Sovereign class

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:58 pm

Chakat wrote:I'd like to point out Starfleet is exploration first, and that only a handfull of the ships are true warships. But your point is still true.

It is Starfleets job to defend the Federation from external threats, ergo they are a military organisation. The fact that some ships are purely science or exploratory ships is irelevant to this debate. I have no problem with civilians on science ships, I do have a problem with civilians on ships that are expected to get shot at.

They should split starfleet into two organizations, one for combat and one for exploration.

I've been saying that for years.

Teaos wrote:I said they would be on ships that had almost no chance of seeing combat.

If they are on military ships then there will still be a chance of being attacked.

Officers get more benifits than enlisted men.

Because they are of higher rank and thus have earned those privilages. Crewman X and Crewman Z are of the same rank, yet one gets benefits the other dosen't. How is that fair?

People on homeland duty get it way better than people on the fronts.

True, but they may be called up to the front.

People on and Aircraft carrier have a wider range of recreational activities than ones on a sub.

That is because of size constraints.

Also there are lots of people who have no family that can work the front.

Why should Crewman X get better treatment, more comfortable lifestyle and a safer posting just because he's married? That is extremely unfair. Can you imagine the uproar if they decided to take all the married troops out of Iraq and replace them with unmarried ones?

Or decide they dont mind being seperated for awhile.

Its a very bad idea to give people a choice in wether they want to stay in a comfortable posting or get sent off to a different one. I can assure you you wont get many volenteers.

If your on core duty the main threats are hundreds of light years away at least you would have warning to ditch the civilians if it came to that.

Basing your stratagey on the assumption you will always know when and where your enemy is going to attack is not a good idea.

Also Events like Wolf 359 are so rare you shouldnt build your military stategy around them.

So? It dosen't mean you should completely ignore them when you are making a military stratagey.

The 4 ships we have seen as stars have been either flag ships or in unusual situations so they are hardly the avergae for a Federation ship.

True, but this does not mean these ships are always safe. (Yamato)

Post by **Teaos** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:26 pm

Its a very bad idea to give people a choice in wether they want to stay in a comfortable posting or get sent off to a different one. I can assure you you wont get many volenteers.

Lots of people want to fight for their country. You would have no shortage.

Quote:
They should split starfleet into two organizations, one for combat and one for exploration.

I've been saying that for years.

So civilians on the science ships huh? I doubt the Borg care what the ship is for. In a war the enemy would proberly destroy it to. All ships need some form of defence for pirates and natural dangers thus they are still a minor threat to people.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:01 pm

Lots of people want to fight for their country. You would have no shortage.

Then they can fight without putting their families at risk.

So civilians on the science ships huh? I doubt the Borg care what the ship is for. In a war the enemy would proberly destroy it to. All ships need some form of defence for pirates and natural dangers thus they are still a minor threat to people.

Actually, I was going by the assumption scientist=civilian, so it would be difficult to have a science ship without them.

Blackstar the Chakat · Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:04 pm

Teaos wrote:
Its a very bad idea to give people a choice in wether they want to stay in a comfortable posting or get sent off to a different one. I can assure you you wont get many volenteers.
Lots of people want to fight for their country. You would have no shortage.

That's not true. Since the war against Iraq started the US has fallen short of their recruitment quota several times. And I personally wouldn't want to fight for my country much less die for it.

Post by **Teaos** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:55 am

That's not true. Since the war against Iraq started the US has fallen short of their recruitment quota several times. And I personally wouldn't want to fight for my country much less die for it.

Thats would probably have more to do with the unjust war than not wanting to fight for your country. Look back to WWI and WWII no shortage of soilders for a just war then.

I would fight and die for my county if I felt it justified.

Blackstar the Chakat · Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:10 am

Teaos wrote:
That's not true. Since the war against Iraq started the US has fallen short of their recruitment quota several times. And I personally wouldn't want to fight for my country much less die for it.
Thats would probably have more to do with the unjust war than not wanting to fight for your country. Look back to WWI and WWII no shortage of soilders for a just war then.

I would fight and die for my county if I felt it justified.

Maybe. I also blame poor advertisements. In the world wars they had great recruiting campaigns. Now you almost never see, or at least notice an army ad.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:07 pm

Yes, there would be people who would fight. So they can do it without their familiy. There is no reason for them being there.

Post by **Teaos** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:19 pm

I doubt ships like the Akira and steamrunner have civilians on them and these are the ships that would be in combat the majority of the time.

If starfleet used their ships properly there would be no problem at all. As it stands civilians are put at risk very seldom.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:24 pm

I doubt ships like the Akira and steamrunner have civilians on them and these are the ships that would be in combat the majority of the time.

I would hope not. But having civies on warships at all, even in peace time, is stupid. There is always a risk. Especially on those death traps they call ships.

If starfleet used their ships properly there would be no problem at all.

True. The problem is that they don't.

As it stands civilians are put at risk very seldom.

Er, are we even watching the same shows? We routinely see civilians in life or death situations. Even if we ignore the ships the series focus' on, we still see plenty of ships going up, likely with civilians on them.

Post by **Teaos** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:29 pm

Barring in war when I doubt most ships would have civilians on them and the main ships we see that see a rediculus amount of combat. The amount of times a ship with civilians in it is destroyed or damaged is minimal.

Also the civilians know there is a risk and the choose to take it. Sure the children dont but their perents do for them.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:36 pm

Barring in war when I doubt most ships would have civilians on them and the main ships we see that see a rediculus amount of combat.

Any ship along the borders is likely to be involved in such skirmishes.

The amount of times a ship with civilians in it is destroyed or damaged is minimal.

That we have seen. The simple fact that there is a danger should be enough to throw them off a warship.

Also the civilians know there is a risk and the choose to take it.

At the cost of military effeciency? I don't care if the civies are stupid enough to get on board, I care about the fact that Starfleet is too stupid to throw them off.

Sure the children dont but their perents do for them.

I, and I'm sure others on the board would agree with me, would never put my daughter in such danger. This just shows the irresponsibility of these parents that they knowingly gamble with the lives of their children by putting them in such danger.

Post by **Teaos** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:39 pm

Do you put your daughter in a car? She has more chance of dying in a car crash than she does in a starship.

Starfleet is family friendly. They are willing to reduce the efficency of their ships by a bit to keep crew and family happy. I find that a refreshing change.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:44 pm

Do you put your daughter in a car? She has more chance of dying in a car crash than she does in a starship.

True, but there is a possibility of death everywhere. The difference between a car and a warships is that no one is going to be shooting at my Ford Focus.

Starfleet is family friendly.

I suddenly had a mental image of a Starfleet recruitment ad with that exact line!

They are willing to reduce the efficency of their ships by a bit to keep crew and family happy.

Er, you call that a bit? These guys wouldn't know a real warship if it warped in and started kicking their ass.

I find that a refreshing change.

I find it stupid. But I suppose its a matter of opinion...

Post by **Teaos** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:51 pm

True, but there is a possibility of death everywhere. The difference between a car and a warships is that no one is going to be shooting at my Ford Focus.

Just for that I'm going to hunt you down and shoot off your rear view mirrors

I suddenly had a mental image of a Starfleet recruitment ad with that exact line!

"Join starfleet they said, See the galaxy they said... I'd rather be sailing"

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:38 pm