Tenebrae Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 While in DS9 - "Let He Who Is Without Sin..." they are essentially portrayed as puritanical fools - more interested in their own self-important cause than anything, I think that they make a valid point... the Federation is essentially weak and decadent society in a galaxy that isn't overflowing with similar civilisations. It does seem that outside of Starfleet, most of the Federation is full of pampered citizens - which is why there was so much owning when the Federation turned over border colonies to the Cardassians. Then of course, the ultimate irony - when Federation citizens DO take action to prevent their oppresion, the first thing Starfleet does is instantly decide their terrorists/criminals who need to be punished for protecting themselves when Starfleet utterly failed to. Anyway, consider this the logical extension of the Federation defence thread. Given that it can take months for ships to get around the Federation, should there be less of a reliance upon Starfleet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Interesting question, but if not on Starfleet, what should they rely upon? If you could give some alternatives, it would help me understand in what direction you want to take this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macrovirus Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Starfleet is like the military in ways - but from what I've seen, it also acts as a policing role. A lesson we've learnt throughout history is that whenever the army has taken over the policing role, things have got out of hand, and that it is better to have the two seperate organisations. But obviously in the Star Trek universe, things have changed. But an introduction of an impartial policing force within the Federation, unaffiliated with Starfleet could be interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted October 14, 2005 Author Share Posted October 14, 2005 That's very true macro - are you drawing that sentiment from BSG? Regardless, I think that there needs to be some drive to greater civil defence within the Federation worlds. In a time of war, Starfleet aren't going to be around to bail them out at the first sign of trouble. Lord knows, they don't even manage it that often in times of peace. Perhaps local militias/self-defence forces for each world so that in the event of invasion they'll be able to co-ordinate meaningful resistance to the attack. I suppose this could either function as a quasi-autonomous branch of starfleet or alternatively be a seperate department entirely. Basically making sure that there isn't this overwhelming dependency on Starfleet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 I still think that the Federation' s best defender was Picard. He selflessly protected the Federation while all those other people enjoyed themselves. It would seem the feds are an elite society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted October 16, 2005 Author Share Posted October 16, 2005 You mean Data, surely? That boy saved the entire Federation/galaxy/universe/multiverse about a dozen times and was still stuck as a lieutant commander after 20+ years in starfleet and never complained once. THAT's selfless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 I would think that most planets have some sort of defence system to defend w/. Mabe the citizens couls be a bit more strong though, they should have a milita at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 You mean Data' date=' surely? That boy saved the entire Federation/galaxy/universe/multiverse about a dozen times and was still stuck as a lieutant commander after 20+ years in starfleet and never complained once. THAT's selfless.[/quote'] You know, you are right about Data. He was the epitomy of selfless acts. It really sucked that he was a Lt.Cmdr for so long. In All Good Things they even portrayed him as a mere LtJG. I don't agree with Dax when she defended Risa's extremist pleasures. The essentialists were right I guess. It's a shame Worf didn't help them out more but they were kind of weird. I didn't like DS9, it was so dark and immoral. Not to mention political. No one could speak his mind on that series without having to explain himself in such detail. TNG was much more noble than DS9, DS9 really encouraged the status quo above all else, while TNG fought the status quo. They indulged to such a scale on DS9 it was obvious that they would be attacked. The nations that are vigilant don't get attacked. The nations that indulge too much in extremist pleasures get attacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted October 25, 2005 Author Share Posted October 25, 2005 I don't really agree about the status quo - both shows, in fact all Trek, is really about the defence of the Federation way of life. It's simply that in DS9, Sisko didn't always have the luxury of following the moral code that he and all captains have. He had to go against it for the greater good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyran Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 ? Star trek is about fairness and exploring onesself Opening yourself up to whatever is out there . think back to when you were a child and things were not so clear, how many times did you say 'thats not fair' ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurion Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Starfleet is like the military in ways - but from what I've seen' date=' it also acts as a policing role. A lesson we've learnt throughout history is that whenever the army has taken over the policing role, things have got out of hand, and that it is better to have the two seperate organisations. But obviously in the Star Trek universe, things have changed. But an introduction of an impartial policing force within the Federation, unaffiliated with Starfleet could be interesting...[/quote'] It makes sense after the Dominion War. Indeed, the Federation worlds should have their own defence forces (coordinated by Starfleet or the Federation). At least, this would allow Starfleet to explore deep space again... "Does anyone remember when we used to be explorers?" -- Picard, ST: Insurrection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 Yeah... I think they pretty much need to divvy it up into a military and science organisation because all that happens is they go "let's send a ship full of kids TO THE NEUTRAL ZONE". