Why are Starfleet Marines so poorly received?
This is not to start a flame war. However, if recent discussions on the subject are any indication, this should go well.
I can understand that Star Trek is not about war (even though war has been a main premise of one series and a movie), but war is nonetheless an element of the universe. Sure, the technology is more advanced (and therefore tactics must also be equally advanced) but the need for ground forces is still present in the 24th century. The only thing that changes is how they are used.
The Dominion war has shown us that large scale planetary invasions/occupations can occur. Betazed, for example, was invaded and occupied by Dominion forces. If that is the case, it can stand to reason that other planets, while not as signigficant as Betazed but just as large, could also have been occupied during the Dominion war (or in other points in time). So how exactly is the Federation suppose to defend their citizens (one of their primary missions) without the use of ground forces? Eventually, some sort of mass ground force movement would have to be conducted inorder to rest Betazed from the determined clutches of the Dominion. In this case, the only really way to do this is through discrete orbital/areal bombardment along with a significant ground force movement moving "door to door."
In this case, ground forces would fill a purely defensive role. Sure, they are assulting a planet. But they are assulting a planet inorder to free their allies from a extremely determined enemy bent on inflicting great suffering on their enemies.
And what about emergency relief efforts? The Federation probably has several agencies that can handle mass emergency situations. However, it could stand to reason that Starfleet ground forces could fill similar roles in extreme situations.
Additionally, keep in mind that ground forces of the 24th century probably share very little in common with todays military forces. Look at how the role of U.S. military forces as changed and continues to change. Think of just how different those forces will be two to three hundered years down the road.
Once the need for ground forces has been established, why not call them Marines? That name, afterall, fits the role of such a forces quit well: a ground force that is deployed from naval/starship units.
Re: Why are Starfleet Marines so poorly recieved?
Quote:
Originally posted by E W Dawson
This is not to start a flame war. However, if recent discussions on the subject are any indication, this should go well.
Only if I call it "lame," apparently. :D
"You say marine and I say Starfleet Security".
I think that the main problem (speaking as an anti) is actually one of true pedantics.
In your post you ask "why not call them Marines?"
You are half right.
Only one organisation uses a capital letter in that name. the US Marines, and right or wrong they are seen with a polarity of views. Rarely matching half the groups opinion of starfleet, and precisely matching the other halves opinion.
But you definition as a ship deployed ground unit is actually marine (and as an historical term incorrect, as a naval deployed ground force is infantry, while the marine was part of a boarding party and defensive force aboard a sailing vessel).
This is where the distinction lies in that the arguement from this point usually stems into petty name calling over a difference of opinion.
As a whole most of us have now moved on and agreed that;
1 - Paramount will not acknowledge the existance of the Starfleet Marine (despite Major West), at least until they change their mind.*
and
2 - We have different opinions and unless we play in each others games (where the narrator holds final decision), the difference ultimatly comes down to; "You say marine and I say Starfleet Security".
I hope this helps explain why some of us verterans are particularly wary of this subject.
* - As many of the Starfleet Marine supporters are also rather Anti Brannon Braga, I am interested to see where this alteration from canon might lead? :D
