www.ditl.org

Rochey wrote: What? Are you suggesting that militaries are not military, simply becuase they don't follow a definition?
You do realise that definitions change with regularity?

No I'm not suggesting that, and I would say that if Starfleet did the same things as a modern day military they would be a military. But Starfleet spends 99% of the time in science and exploratory roles, and 1% in military roles. Modern day militaries spend 99% of the time in military roles (it doesn't matter if its real combat against another country or not, a military role includes training, drills, and anything like that).

Do modern militaries spend 90% of their time in combat? No.
Neither does Starfleet, but this does not stop them being a military.

But they spend 90% of their time in military roles whether it be training or whatever. Starfleet does not.

Exactly how are they invalid?

I'm not saying again - just read my previous posts, I've put why twice before (once devoted to each definition separately).

Irrelevant. The fact remains that they train for combat.

Irrelevant. The fact remains that they train far more for non-combat.

Then why do you constantly insist that undergoing civilian operations precludes them from being a military organisation?

Because they undergo more civilian operations than military operations.

Sorry, but again you part ways with the English language:

Dictionary.com wrote:-adjective
1. first or highest in rank or importance; chief; principal: his primary goals in life.
2. first in order in any series, sequence, etc.
3. first in time; earliest; primitive.
4. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of primary school: the primary grades.
5. constituting or belonging to the first stage in any process.
6. of the nature of the ultimate or simpler constituents of which something complex is made up: Animals have a few primary instincts.
7. original; not derived or subordinate; fundamental; basic.
8. immediate or direct, or not involving intermediate agency: primary perceptions.
*snip irrelevant bits*

So, it seems that 'primary' is in fact what you place the most importance on, which is clearly military operations.
But of course, you're not going to accept this either, are you?

Up for debate - none of them mention priority which is a word that really has no common substitute. Prioritising something doesn't make it the most important, for example, just makes it your number one on the "to do" list. For the sake of arguement it doesn't really matter that much whether it is primary role or what is done most often, as I stated that I took them both to mean the same thing anyway.

I did not state that the Irish military never does military operations, I said they were rare in relativity to other operation.

If the Irish military spends over 50% of their time undergoing military operations (inc. training, drills, combat, etc etc) then I consider them a military. If they do not, then I do not consider the a military. However I am rather confident that the Irish military spends over 50% of their time undergoing military operations.

Yeah, and Starfleet trains too.

Again, far less in military than in other civilian roles.

So tell me then, why would a government give its most powerful ships to a civilian organisation? Why dosen't it give them to its military, as you claim that Starfleet is not it?

Starfleet is the Federation's science, exploratory, and military organisation. It is not a military, though. The question is not whether Starfleet defends the Federation and acts at times as a military, it is whether it should be classified as what it does 1% of the time - whether that require it to drop everything else or not, or whether it should be classified as what it does 99% of the time, whether that be required to be dropped when the 1% is required or not.
The above may be poor English, but my point is that the debate is whether Starfleet should be classified as a military, or something else. I accept 100% it defends the Federation. But whether or not that makes it a military is up for doubt.

Never heard of it. But thank you for helping to prove my point.

I did no such thing. The Raven is Seven's old ship.

See above.

Makes no difference, as said.

So? You don't have to constantly be in combat to be a military.

...And for the umpteenth time, no you don't, but in my eyes, you do have to be training constantly (50% of the time or above) for combat to be a military. Which is what all modern day militaries do, and Starfleet does not. And that is the difference.

We have not been debating this matter for thirty pages. We have been debating it for two. And I'll state again that the only reason it is 'not quite simple' is because you insisted on picking holes in the definition used by every dictionary I have looked at.

Insisted? Isn't that the point of such a debate? To prove the other wrnog? All the definitions were invalid, and you expect me not to point that out?

Of which I provided the definition, and which further proved my point.

Really? By saying the army, navy, and air force? Proves nothing regaring a space organisation that spends most of it time doing civilian duties.

