www.ditl.org

Rochey wrote:What possible benefits could there be to having civilians on board?

Well it could help with being lonely on long range missions, or have them help cope with stress or other psychological reasons. Humans typically do better with a family supporting them.

What possible benefits could there be to having civilians aboard?

Maintaining family unity. Helping raise the family. Moral.

Maintaining family unity. Helping raise the family.

Well it could help with being lonely on long range missions, or have them help cope with stress or other psychological reasons. Humans typically do better with a family supporting them.

And how does this outweigh the many problems having them on board brings up?

Moral.

There are other ways of raising morale. People in modern militaries are hardly in a constant state of depresion.

No but they do have a higher than average divorse rate.

Also being 5000 miles away from your family is different than 5000 light years. Even if modern military do go away for long missions they know they can always get home in 48 hours tops if they really had to.

No but they do have a higher than average divorse rate.

Put civilians on the ship and you'll have a higher than average death rate. Like I said, you don't join the military to have an easy life.

Even if modern military do go away for long missions they know they can always get home in 48 hours tops if they really had to.

I've never heard of an aircraft carrier turning around and heading home because one of the crew "really had to" get home.

No but you could have heard of a chopper picking them up off ship and dropping them at a air base and them flying home.

Do they actually do that?

I certain situations. Not often but it is an option when someone needs it.

Rochey wrote:Do they actually do that?

Well I know the wife of a friend of mine was deployed to Afghanistan on short notice to replace someone with a family emergency. So the short answer is yes.

Okay.

But whats worse, not being able to see your familiy (in person, you can still send messages) in the event that someone is dying (or whatever), or having your familiy with you in constant danger? At least when they're at home they're safer.

They are also rather safe on ship. Sure the risk is a little higher but I said I'd only put them on ships that should not be in combat anytime.

They are also rather safe on ship.

Er, no. They aren't. They are on a warship whose mission is to go into combat. How is that at all safe? Not to mention the numerous anomalies they routinely run into which threatens the ship. And the fact that Fed ships are some of the worst designed I've ever seen. And keep in mind that, if an enemy attacks, military vessels would be priority targets.

Sure the risk is a little higher but I said I'd only put them on ships that should not be in combat anytime.

1) Then you have the problem that the crew on ship X is resentfull of the fact that crew Z gets to have their famalies. You can't give benefits to one and not to the other.

2) You can't gaurantee that your enemy will attack where you expect. The guys at Pearl Harbour didn't think they'd be coming under attack. The Federation never expected Earth to come under attack. The Yamato never expected to go up like a firework. The crews at Wolf 359 were scrambled in from all over the place. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples I can't remember as well.

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.

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

Er, no. They aren't. They are on a warship whose mission is to go into combat.

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

1) Then you have the problem that the crew on ship X is resentfull of the fact that crew Z gets to have their famalies. You can't give benefits to one and not to the other.

Officers get more benifits than enlisted men. People on homeland duty get it way better than people on the fronts. People on and Aircraft carrier have a wider range of recreational activities than ones on a sub. This doesnt cause resentment. Well not enought to cause problems.

Also there are lots of people who have no family that can work the front. Or decide they dont mind being seperated for awhile.

You can't gaurantee that your enemy will attack where you expect.

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

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.

I wouldn't be surprised if the 24th century Starfleet is a result of the amalgamation of the original military Starfleet, and the civilian United Earth Space Probe Agency. It would go a long way to explaining the significant cultural differences between Kirk's era and the TNG era.