Best/Worst military forces in Science Fiction

[weemadando]

I thought we were still discussing the initial battle scenario at Reach. So at least they are somewhat reactive.

[Skywalker_T-65]

Technically speaking...isn't Reach still like 20 something years after the war started? So shouldn't they already have the plasma-resistant armor?

[Daefaron]

Lol, me and you are. Other guy is talking Starfleet vs UNSC.

Though, something I just thought of. Fail in logic (Besides the "Our phasers can vaporize somebody, therefore we don't even NEED to develop personal protection!"). The Jem'hadar were able to physically bumrush and get into melee at AR-558. Therefore I don't see what's allowing them to instantly pick apart any UNSC attack, especially since the marines would hang back in cover and use grenades/snipers/pop up to fire then get back down. I see no reason why if we replace Jem'hadar with UNSC in the AR-558 situation they'd be unable to take the Federation position.

[Stofsk]

Yeah, kill. not Vaporize. How many times in general combat do they do that? Point is muted. You quote them as if they go "Okay boys, Jem'hadar are charging us, set to max setting." when they don't. They Might go "set to kill." but I don't remember them ever using Vaporize setting in general combat TNG era. Kill setting? yes. Vaporize? nope.

They've used the max settings in combat before so no your point isn't muted. This is a broken record technique.

EDIT Also I like how you want to manoeuvre this discussion to the TNG period, as though TOS is somehow too inconvenient for you. Too bad, it's all canon.

Titanium armor. I'd wager that's something it'd take the Phasers a bit to cut through.

I'm going to have to ask you to back that up.

Um, you clearly didn't read it right. You were acting like them having their phasers set to vaporize means they instantly negate any chance of the UNSC marines pulling their triggers or tossing a grenade. Sure, you can vaporize them but bullets or grenades in the air STAY in the air. They don't magically shut off/drop dead as if it's a phaser.

You're the one who started this off by saying the absence of armour makes Starfleet uniquely vulnerable to automatic weapons, when they're armed with rayguns that can vapourise their enemies i.e. they wield, and by necessity face firepower of such magnitude that it negates armour anyway. You're completely missing my whole point.

Hell, let's revisit my whole entry into this thread, with the post that set this off:

'Starfleet also has ZERO body armor. You'd need just one spray of the warthog turret, or one frag grenade to utterly destroy the Federation lines. Bullets and shrapnel tend to rip into people wearing just cloth.'

This statement by you on the previous page is factually in error, in that you started off by saying Starfleet has absolutely no body armour (disproven by the TOS movies that show Enterprise security personnel wearing body armour and helmets). You then give your opposing side what I presume is a turreted machine gun, or a single frag grenade, as being sufficient to deal with the unarmoured redshirts the Trek side has. You gave no allowance for any demonstrated capabilities Starfleet has demonstrated at various points, which is what I replied to. You seem to think that the Federation will just line up all its troops to be shot to death or taken out by frag grenades, when that's an absurd proposition. There is no analysis of the various tactics that Starfleet has employed in various episodes that make use of their technology. This is a simplistic and pointless comparison to make and I can't help but wonder why you felt a need to argue that the UNSC needs to be defended by pitting it against a strawman representation of a hypothetical Trek army that doesn't make use of any of the capabilities we've seen it demonstrate.

To top it off, you continue to ignore my central point that Trek has a higher magnitude of firepower compared to automatic weapons. What this basically boils down to is this: one side has assault rifles comparable to today's weaponry, and the other side has rayguns that can dissolve people. They can effortlessly stun people too. And anything else in-between. And you're saying the latter is at a disadvantage cause they don't wear kevlar? Why are you wilfully blind to how the former are at a disadvantage because the latter have way greater firepower to bring to bear against them? What good would that Warthog be if it's blasted into nothingness by the phaser cannon we see in 'The Cage'? Or a hand phaser set to level 16 (i.e. the max setting possible)? What good's a frag grenade going to do if a photon grenade can be lobbed from a far greater range by a mortar? Don't you see how simplistic your analysis is here?

Yes, one will effortlessly trump the other

No it won't. I can just as easily say that phasers set to kill will or wide-beam stun will trump the UNSC, but this isn't actually a versus debate. I know you seem to think it is, and you've tried turning it into one, but this thread actually isn't a 'let's defend our crappy favourite sci-fi army by pitting it against an even crappier sci-fi army'. For one thing, it defeats the whole premise of the thread. Either your favoured army wins by it's own merits, or it doesn't.

they've mentioned personal forcefields, and we've only seen such a device ONCE. in the holodeck with Worf. in actual combat it's never been shown.

