDF is supposed to be purely "defensive", which like how MACO were the offensive arm of the United Earth with Starfleet vessel having minimal Armaments, but as time went on and threats became bigger MACOs were turned into a branch of Starfleet focusing solely on defense while simulatneously Starfleet buffed their weapons capabilities.

So MACOs no longer exist, but its recognized that a military of some sort is needed and military rankings are useful when dealing with a crew where if someone does something everyone can die. So the system and power is there, just not for military use, but rather defensive purposes.

There is a darker side to the whole thing though. The JSDF is allowed to and has taken part in "Peacekeeping" missions. Which means they can take hostile actions, so long as they can argue that it is for the betterment of longterm lasting peace... note: World Conquest would be a longterm lasting peace if successful ^.^ I don't believe we've seen the Starfleet used like this, but I could be mistaken...

Anyways, Starfleet is a Defense Force. So what exactly is a "Defense Force"? First we have to point out the difference between Police and Military.

Police - Civilian (we'll say compared to Military, but Police are also generally not considered Civilians with regard to non-police, in other words there is a heirachy here of who is and isn't a civilian to who), Authorized to use force to enforce the law and maintain peace domesticly. Military - Non-civilian (as per the abive, Military is always non-civilian and you can look at them as being at the top of heirarchy), authorized to use force against enemies of the state.

Or for a clearcut line. It means the following more or less... Police are for handling non-enemies.
Military is for handling enemies.

In the US our Military is only authorized to handle Foreign Enemies and are generally not allowed to be on missions within the borders of the US at all while we have non-military prganizations authorized to handle Foreign Enemies within the border of the US which are not the Police, but we generally lump them together. They include agencies like the FBI. But Military is generally authorized to deal with all enemies Foreign and domestic within and beyond their borders.

So the US Military and Police has a scope that is segmented and cut down or increased from the standard so it is not that great to use them as a blueprint for definitions, but its what most people are familiar with so we use them.

Now if we understand Military to mean dealing with enemies of the state, then this covers both, aggressive and defensive actions. This also covers domestic enemies and foreign enemies.

Usually when we think of Militaries we think of them attacking another country, but we have this separate term "Military Police" which is when the Military is tasked with the role of the Police, often times because the territory is somehow considered an enemy is some regard, where their job is to enforce the laws and maintain peace. They are Primarily there as a Military, but they are taking on the "civilian" duties of the Police. They're still Military, but are functioning to include traditionally civilian roles of authority.

On the opposite side we have the Police who's role is to enforce the law and maintain peace. While, not all of Starfleet's role, this is its main role with regards to what we're talking about. It doesn't push to expand its territory and isn't authorized to use force against enemies unless they are in some way disrupting peace or breaking laws. However, a Police agency that also acts in the role of military in some scenarios, such as defending against foreign enemies, is called a Defense Force.

So you have a spectrum that goes something like...
Military -Military
Military Police -Military
Defense Force -Civilian
Police -Civilian

Put succinctly, Starfleet is a Defense Force and as such, a Civilian organization and The Federation has no Military. But it would consider, non-Starfleet as Civilians vs them not being Civilians, but they wouldn't consider themselves Military.

Durakken
  • 4,943
  • 16
  • 34
  • But Starfleet is not a defensive force. Starfleet ships are well-armed, quite mobile, and are intended to take combat into enemy territory whenever called for. Some/many of them are also quite capable of assaulting planets from orbit. It is telling that vessels supposedly intended for "exploration", diplomatic missions and so on are usually on par with the various warships they encounter in terms of armament. The federation has on several occasion got into war over territorial disputes over areas it wanted to expand into. The question of which side provoked which is not clear-cut.... – einpoklum Apr 06 '20 at 15:32
  • ... even considering how our sources are Rodenberry and the script-writers, who are biased in favor of their Terran/Federation protagonists. – einpoklum Apr 06 '20 at 15:32
1

Gene Roddenberry's claim that Starfleet is not military is of course laughable. Yes, it explores. Yes it does scientific inquiry. So do military vessels. In fact most of the world was explored by the British Navy. But Starfleet is an armed and uniformed service that defends its state from attack, and projects power beyond its borders. By modern definitions, that's a military force.

David Johnston
  • 3,468
  • 17
  • 29
0

What is meant by "military" or "non-military" as a descriptor of Starfleet calls to mind the euphemistic/ironic name "Klingon Defence Force" - that organization which apparently likes to go around conquering rather than merely defending. Starfleet is military in its resources (people, spacecraft, weaponry), organization, and role as defender of the Federation. Describing it as "non-military" is only verbal shorthand for its policy of not going around conquering, intervening in third-party conflicts, or otherwise interfering in the affairs of non-Federation worlds.

Kirk first describes their role in the non-military "Earth Space Probe Agency" in TOS:"Tomorrow is Yesterday" (out-of-universe: before the writers came up with "Starfleet"). This unfortunate little tidbit of canon is, in its literal interpretation, contradicted by almost every action or method Starfleet is ever seen to do or practice. The only reasonable way to reconcile it is to interpret "non-military" as more of a statement of policy than composition or organization.

Anthony X
  • 11,039
  • 3
  • 43
  • 73
0

Yes, Starfleet is a military organization.

As you point out, the have military style uniforms, military style hierarchy, military style command, military rank structures, and amilitary style Academy. Everyone in Starfleet knows that if there is a war to be fought, they will be the ones doing the fighting. If it looks like a duck...