Again, pointless semantics. The fact the dictionary does not include 'space' under 'armed forces' is quite simple; we have no armed spaceships.
If the US was to launch a dozen or so heavily armed spaceships, would you claim the organisation that controls them is not a member of the armed forces?

NASA is not a part of the armed forces, or military. That analogy is badly flawed.

I will rephrase my conclusion in light of the doubt of the definition or "primary role".

Starfleet's most common role is as an exploratory and science organisation.
Starfleet's highest priority is defending the Federation.

A modern day military's most common role is combat operations, training, and drills.
A modern day military's highest priority is defending their country.

That is the difference. The only possible question that we have failed to answer is whether or not this difference of what they do most often would make Starfleet a military.

Also worthy to note, in universe Starfleet is not a military - cannon, and we are arguing out of universe how it compares to it's own past or now.

From the script of Star trek 6 : The Undiscovered Country:



A Military Man

Bill, are we talking about

mothballing the Starfleet?



Commander in Chief

I'm sure our exploration and

science programs would not be

affected, but the facts speak for

themselves, Captain.



Admiral Donald

I must protest. To offer the

Klingons a safe haven within

Federation space is suicide. And

if we dismantle the fleet, we'd be

defenseless before a Bellicose

people with a foothold on our

territory, led by an unprincipled

tyrant. The opportunity here is to

embargo trading, force them to run

through their own resources faster,

and bring them to their knees.

Then we'll be in a far better

position to dictate terms.



a vocal minority of the briefing supports this, but not

all. Kirk simply stares at Spock.



Commander in Chief

Starfleet in under civilian

control, Admiral. The decision is

a political, not a military one,

and it's been made.

Granitehewer-> i thought that this might help people decide, one way or the other

But Starfleet spends 99% of the time in science and exploratory roles, and 1% in military roles.

Actually, after thinking over it for a moment I just realised something. Starfleet does spend 100% of their time doing military operations. They patrol the borders constantly. They have ships protecting planets constantly. They have space stations used in military roles constantly. They have personel used in military roles constantly.

But they spend 90% of their time in military roles whether it be training or whatever. Starfleet does not.

Actualy, as I pointed out above they do.

Irrelevant. The fact remains that they train far more for non-combat.

The amount of time spent doing this is what's irelevant. The fact remains that they do train for it.

Because they undergo more civilian operations than military operations.

Again, I'll point out that non-military operations do not preclude an organisation from being military.

Up for debate - none of them mention priority which is a word that really has no common substitute.

I never mentioned priority. I mentioned that your definition of 'primary' is wrong. As I have just proved.

For the sake of arguement it doesn't really matter that much whether it is primary role or what is done most often, as I stated that I took them both to mean the same thing anyway.

Yes, and you took them wrongly. The first definition helps prove my point.

If the Irish military spends over 50% of their time undergoing military operations (inc. training, drills, combat, etc etc) then I consider them a military. If they do not, then I do not consider the a military. However I am rather confident that the Irish military spends over 50% of their time undergoing military operations.

It probably does. And Starfleet spends just as much of their time in military operations.

Again, far less in military than in other civilian roles.

Irrelevant. It still trains in military roles.

Starfleet is the Federation's science, exploratory, and military organisation. It is not a military, though.

Did you just say 'its a military' and then 'its not a military' immediately afterwards?

The question is not whether Starfleet defends the Federation and acts at times as a military, it is whether it should be classified as what it does 1% of the time - whether that require it to drop everything else or not, or whether it should be classified as what it does 99% of the time, whether that be required to be dropped when the 1% is required or not.

As I pointed out above, they spend all of their time doing military operations.

I did no such thing. The Raven is Seven's old ship.

Actualy, you did. You proved my point that Starfleet has the most powerful ships in the Federation, something that would be completely ridiculous were it a civilian organisation.

Makes no difference, as said.

It does. It proves my point that Starfleets primary role is as a military.

...And for the umpteenth time, no you don't, but in my eyes, you do have to be training constantly (50% of the time or above) for combat to be a military.Which is what all modern day militaries do, and Starfleet does not. And that is the difference.