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ifilmco Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 I didn't like DS9, it was so dark and immoral. Not to mention political. No one could speak his mind on that series without having to explain himself in such detail. TNG was much more noble than DS9, DS9 really encouraged the status quo above all else, while TNG fought the status quo. They indulged to such a scale on DS9 it was obvious that they would be attacked. The nations that are vigilant don't get attacked. The nations that indulge too much in extremist pleasures get attacked. Agreed, how many times did they clean up problems not even affecting the Federation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Individual Federation planets (for example, the Vulcans) have their own ships... Federation planets seem to mostly take care of their own issues, with the Federation getting involved when it's too big or involving more than one world. I also assume that there's some sort of UN-style 'membership fee' to be a part of the Federation; how else could Starfleet have ships so superior to those of individual planets? If not cash / Latinum / whatever, then in raw materials... The only exception to this would be Earth, which IS the heart of Starfleet, it would seem... how convenient. Very... human-centric. ^^' Frankly, if it were a real society, the Federation would seem to be at a point of decline... more and more people in the Federation seemed to get fed up with how Starfleet did things as the series' progressed, and even in TNG many of the higher-ups did very bad things... Despite the gloss most Star Trek episodes put on things, I think that it's implied that the Federation is having some serious internal troubles... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted November 1, 2005 Author Share Posted November 1, 2005 I agree with you Gorun, I'd say that between the Dominion War and the Maquis debacle there HAS to be some level of dissatisfaction with the performance of the Federation. That's not even taking into account that they're losing planets full of colonists every week. As to your point about DS9, ifilmco - surely Voyager had that problem IN SPADES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurion Posted November 5, 2005 Share Posted November 5, 2005 Individual Federation planets (for example' date=' the Vulcans) have their own ships... Federation planets seem to mostly take care of their own issues, with the Federation getting involved when it's too big or involving more than one world.[/quote'] Yet, no Starfleet ships available when you need them... :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted November 5, 2005 Share Posted November 5, 2005 I think it's all a matter of willingness to spend the necessary resources for military buildup and willingness to train sufficiently educated personnel. Since it's not in the Federations nature to do these things, I don't think getting planets to build their own defences is the answer. Why: the majority of them is not willing to this, if they were, the Federation would be completely different and Starfleet would be more military than it is represented today. Why: because it is the majority of individual planets that decide what happens with Starfleet end the Federation in general... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted November 5, 2005 Author Share Posted November 5, 2005 If it came down to it, I'd rather have a more militaristic society than spend my time getting raped and pillaged by Romulans/Klingons/Cardassians/Vikings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted November 5, 2005 Share Posted November 5, 2005 I think the Federation is trying to walk a very thin line: trying to get as much protection as possible out of as little resources/manpower/ships as possible, so that they are just barely able to defend themselves, but also in such a way that it doesn't show that they have a military presence, be it very small. There was one episode about this in DS9 where an admiral tried to take over the Federation an make it more militarised by employing a ruse to get the general public behind him, in the end he failed (can't remember the exact episode, but I think it was somewhere in the middle of season 4). As soon as the general public learned of his deceit and even before that, there was resistance to his ways. You can sort of compare it to the Bush administration, since he (=Bush) was re-elected, I'd say that if you placed the US citizens in the show instead of the Federation citizens, I'm fairly certain he would have gotten all the support he needed to make the Federation a more militarily oriented Starfleet. But that is a big part of what Star Trek is about: the 'ideal' society, or at least the striving for a more ideal society. If you'd place more military in there, that just wouldn't fit. It wouldn't be 'Star Trek' anymore. Now I'm not saying that they are doing the right thing (I'm not saying they don't either btw), it is just one way of looking at things and trying to make the most of it. Basically, what they are saying is that all living biological humanoids are, in the end, intrensically good and that good will survive in the end. With or without an overly strong hand backing it. As I said, it's idealistic. I doubt it would happen like that in the real world, but at least in the Star Trek universe, one is allowed to dream about its possibility. Mind you, in the later episodes of DS9, they truely showed that when they are pushed to hard, the Federation will push back, push back hard even. And, as I said, good will survive, so they evidently win. If you'd place the whole scene in more Earth-like environment, I'd have to agree, they need more military, but as I said, it would change the whole concept of Star Trek if they did that to the show and Roddenberry would probably turn over in his grave (not that any of the producers would care if they knew it would make them money...). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now