Go Back   Star Trek Online > Information and Discussion > Ten Forward
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 658
# 31
01-06-2013, 05:29 AM
Indeed, I agree with you. I put the link and quote up to prevent people from trolling that marines should be this and that... without considering the historical use of specialized naval infantry and QRFs as you propose.

QRFs are definitely valuable for any sort of conflict and it pays to embark such a unit to enhance a starship's capability to resolve local problems.

But on the other hand as we've seen in canon Trek the "Security" and "Operations" departments aboard ship appear to undertake this task rather competently.

Granted most shows show only small away teams (often deployed frighteningly far away from the mothership via shuttlecraft) due perhaps to budgetary reasons, but there are ground combat detachments prominently featured and narrated about in DS9. They don't appear to be a Starfleet Marine Corps organization on its own but draws personnel from the usual 3 branches of Starfleet personnel, albeit detached from their home ship or base.

MACO, etc appear to be closer to a commando or "Delta Force" type outfit deployed only to certain prominent ships. They don't appear to be a "reaction" type force but an elite striking force (hence the "Assault" name), from my perspective.
STF Flight Instructor since Early 2012. Newbies are the reason why STO lives and breathes today. Do not discriminate.

My Youtube Channel
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,619
# 32
01-06-2013, 06:28 AM
It would be fun to do a series of foundry missions featuring the "marines" but I lack the time/patience to do it.
Actualy reading things pefore posting will make you look smarter than yelling loudly. Reading comprehension is aparently a lost art.

Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abriham Lincoln
Career Officer
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 623
# 33
01-06-2013, 07:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sumghai View Post
Whilst I acknowledge the presence of MACOs in ENT, I vehemently dislike the notion of "Starfleet Marines".

My respect to the folks who planted the Stars and Stripes on Iwo Jima, but I feel that any dedicated standing army doesn't sit well with UFP Starfleet's humanitarian/exploratory/peacekeeping force.

Sure, ST Marines are popular in many unlicenced RPGs, but they have never been acknowledged as canon, nor did Roddenberry like the notion of a overtly militaristic Starfleet in the first place (apparently the TOS cast complained that the TWoK "Monster Maroons" were too militaristic).

I'd prefer to think that the Starfleet ground personnel on AR-558 were simply volunteers pulled from regular ship complements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by voyagerfan9751 View Post
This. Roddenberry was adamant that Starfleet was NOT a military organization. Granted, the Dominion War necessitated a "Ground" fleet, but I like to think that was a necessary thing for that time. They created a ground unit, and dissolved it after the war. But I do not believe the Federation has a standing Army/marine/ground force.

The problem there is that that line of thinking kind of flies in the face of common sense, especially in the aftermath of the Dominion War. I would think that Starfleet (given the conflicts over its history with the Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, Tholians, Borg, Dominion etc and what the Voyager ran into) would realise that the rest of the galaxy may not think the same way as the Federation does. Especially with the Dominion War, with planet upon planet being invaded back and forth, that simple volunteers from your fleet isn't going to cut it. At some point, you will need a force specifically trained in planetary warfare.

You can't pull trained personnel from your fleet, because then you would be undermining you space force.

Off topic:

In regards to the uniforms, if the cast were really upset they would have been changed. It was the low opinion of the uniforms in TMP that got them changed in the first place. I do admit they are rather militaristic, but than again humanitarian organizations tend not to have enough firepower to level a planet, and David Marcus refers to Starfleet as "the military" on a couple of occasions in TWoK.
Most JJ Trek hate = IDIC fail.
Quote:
Most who don't like the new Star Trek either didn't like TOS, don't remember TOS, or didn't see TOS

Last edited by lordagamemnonb5; 01-06-2013 at 07:51 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,211
# 34
01-06-2013, 08:21 PM
There's no particular reason that Starfleet (or the Federation as a singular entity) would have needed its own ground forces, beyond its security personnel (and, perhaps, some sec-ops types). The individual governments that make up the Federation likely maintain their own combat forces for planetary defence, which could be deployed to assist Starfleet if required.
Exploration suggestions thread - give it a read