Canon: People are being constantly trained.
Canon: Starfleet spends all it's time undergoing military operations.

By your own definition, this means that Starfleet is a military.

Insisted? Isn't that the point of such a debate? To prove the other wrnog? All the definitions were invalid, and you expect me not to point that out?

You insisted that the dictionaries be discounted because they did not include the word 'space' in their definition of the armed forces, when its quite easy to see why they did not include it. There is nothing invalid about them.

Really? By saying the army, navy, and air force? Proves nothing regaring a space organisation that spends most of it time doing civilian duties.

Yeah, because clearly you can't have an armed space force.

NASA is not a part of the armed forces, or military. That analogy is badly flawed.

What? Where the hell did I ever mention NASA?

Starfleet's most common role is as an exploratory and science organisation.
Starfleet's highest priority is defending the Federation.

Okay, now let me say mine.
Starfleet's primary role is defending the Federation.
Starfleet's highest priority is defending the Federation.

Nope, nothing military about that.

A modern day military's most common role is combat operations, training, and drills.
A modern day military's highest priority is defending their country.

A modern day military's primary role is defending their country.
A modern day military's highest priority is defending their country.

That is the difference.

Yeah, I can see major differences there.

The fact is that Starfleet's primary role and its highest priority are the exact same as a modern day military's. They also have ships undergoing military operations 24/7.

Also worthy to note, in universe Starfleet is not a military - cannon,

I'd like a quote, and an episode.

and we are arguing out of universe how it compares to it's own past or now.

The fact remains that Starfleet follows the definition of 'military'. Ergo, it is a military. Whether or not Starfleet admits this or not is irrelevant.


And Granite, thank you for the quotes. That quite clearly establishes that Starfleet's members consider the organisation to be a military.

Am not going to support or undermine anyones' views or voice my own, just popping in quotes to see what people think, as the same quote can be used by both sides to support their views

Rochey wrote: Actually, after thinking over it for a moment I just realised something. Starfleet does spend 100% of their time doing military operations. They patrol the borders constantly. They have ships protecting planets constantly. They have space stations used in military roles constantly. They have personel used in military roles constantly.

90% of the resources of Starfleet are dedicated to science/exploration. As good as cannon. Just because some-thing happens all of the time, does not mean every-thing happens all of the time. Starfleet as a does not spend 100% of their time doing military operations. 10% of Starfleet spends 100% of their time doing military operations.

Actualy, as I pointed out above they do.

Actually, as I pointed out above, they do not.

The amount of time spent doing this is what's irelevant. The fact remains that they do train for it.

So if the Irish military trains a little bit for doing civilian duties, that makes them non military? The amount of time spent doing it isn't irrelevant. In fact it's the most relevant thing as that's exactly what this arguement is revolving around.

Again, I'll point out that non-military operations do not preclude an organisation from being military.

And again, I'll just point out that military operations do not preclude an organisation from not being a military.

I never mentioned priority. I mentioned that your definition of 'primary' is wrong. As I have just proved.

Define primary role. I can't find a definition for it anywhere. I have never made a definition for the word "primary", but rather it in conjunction with "role". I know what primary means - for all intents and purposes 'first', but your definitions didn't say how it relates to priority or most common.

Yes, and you took them wrongly. The first definition helps prove my point.

"Highest in importance" - proves you nothing. I don't intend to look up more definitions but importance can be taken to mean a number of things, and Starfleet takes science missions as important as military operations.

It probably does. And Starfleet spends just as much of their time in military operations.

90% of the episodes we see of Star Trek indicate otherwise.

Irrelevant. It still trains in military roles.

Irrelevant. It trains far more in science roles.

Did you just say 'its a military' and then 'its not a military' immediately afterwards?

Funny question - you just seemed to have read what I put. I did not say Starfleet was a military, I said it acts as a military in conjunction with other things. Not making it a military - as that would mean it is a devoted military force. Which it is not.

As I pointed out above, they spend all of their time doing military operations.

