Why are Starfleet Marines so poorly recieved?

[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.

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.

[Don Mappin]

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.

[Sea Tyger]

From my understanding, Paramount itself balks at the idea of calling any Starfleet ground force "Marines," probably the very martial nature of the title. And if Paramount doesn't approve of the title, people like Decipher (or LUG) can't use it.

In LUG Trek, they called Starfleet ground forces "Rapid Reaction Forces." In Coda Trek, Decipher is calling them "Starfleet Rangers." Paramount isn't denying the existence of ground troops in the Federation, they just don't want them to sound too militaristic.

At least, that's my view on it.

[JALU3]

If only the guy who started this was around early this year, he would have a treat with all the discussions/debates we had over this subject.

[Dan Gurden]

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?

[Greg Davis]

Originally posted by JALU3
If only the guy who started this was around early this year, he would have a treat with all the discussions/debates we had over this subject.

Oh, it's been going on far longer than that...it's one of those eternally debated topics that were here when we got here, and will be here long after we're gone...

And, with that, I'll duck out of here before the fireballs start flying!



Greg

[Owen E Oulton]

Note: This message is not intended to start or fan a flame war, either, but is meant to explain the often strong reaction. Read the whole message before reacting. If you disagree, go ahead and say so, but remember, it's just a TV show...

Frankly, 95% of the problem is that when someone points out that Paramount prefers not to call them Marines, but uses the term Starfleet Ground Forces (canon term, used in DS9's What You Leave Behind), a small but very vocal contingent of Marine boosters (very few of whom have even seen a Marine outside of a Veteran's Day parade or an action movie) go ballistic. People get tired of hearing that they must use the term Marine in order to avoid dishonouring all the Marines who have given their lives for freedom, which is an utter crock.

I come from a country which does not have Marines - we do have security and assault forces on our ships, but they are Naval personnel. In fact, here in Canada, the term Marine is simply the French word for Navy.

If we look at canon (i.e. what has been seen on screen) it is possible that Starfleet had Marines up until the Khitomer Conspiracy in Star Trek VI. The evidence is shaky, but can be extrapolated - the use of the rank Colonel for Rene Auberjonois' character in ST VI: TUC (he was wearing a Starfleet admiral's insignia, but we'll let that slip as at least two other people, Lt. Valeris and Lt. Commander Rand, were wearing the wrong insignia) is valid evidence. The blue security types on Spacedock in ST III: TSFS could well have been Marines, as could the survivor from Cestus III in the TOS episode Arena, who was wearing a putty coloured uniform (likely a pilot-era Engineering uniform with a series-style black collar attached). However, in DS9, we are given a look at infantry forces in two episodes, where we see them wearing standard Starfleet uniforms with a padded (possiblty armoured) overjacket, using naval-style ranks. They are never referred to as Marines, but as Ground Forces. A few people maintain that "marine" is a generic term for all troops on ships, but this is historically inaccurate. The general term used is "naval infantry." The two militaries who most visibly use the term Marine are Great Britain and the United States who retained the term after their revolution.

To extrapolate, the assassin in the Khitomer Conspiracy was Colonel West, arguably a Marine officer. In the wake of the assassination of Gorkon and the attempt on Azetbur, there were severe shakeups in Starfleet, resulting in Starfleet no longer being fully "military" (per Gene Roddenberry's insistance that Starfleet was not the Federation Navy or military in nature). This could well have resulted in the disbanding of the Starfleet Marine Corps and the transfer of planetary military duties to the Starfleet Ground Forces. Before you say that's unlikely, it just happened here in Canada only a few years ago, when due to the actions of two enlisted men (one an involuntary participant) and the negiligence of several officers, the Canadian Airborne Regiment was disbanded.

However, what you want to call these forces in your game is up to you. Nobody is telling you that you can't call them Marines, or even use the term in conversation here, but we deeply resent being told the we have to use it.

[Don Mappin]

Agree or not, that was well-said, Owen. Kudos.

[E W Dawson]

Dan, thanks for the clarification. This is why I love coming to these boards: I almost always learn something new (and it is not always about Star Trek).