BTW, you'd pronounce it 'Cap'n Manks'

I protest the removal of exploration clusters
Career Officer
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 623
# 35
01-07-2013, 08:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by capnmanx View Post
There's no particular reason that Starfleet (or the Federation as a singular entity) would have needed its own ground forces, beyond its security personnel (and, perhaps, some sec-ops types). The individual governments that make up the Federation likely maintain their own combat forces for planetary defence, which could be deployed to assist Starfleet if required.
Which would probably only serve as a reserve or a stop gap. Again, taking the Dominion War into account, you need a highly trained, unified, dedicated, ground combat force. Not necessarily an "Army" but a force under Starfleet command (Marines maybe?)

Militias, no matter how "highly trained" get you only so far.
Most JJ Trek hate = IDIC fail.
Quote:
Most who don't like the new Star Trek either didn't like TOS, don't remember TOS, or didn't see TOS
Survivor of Romulus
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,593
# 36
01-07-2013, 08:20 AM
Quote:
You are thinking of the United States Marines. Which differes from classical definitions of marines. Since the USMC is its own organization seperate from the navy it's not the same thing.
Actually im thinking about their ancestor (the Royal marines)


Quote:
I was talking about the definition of what a marine is, disambiguated from any current or past orginizations to bear the title.
and the answer there is
"half a soldier half a sailor"
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,211
# 37
01-07-2013, 08:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordagamemnonb5 View Post
Which would probably only serve as a reserve or a stop gap. Again, taking the Dominion War into account, you need a highly trained, unified, dedicated, ground combat force. Not necessarily an "Army" but a force under Starfleet command (Marines maybe?)

Militias, no matter how "highly trained" get you only so far.
The UN never bothered making its own unified armed forces. The occasional joint training exercise, and established protocols for working together, has generally sufficed. The Federation could easily operate the same way.
Exploration suggestions thread - give it a read

BTW, you'd pronounce it 'Cap'n Manks'

I protest the removal of exploration clusters
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,466
# 38
01-07-2013, 09:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by capnmanx View Post
The UN never bothered making its own unified armed forces. The occasional joint training exercise, and established protocols for working together, has generally sufficed. The Federation could easily operate the same way.
The UN doesn't operate it's own fleet of trans-national ships, with it's own loyalties and command structure independent of its member states' standing militaries. Bad analogy.
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 13,530
# 39
01-07-2013, 01:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
The UN doesn't operate it's own fleet of trans-national ships, with it's own loyalties and command structure independent of its member states' standing militaries. Bad analogy.
Yeah, the United States of America is probably a better analogy for the United Federation of Planets.
HAIL HYDRA!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I can haz joystick!
MMOs aren't charities. Corporations are supposed to make a profit. It's what they do.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,211
# 40
01-07-2013, 01:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
The UN doesn't operate it's own fleet of trans-national ships, with it's own loyalties and command structure independent of its member states' standing militaries. Bad analogy.
Not a perfect analogy, but then, there aren't any perfect ones. Just think of Starfleet as a specialized national military which automatically gains overall command in joint operations (maybe more like NATO than the UN).

Anyway, politically, it makes no sense for the Federation to maintain a standing army. It would have undermined their foreign policy; and in minds of the other major powers, confirmed every paranoid suspicion they had about the Feds.

Standard starship security complements have been shown to be sufficient for minor actions, and if we assume that the member states can see to their own ground defence (and we'd be stupid not to), that really only leaves invasion as the role for a 'Marine Corps'. Starfleet absolutely cannot maintain an invasion force without destroying the Federation's credibility.

Mobilizing national infantries in time of war allows the capability of fighting a ground war without the implied threat; which is why it makes the most sense as the Federation's MO.
Exploration suggestions thread - give it a read

BTW, you'd pronounce it 'Cap'n Manks'

I protest the removal of exploration clusters
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:18 AM.