As I pointed out above, they do not.

Actualy, you did. You proved my point that Starfleet has the most powerful ships in the Federation, something that would be completely ridiculous were it a civilian organisation.

I'm not saying it's completely civilian organisation, just what it should be classified as. I would classify the number 2.0000001 as the number 2, even though it's also got a 0.0000001. I would classify the Royal Navy as a military [division], even though it does some ocean mapping (or whatever). I would classify Starfleet as a civilian organisation ,even though it does some military operations.

It does. It proves my point that Starfleets primary role is as a military.

No, it does not. Starfleet's most important role is science and exploration, as said on screen.

Canon: People are being constantly trained.
Canon: Starfleet spends all it's time undergoing military operations.

Cannon: People are being constantly trained in many areas, most of which aren't militaristic ones
Cannon: Starfleet doesn't spend all it's time undergoing military operations. A part of it does.
You think that 10% of Starfleet doing something 100% of the time means 100% of Starfleet doing something 100% of the time?

You insisted that the dictionaries be discounted because they did not include the word 'space' in their definition of the armed forces, when its quite easy to see why they did not include it. There is nothing invalid about them.

I have pointed out twice why they are all invalid. Again, reread my previous posts.

Yeah, because clearly you can't have an armed space force.

Not if they're spending most of their time doing non typical armed forces duties.

What? Where the hell did I ever mention NASA?

American sending up a space ship? NASA controls that.

Okay, now let me say mine.
Starfleet's primary role is defending the Federation.
Starfleet's highest priority is defending the Federation.

I disagree.

Nope, nothing military about that.

I agree.

A modern day military's primary role is defending their country.
A modern day military's highest priority is defending their country.

And going back to the old definition of primary... Not even able to read to my newest post where I changed the wording to help you?

Yeah, I can see major differences there.

Because your first one is flawed.

The fact is that Starfleet's primary role and its highest priority are the exact same as a modern day military's. They also have ships undergoing military operations 24/7.

No they don't. And yes they do have ships undergoing military operations 24/7. But that is only a fraction of the entirity.

I'd like a quote, and an episode.

I don't care. We both know it's true.

The fact remains that Starfleet follows the definition of 'military'. Ergo, it is a military. Whether or not Starfleet admits this or not is irrelevant.

It's very relevant in universe.

And Granite, thank you for the quotes. That quite clearly establishes that Starfleet's members consider the organisation to be a military.

Forgive, but I'm sure I read Starfleet is under civilian control, Admiral.

So if NASA was to load up the Discovery with a couple of nukes in it's cargo bay (and break dozens of treatys in the process), then would that make NASA a military organization and the Discovery a warship? I think not. I'm thinking starfleet is the same way.

Maybe starfleet has a military division. That way it has a military but that isn't Starfleet's, as a whole, primary role. Will that satisfy everyone?

90% of the resources of Starfleet are dedicated to science/exploration.

I like how you suddenly switched to 'resources' after I pointed out how Starfleet spends 100% of its time doing military operations.

Starfleet as a does not spend 100% of their time doing military operations. 10% of Starfleet spends 100% of their time doing military operations.

Ergo, Starfleet still spends 100% of its time doing military operations.

Actually, as I pointed out above, they do not.

Nope, my point still stands that Starfleet has ships performing military operations 100% of the time.

So if the Irish military trains a little bit for doing civilian duties, that makes them non military?

No, as their primary role and highest priority is defending the country. You yourself stated that this is what defines a military.

The amount of time spent doing it isn't irrelevant. In fact it's the most relevant thing as that's exactly what this arguement is revolving around.

And Starfleet spends 100% of its time doing military operations. Just as they also spend 100% of their time doing civilian operations. As you can see, the amount of time spent doing X is not the most important factor, as they are both the same.

And again, I'll just point out that military operations do not preclude an organisation from not being a military.

I'm not even going to bother replying to this, as it just keeps going in circles.