So far so good. I have learned much about the topic at hand, but there must be more (this topic predates Star Trek ). Keep it coming!

[Perrryyy]

I always enjoy reading Owen's posts. I'm not always sure I agree with him, but he comes off intelligent without being snarky, and that's what counts.

Good post!

[Polanski]

To extrapolate, the assassin in the Khitomer Conspiracy was Colonel West, arguably a Marine officer. In the wake of the assassination of Gorkon and the attempt on Azetbur, there were severe shakeups in Starfleet, resulting in Starfleet no longer being fully "military" (per Gene Roddenberry's insistance that Starfleet was not the Federation Navy or military in nature). This could well have resulted in the disbanding of the Starfleet Marine Corps and the transfer of planetary military duties to the Starfleet Ground Forces. Before you say that's unlikely, it just happened here in Canada only a few years ago, when due to the actions of two enlisted men (one an involuntary participant) and the negiligence of several officers, the Canadian Airborne Regiment was disbanded.

With all due respect, may I point out that a considerable number of Starfleet personel have engaged in questionable or right down wrong conduct. Same goes for Starfleet Intelligence. Countless lives were lost... and yet you do not see Starfleet disbanding its naval forces, intelligence or other units responsible for such conducts (wrong scientific conduct comes to mind many many times)...

Consider the implications of disbanding marine units positioned accross thousands of light years (as the size of Federation is suggested in CODA books). Operation of such magnitude would not only weakend the Starfleet Defensive readiness but alos be a pure logistical nightmare.

It also comes down to wheather one believes that space combat and operations doctrine is compatible with ground combat, and I believe that they are not (this is my personal point of view). As such a personnel trained for space security and operations and personnel trained for ground operations would use a different doctrine all togehter (as it is quite visible in today's armed forces)

Ever wondered why NASA only takes Air Forces personnel?
Ever seen a Colonel or Naval officer in NASA's ranks?

Once again it comes down to realism and canon... it is your very own call how realistic your vision of Star Trek is, and based on that believe you have to make up your mind on operations and the methods used by Starfleet...

Kind Regards
Daniel

[Owen E Oulton]

"Ever wondered why NASA only takes Air Forces personnel?
Ever seen a Colonel or Naval officer in NASA's ranks?"

Many NASA astronauts are (and historically have been) Naval Aviators, including Alan Bean and James Lovell. John Glenn was a Marine Lt. Colonel. Neal Armstrong and Scott Carpenter were both former naval aviators.

Check out this site for the real skinny: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/

[Greg Davis]

Just to jump in for a second...

Thanks for that link, Owen! It's some pretty cool reading!



Greg

[Eric R.]

Another reason many marine supporters go ballistic is that some uninformed individuals with a crude post Veitnam inspired view of marines and military personnel in general go off saying that Starfleet would not have babykilling, trigger happy wacko's in its ranks. Thats were the red flag goes up and the war starts in ernest. Luckly I can only remember once or twice when this happened but it was memoriable.

I myself long ago settled on a small professional marine force in Starfleet so small as to be virtually invisable hence no on screen evidence mainly used for quick assualt and reinforcment. Meanwhile the RRTs are more of a GSG9 force and a purely Starfleet Security organization. The main ground forces are the Stafleet Ground Forces an organization roughly allagory to the US Army Air forces in World War Two in how they separate their respective administrative, logistic and operational needs and duties. The SGF depend on Starfleet only to get them where there going and some orbital support other than that the two only mingle at the command levels.

[Polanski]

Originally posted by Owen E Oulton
"Ever wondered why NASA only takes Air Forces personnel?
Ever seen a Colonel or Naval officer in NASA's ranks?"

Many NASA astronauts are (and historically have been) Naval Aviators, including Alan Bean and James Lovell. John Glenn was a Marine Lt. Colonel. Neal Armstrong and Scott Carpenter were both former naval aviators.

Check out this site for the real skinny: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/

You are of course right ...
However my point centred around the fact that you have no navy captains flying starships the reference used was to point out a division in the armed force into army/navy/air ...

I can only imagine that in 24th centuary Starfleet would have a similar divisions...