Whenever someone says that they are NOT military, they are always talking about warmongering imperialism. They aren't talking about organizational structure.

As far as organizational structure goes, in Wrath of Khan, Kirk's son repeatedly talks about how you can't trust a military organization and that even if they are claiming to be a peacful organization.

"I've tried to tell you before, scientists have always been pawns of the military!"

-

"Every time we have dealings with Starfleet, I get nervous. We are dealing with something that... could be perverted into a dreadful weapon. Remember that overgrown Boy Scout you used to hang around with? That's exactly the kind of man..."

-David to Carol (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan)

Importantly, while David is portrayed as distrustful of Starfleet, no one bothers to correct him and say they aren't a military.

So it looks like a military, acts like a military, the civilians view it as their military, and the only times it is claimed to not be a military they are refferring to the organizations goals - not its structure.

Shane
  • 1,701
  • 13
  • 14
  • 1
    The possession of a "military style hierarchy", ranks and uniforms doesn't make one a military. If that were the case, the Boy Scouts would be the third largest military in the world with the Salvation Army coming in a close fifth. – Valorum Sep 29 '16 at 16:53
  • @Valorum: ME: "A Square is a 4 sided shape, with all sides the same length, and all 4 corners at 90deg angles." YOU: "No, a square isn't just a 4 sided shape. If that were true rhombuses, parallelograms, and rectangles would all be squares." – Shane Oct 03 '16 at 13:46
  • You can't use the "walks like a duck" argument if there are multiple cases where the thing turns out not to be a duck. At best it's a zebra. – Valorum Oct 03 '16 at 14:20
  • @Valorum Ok. If you can show me any examples of an organization that looks like a military, acts like a military, whose civilians view it as their military, and that fights the war when attacked by foreign powers, that also turned out to not be a military, I'd love to hear about them. – Shane May 04 '17 at 14:25
  • Your description perfectly matches the United Nations Peacekeeping force. They look and act like a military (and even fight in a concerted fashion when attacked) but they're not a military force, they're.... something else – Valorum May 04 '17 at 14:39
  • You may also wish to note the description (above) from the DK "The Star Trek Book"; "With its powerful armada of starships and naval rank structure. Starfleet could be mistaken for a primarily military organization." It's easy to confuse them for a military force because they do so many things that a military force would do if Starfleet didn't exist. – Valorum May 04 '17 at 14:41
  • @Valorum Yeah, go up to a random person on the street and ask them if the UN is their military. Tell me how many people don't laugh in your face. IDC about some random book you've read when I'm quoting people on screen. – Shane May 06 '20 at 04:56
  • David's standpoint is best described as "hippy scientist utopian". He's the sort of person (in our own world) who goes around saying that the US is a fascist dystopia. Oh and my answer is filled with on and off-screen people saying that it's not a military, up to and including Roddenberry :-) – Valorum May 06 '20 at 06:13
  • Not a single one of the other characters, even the ones who disagree with him and aren't hippies, correct him and say it isn't a military. The on-screen people you quoted are all in starfleet. So in that single scene you have David, along with all the other scientists, agreeing that it is the military. That is far more reliable than high ranking officials repeating government propaganda. As for your off screen quotes, they all openly and unambiguously declare Starfleet a military. – Shane May 23 '20 at 03:58
  • The first one blatantly states they fall under the military. It is pure nonsense to say that an organization is underneath the control of the military branch of the government but isn't a military organization. The seconds one says "Starfleet could be mistaken for a primarily military organization." I'm not primarily an asshole, it is just one of the many traits that make me who I am. Just cause starfleet isn't primarily a military organization doesn't mean they aren't at all a military organization. – Shane May 23 '20 at 04:04
  • @Valorum In the 3rd one Gene says: "our armaments and militarism have been de-emphasized" I'll note that 1) the word 'militarism' doesn't mean what you think it does here. It is a word that refers to attitude, not structure. The United States military does not engage in militarism in the way that Sparta did. Does that mean that the US military is not a military? Obviously not. 2) "de-emphasized over the previous series". That means that even if you were using the word 'militarism' correctly you can't deny that even Gene admits in the TOS era Starfleet is unambiguously the military. – Shane May 23 '20 at 04:11
  • "de-emphasized" isn't "restructured". It doesn't matter to what extent that you de-emphasized militarism in the military. Unless you restructure it and change the laws that create and define that organization it is what it is. Also, I'll see you Gene quote and raise you Nicoals Myers "I thought it was at least as militaristic as, say, the Coast Guard." and Ronald D. Moore "I've always felt that Starfleet is the military / exploratory / scientific arm of the UFP." Also Moore: "Say Starfleet isn't the military all you want, it fails the duck test – looks like, walks like, sounds like, etc."
    • – Shane May 23 '20 at 04:16
  • @Valorum tl;dr On screen characters that say it is a military and who have no motivation to lie should be believed over ones that do. Your off-screen sources also say it is a military. Gene waffled about Starfleet's structure ("[Roddenberry] was emphatic that Starfleet was not a military organization but something akin to the Coast Guard." The Coast Guard is a military), but everyone else was clear: It is. – Shane May 23 '20 at 04:19
  • All of this sounds like stuff that should edited into your answer rather than sitting in comments underneath it :-) – Valorum May 23 '20 at 06:13