Define primary role. I can't find a definition for it anywhere. I have never made a definition for the word "primary", but rather it in conjunction with "role". I know what primary means - for all intents and purposes 'first', but your definitions didn't say how it relates to priority or most common.

Yet again, more semantics.
And no, no dictionary includes 'primary role' as it is quite obvious what it means. It is the main role which is considered to be the most important.

"Highest in importance" - proves you nothing.

Yes, it does. It proves that the 'primary' role of Starfleet is that which they consider to be the most important. Which is clearly military roles.

I don't intend to look up more definitions but importance can be taken to mean a number of things, and Starfleet takes science missions as important as military operations.

No, it dosen't. If they did, they wouldn't suspend all civilian activities during a conflict.

90% of the episodes we see of Star Trek indicate otherwise.

Not really. We know for a fact that there are ships stationed on border patrol constantly. Ergo, 100% of the time there are ships undergoing military operations.

Irrelevant. It trains far more in science roles.

Irrelevant. It still trains in military roles. The fact that they train more in X than they do in Y does not stop Y being the primary role of the organisation.

Funny question - you just seemed to have read what I put.

Are you implying that I am ignoring your posts? I would advise you not to do that, as we already had a similar event in the 'Intrepid' thread, which ended in you ignoring[/i my repeated demands for evidence of such or an apology.

I did not say Starfleet was a military, I said it acts as a military in conjunction with other things. Not making it a military - as that would mean it is a devoted military force. Which it is not.

Since when did we start talking about 'devoted'?

As I pointed out above, they do not.

Wrong.

I would classify the Royal Navy as a military [division], even though it does some ocean mapping (or whatever). I would classify Starfleet as a civilian organisation ,even though it does some military operations.

Why? Both do the same operations. By your logic this would make the Royal Navy a civilian organisation. By my logic they would both be military organisations.

No, it does not. Starfleet's most important role is science and exploration, as said on screen.

Yes, if you had actualy read my above points you would see that it clearly shows Starfleet puts higher emphasis on military operations. The fact that they do it completely incompetantly is irrelevant.

Cannon: People are being constantly trained in many areas, most of which aren't militaristic ones

All Starfleet officers take self defence training. There are redshirts who are trained completely in security. The same is true on modern naval ships.

Cannon: Starfleet doesn't spend all it's time undergoing military operations. A part of it does.
You think that 10% of Starfleet doing something 100% of the time means 100% of Starfleet doing something 100% of the time?

No. It was yourself who claimed that because they do X 100% of the time, their primary role must be X. I just pointed out that they also do Y 100% of the time. Then you switched the debate to the deployment of assets.

I have pointed out twice why they are all invalid. Again, reread my previous posts.

You are calling them irrelevant over pointless semantics; that they do not include the word 'space' in the definition. It's quite telling when you have to resort to semantics to keep your own side in the debate...

Not if they're spending most of their time doing non typical armed forces duties.

I am not talking about Starfleet here. I am talking about a hypothetical space navy. The fact remains that such a hypothetical organisation would fall under the heading of 'military', a fact which you deny as the definition does not include the word 'space'.

American sending up a space ship? NASA controls that.

Fine, France then.

I agree.

I'd advise you to look up the definition of 'sarcasm'.

And going back to the old definition of primary... Not even able to read to my newest post where I changed the wording to help you?

No, I saw quite clearly that you changed your own definition. I was using your old one, as it shows quite clearly that Starfleet is a military.

Because your first one is flawed.

In what way? Both statements are true, ergo my point stands.

No they don't. And yes they do have ships undergoing military operations 24/7. But that is only a fraction of the entirity.

Changing the definition again?

I don't care. We both know it's true.

No quoted. Not proven. Not accepted.

It's very relevant in universe.

No, it isn't. If the US military said they weren't a military, that would not rid the fact that they are a military. The same is true for Starfleet. Whatever they may choose to call themselves, the fact remains that they fit the definition of a military perfectly.

Forgive, but I'm sure I read Starfleet is under civilian control, Admiral.

Here's a newsflash for you:
All militaries are under civilian control. It's called a government.