That's not even an example of Starfleet personal forcefields, as that was something Worf used due to being trapped on the holodeck.

BUT it doesn't matter, because even one instance is better than no instance. So we see Worf jury-rig a device on the fly, and it completely protects him from holographic bullets. I actually do wonder what the 'personal forcefields' referred to in DS9 entail, and I speculate it is less a man-portable field and more of a fortification defence. But that's just speculation, we don't know. But you pointed out an example of personal forcefields used by a character, and look at that, it completely protected him from guns.

No, your tactics mean if the UNSC pulls back to regroup, they don't have to drag any wounded with them.

Well if they've been vapourised I don't expect them to be doing anything at all.

Or go "Damn, call the medivac, this guy is dying!" However, the Federation with each bullet, each grenade, are going to have people in stages of wounds. From "Just a flesh wound." to "This man needs surgery INSTANTLY if he's going to survive."

It's a good thing the Federation have these amazing devices called TRANSPORTERS, which allow for instant medevacs. :V

And Starfleet medical technology is amazing. Spock was shot in 'A Private Little War', was beamed up to the Enterprise within seconds (as were Kirk and Bones), was operated on by Bones again within seconds, and his life was saved. He was up and about after a day of recovery. By the TNG period this had only improved, to the point where medical transport went straight to sickbay.

So yeah, the UNSC wouldn't have a wounded problem because your tactics are "use vaporize setting purely." So they've have losses, but not wounded.

This is hilarious. I haven't given any tactics, this isn't a versus debate. I was responding to your absurd claim that because Starfleet has ZERO body armour (factually disproven) and that all an opposing force would need to do is spray them with automatic fire or frag grenades to utterly destroy them. It assumes that Starfleet doesn't know what they're fucking doing, or that they don't know how to fight at all, or that they don't have impressive firepower to bring to bear. All I'm doing is challenging your assumptions and pointing out where you're ignorant. You're the one completely ignoring any discussion of what capabilities Starfleet has demonstrated in favour of a ridiculous strawman for a debate that doesn't even exist.

Again, as above. You make it sound like the Federation frequently uses the vaporize setting in combat. Which is untrue.

I'm sorry that you are so ignorant of Star Trek that you feel like this is an actual compelling rebuttal to make. That fact is, the Federation used the vapourise setting ALL THE DAMN TIME in TOS when lethal force was called for. And so did their enemies.

Lol, me and you are. Other guy is talking Starfleet vs UNSC.

No that's you. All I did was jump in to point out where you're ignorant of the show you're happily bashing a strawman of.

Though, something I just thought of. Fail in logic (Besides the "Our phasers can vaporize somebody, therefore we don't even NEED to develop personal protection!").

Outright lie. Starfleet HAS displayed body armour. Phasers may not be easy to armour against, or the use of armour might not be as effective as 'personal forcefields'. But whatever, you're wrong.

The Jem'hadar were able to physically bumrush and get into melee at AR-558. Therefore I don't see what's allowing them to instantly pick apart any UNSC attack, especially since the marines would hang back in cover and use grenades/snipers/pop up to fire then get back down. I see no reason why if we replace Jem'hadar with UNSC in the AR-558 situation they'd be unable to take the Federation position.

It's too bad this isn't a versus debate. So stop trying to hijack the thread. If you want to debate why the UNSC isn't a sucky sci-fi army, go ahead. Stop trying to pit it against a force that uses completely different technology to it.

[Blayne]

Technically speaking...isn't Reach still like 20 something years after the war started? So shouldn't they already have the plasma-resistant armor?

It's *plasma*, the best that could be done below shield capability is reactive armor to protect from glancing shots; even Mljnir can't take a direct hit. Covenant plasma weapons is like being hit with a plasma torch-napalm combination of where its a gooey blob of superheated stuff, it melts anything, that's why the Warthog doesn't have much armour as there's no point.

It's kind of like your saying since it's been 60 years since WWII and we have bullet resistant armor they should have plasma resistant armor; even though they is nothing to logically suggest that it's comparable or that there's any engineering solution to protect from plasma *and* still have a mobile soldier.

It's not like flak vests are perfect.

They have reversed engineering Jackal shields; by Halo Glasslands I believe for the Spartan-4 program which goes back to volunteer adults we'll have more wide spread use of it, but still for elite units.

Though this misses the fact that it is canon that the UNSC virtually always outperforms the Covenant on the ground, the problem is that the Covenant just glasses the world.