Granitehewer wrote:Starfleet in under civilian

control,[This would be the government-Rochey] Admiral. The decision is

a political, not a military one,

and it's been made.

Funny, Starfleet personel refer to themselves as 'military'.

Blackstar wrote:So if NASA was to load up the Discovery with a couple of nukes in it's cargo bay (and break dozens of treatys in the process), then would that make NASA a military organization and the Discovery a warship? I think not. I'm thinking starfleet is the same way.

No it wouldn't. And no its not.

Maybe starfleet has a military division.

No such division has ever been mentioned. Which is a pity, as it would excuse some of Starfleet's more idiotic actions.

Starfleet seems to do everything, combat, science, diplomacy, cargo hauling, relief missions... what's left for the civilians to do? Honestly, it seems like there aren't any non-starfleet federation space based operations. The only exception has been Yates and her ship. Maybe the next Star Trek should focus more on a civilian ship then on Starfleet.

Rochey wrote: I like how you suddenly switched to 'resources' after I pointed out how Starfleet spends 100% of its time doing military operations.

Good, wasn't it? I used the term resources to try and make it simpler to understand. Starfleet does not spend 100% of the time doing military operations. A part of it does. Starfleet as whole does not spend 100% of the time doig military operations. When you say Starfleet, you mean all of Starfleet. The entirity of it. To say Starfleet spends 100% of its time doing military operations is completely and utterly wrong. A part of Starfleet spends 100% of its time doing military operations.

Ergo, Starfleet still spends 100% of its time doing military operations.

Ergo, no it does not. When you say Starfleet, you mean it is a whole.
If I were to say the population of the earth are sleeping 100% of the time, that is wrong. Only a part of it is sleeping at any given time. Only a part of Starfleet is doing military operations at any given time. What you said is categorically wrong. Starfleet refers to the whole. To refer to a part of it, you must explicitly state that.

Nope, my point still stands that Starfleet has ships performing military operations 100% of the time.

Wrong. See my previous two remarks.

No, as their primary role and highest priority is defending the country. You yourself stated that this is what defines a military.

I did not. I have maintained all along that we don't know what defines a military - please don't accuse me of saying otherwise.

And Starfleet spends 100% of its time doing military operations. Just as they also spend 100% of their time doing civilian operations. As you can see, the amount of time spent doing X is not the most important factor, as they are both the same.

Starfleet doesn't spend 100% of the time doing military operations. A part of it does. Starfleet doesn't spend 100% of the time doing civilian operations. A part of it does. Ergo, those parts are not the same, and thus it is an important factor.

I'm not even going to bother replying to this, as it just keeps going in circles.

You just did.

Yet again, more semantics.
And no, no dictionary includes 'primary role' as it is quite obvious what it means. It is the main role which is considered to be the most important.

This time you went to the dictionary. The main/primary role could equally be argued as to what role you are most often seen to be doing.

Yes, it does. It proves that the 'primary' role of Starfleet is that which they consider to be the most important. Which is clearly military roles.

Primary role could equally be argued to mean that it is what role you are most often playing. Which would make it civilian roles.

No, it dosen't. If they did, they wouldn't suspend all civilian activities during a conflict.

Who's playing with semantics now? Importance is what you place more emphasis on. As we're constantly told, and constantly see, that science and exploration are more often on the cards than military operations. Far more often.

Not really. We know for a fact that there are ships stationed on border patrol constantly. Ergo, 100% of the time there are ships undergoing military operations.

Correct - this time you have not said that all the ships (thus all of Starfleet) are undergoing military operations.

Irrelevant. It still trains in military roles. The fact that they train more in X than they do in Y does not stop Y being the primary role of the organisation.

Yes, it does.

Are you implying that I am ignoring your posts? I would advise you not to do that, as we already had a similar event in the 'Intrepid' thread, which ended in you ignoring[/i my repeated demands for evidence of such or an apology.

Which fizzled out and I decided not to bring it back. I am not implying you are ignoring my posts, I would have said so if I felt you were. I said you have read what I said, then questioned what I have said when the answer is in what you just read.

(Sidenote: how cool was that sentence?)

Since when did we start talking about 'devoted'?

Since we don't know whether the pefect definition of military includes the word devoted.

Wrong.

*Continues Circle*
Wrong.

Why? Both do the same operations. By your logic this would make the Royal Navy a civilian organisation. By my logic they would both be military organisations.

Because the Royal Navy spends 90% of their time in some sort of militaristic operation, the other 10% in civilian roles, while Starfleet does it vice versa. I would define it by what it is doing most.

Yes, if you had actualy read my above points you would see that it clearly shows Starfleet puts higher emphasis on military operations. The fact that they do it completely incompetantly is irrelevant.

Now who's accusing who of ignoring posts?
Starfleet put higher emphasis on scientific missions. Starfleet would prefer their ships to be doing scientific missions.

All Starfleet officers take self defence training. There are redshirts who are trained completely in security. The same is true on modern naval ships.

They are not trained completely in security - I bet most security officers probably still have a 50/50 with more civilian roles. And this is back to only a portion of them are security officers. If Starfleet was a military, their entire population would be fully trained as security officers.

No. It was yourself who claimed that because they do X 100% of the time, their primary role must be X. I just pointed out that they also do Y 100% of the time. Then you switched the debate to the deployment of assets.

A portion of them doing X 100% of the time. A portion of them do Y 100% of the time. If X is the higher portion, I would classify them as X. If Y is the higher portion, I would classify them as Y.

You are calling them irrelevant over pointless semantics; that they do not include the word 'space' in the definition. It's quite telling when you have to resort to semantics to keep your own side in the debate...

You have resorted to it a fair few times - backing up your own arguement with it. If you don't wish to discuss definitions and semantics, then don't, but as you clearly are carrying on about it, regardless of who first brought it up, then stop complaining. You are carrying it on just as much as I.

I am not talking about Starfleet here. I am talking about a hypothetical space navy. The fact remains that such a hypothetical organisation would fall under the heading of 'military', a fact which you deny as the definition does not include the word 'space'.

Not because it doesn't include space, but because any modern day armies don't spend most of their time picking fruit or walking to the North Pole. Starfleet does. [At least the equivilent].

Fine, France then.

The European Space Agency controls that. Again, not a military organisation, whether or not they stick a couple of guns on it.

I'd advise you to look up the definition of 'sarcasm'.

You want me to go on about more semantics?

No, I saw quite clearly that you changed your own definition. I was using your old one, as it shows quite clearly that Starfleet is a military.

My old one which I changed for yours, and yours alone, benefit. Again, I have made no definition. And my old one didn't show that Starfleet was a military, and again we're back to arguing what "primary role" actually means. We both know that I meant most common duties.

In what way? Both statements are true, ergo my point stands.

Because we clearly both disagree about the meaning of primary role. Which is why I changed it to most common duties so there was no doubt. You then proceeded to change it back just so you could raise a point when primary role means what you have chosen it to mean. That of highest priority.

Changing the definition again?

I never made a definition.

No quoted. Not proven. Not accepted.

Tough. We both know it's true.

No, it isn't. If the US military said they weren't a military, that would not rid the fact that they are a military. The same is true for Starfleet. Whatever they may choose to call themselves, the fact remains that they fit the definition of a military perfectly.

The US military was set up as a military. Starfleet was not. If, however, the US army stopped doing military operations/combat, spent 90% of the time working as geologists and chemists, and only 10% go into a militaristic situation, and then someone said they aren't a military, I would say they aren't a military.
However - I've noticed a mistake on your part. You have just said that it's not proven Starfleet recognises itself as a non military organisation. You have now just said that "The same is true for Starfleet" - meaning that you have accepted that Starfleet recognises itself as a non military organisation. There's stubborn, then there's stubborn. I am glad you have now accepted that Starfleet recognises itself as a non military organisation without me requiring any quotes.

Here's a newsflash for you:
All militaries are under civilian control. It's called a government.

My bad.

Funny, Starfleet personel refer to themselves as 'military'.

No, they don't. They say it wasn't a military reason. They didn't say they are a military. I also refer you back to... "If the US military said they weren't a military, that would not rid the fact that they are a military. The same is true for Starfleet.". You have accepted that Starfleet has said they aren't a military?

No it wouldn't. And no its not.

Why exactly wouldn't it?

No such division has ever been mentioned. Which is a pity, as it would excuse some of Starfleet's more idiotic actions.

Would solve a lot of things. But it's all intermingled. Maybe due to a lack of resources to have two completely separate military and scientific divisions.

Your debating literal meanings. But those can change over time.

What should really count is on screen evidence. And the characters usually refer to themselves as explorers or something like that not soilders.

First, if an organization spends even a fraction of its (time, resources, whatever) in military operations, then it IS a military. Second, why would Starfleet use military protocals, ranks, etc., if it were a non-military organization? Why would it devote so much in the way of time and resources on military R&D?

They devote time to it because it is a part of there job.

First, if an organization spends even a fraction of its (time, resources, whatever) in military operations, then it IS a military.

When I was in scouts we went to a military base for three days doing all sorts of military stuff. Was I a soilder?

Mikey wrote:First, if an organization spends even a fraction of its (time, resources, whatever) in military operations, then it IS a military. Second, why would Starfleet use military protocals, ranks, etc., if it were a non-military organization? Why would it devote so much in the way of time and resources on military R&D?

If you went with that absurdly broad definition any number of organizations would be military. NASA launches military satellites, which would be considered a military operation would by that definition would make it a military organization. As for military ranks, well there's no way you could operate any organization that large without a very clear chain of command. I don't know of any civilian equivalent. And Starfleet doesn't seem to spend that much time on weapons R&D. The photon torpedo has been around for at least 100 years, probably longer(TOS to Voy). And thats assuming that the NX-01's photonic torpedoes were not related to photon torpedoes. They only recently developed Quantum torpedoes.

Come on guys - if you disagree with me, attack my point, not my syntax.

Teaos wrote:They devote time to it because it is a part of there job.

Exactly, except the emphasis should be: "...it is part of THEIR job." Theirs, not someone else's.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:As for military ranks, well there's no way you could operate any organization that large without a very clear chain of command.

Every job I've ever had has had a clear cahin of command - but I've never been addressesd, nor istructed to address anyone, by grade or rank.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:I don't know of any civilian equivalent

Exactly.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:And Starfleet doesn't seem to spend that much time on weapons R&D. The photon torpedo has been around for at least 100 years, probably longer(TOS to Voy). And thats assuming that the NX-01's photonic torpedoes were not related to photon torpedoes. They only recently developed Quantum torpedoes.

So you agree that it fell upon Starfleet to develop them at all?

Well in an organization as large as Starfleet a very clear chain of command is needed, especially in emergencies. In many buisnesses there can be confusion on who has authority over who, or which department controls what group of people. By using a military ranking system their is a clear chain of command at all times, helped by rank insignias and color-coded uniforms. It isn't always easy to find the boss at certain buisnesses. At my last job, the only way you could tell who the boss was by the fact she was the only one of two people barking out orders. But if someone came in, I have doubts that they'd be able to figure out she was the boss rather then a supervisor, since she didn't dress any differently then any of the other workers. Rank insignia would clearly identify who has the highest rank.

An example would be the police, which I think we all agreed is not a military organization. They have a clearly defined ranking system, but they're not military.

When I said civilian, I meant non-government and non-military.

And we have no proof that Starfleet developed the weapons at all. I don't recall any dialog that remotely suggests that Starfleet designs their oen weapons. In fact, for all we know, they could be stealing weapon ideas from species that we rarely see like the Tholians or the Gorn. That's obviously not ever going to be canon, but with what little information we have such speculation, while silly, is just as ligit as your soeculation that Starfleet develops its own weapons.