[Daefaron]

Fine then, simplfying the post to the extreme. Starfleet HAD body armor, for the TOS movies. However, directly after that body armor, mortars, and even grenades are nowhere to be seen. Likewise, once they moved from the TOS era phasers, vaporizing an opponent in general combat was rarely seen. Even then, we've seen those mortars in TOS, and klingon ones in TNG/DS9 aren't particularly powerful. We also have no idea how good that body armor is.

Furthermore, I personally think the fact that phasers are so powerful is a good in-universe reason why we don't actually see any Star Trek race employ body armour.

That is what I responded to as the "fail logic"

I fail to see how my claim is absurd, seeing how bar the TOS movies, there isn't a single case of actual body armor used. And seriously, how many times do you see somebody go "Star trek can beat this group!" and think "TOS!". I was responding to the absurd claim that it wasn't a stretch that Starfleet could stomp the UNSC in a ground battle. Which, given the FACTs (Starfleet doesn't use artillery, bar a single case in TOS. Body armor, again, TOS movies only, vehicles, never truly shown to be used in a combat role. Air support, not shown at all really as I can tell.), seems incredibly unlikely.

Again, phaser wielding cloth wearing guy vs bullets isn't going to end up nice for the phaser guy.

Edit: My statement, while factually false concerning "ALL of Star trek canon." was factually true for the era I was talking about. While I'm sorry I didn't make it painfully clear I was referring to TNG, in TNG there is no body armor to be seen.

[Stofsk]

Fine then, simplfying the post to the extreme. Starfleet HAD body armor, for the TOS movies. However, directly after that body armor, mortars, and even grenades are nowhere to be seen.

Grenades are mentioned several times, but not seen IIRC this is true. But just because it isn't seen, doesn't mean they don't exist, as they do mention them. And they could easily be the same kind of grenades Kirk used in 'Arena' - indeed, why wouldn't they be? Starfleet is very big on variable settings on their weapons. They like things that have non-lethal settings as well as lethal, and different degrees between them. Photon grenades are mentioned by Geordi as they're discussing tactics, they're mentioned by Admiral Leyton when he's discussing preparing for war, Kirk uses a grenade and a mortar when under fire from similar weapons. That's enough for me.

Likewise, once they moved from the TOS era phasers, vaporizing an opponent in general combat was rarely seen. Even then, we've seen those mortars in TOS, and klingon ones in TNG/DS9 aren't particularly powerful. We also have no idea how good that body armor is.

Furthermore, I personally think the fact that phasers are so powerful is a good in-universe reason why we don't actually see any Star Trek race employ body armour.

That is what I responded to as the "fail logic"

I fail to see how my claim is absurd, seeing how bar the TOS movies, there isn't a single case of actual body armor used.

We don't know how good that body armour is. We don't know how it would stand up to automatic rifles (probably not well, I'd imagine). But if nobody in the Trek universe uses projectile weapons, then why would you have body armour to guard against that kind of weapon when everyone else uses rayguns?

It might be that body armour doesn't really protect against phasers and disruptors. It might be that they mitigate the damage on low settings (so like preventing what could be a kill shot from taking someone out, but a disruptor on full would still take them out). I don't know. I think people tend to assume the worst in Trek without looking for in-universe context, or even out-of-universe context before they jump on the trekbashing bandwagon. The only reason why I mentioned it is because you were generalising.

And seriously, how many times do you see somebody go "Star trek can beat this group!" and think "TOS!". I was responding to the absurd claim that it wasn't a stretch that Starfleet could stomp the UNSC in a ground battle. Which, given the FACTs (Starfleet doesn't use artillery, bar a single case in TOS. Body armor, again, TOS movies only, vehicles, never truly shown to be used in a combat role. Air support, not shown at all really as I can tell.), seems incredibly unlikely.

Again, phaser wielding cloth wearing guy vs bullets isn't going to end up nice for the phaser guy.

Edit: My statement, while factually false concerning "ALL of Star trek canon." was factually true for the era I was talking about. While I'm sorry I didn't make it painfully clear I was referring to TNG, in TNG there is no body armor to be seen.

And yet, the guy you were responding to? The atom? He was referring to TOS. That's what he was mentioning, the mortar and phaser cannon are both TOS references:

They have atomic artillery the size of a small mortar, well as direct fire phaser artillery weapons. They may not be the most brilliant at tactics, but I'd say stuff like Tip of the Spear makes the battles at AR-558 look like something from the Art of War.

I don't know a damn thing about Halo, I never played the games and I have no real reason to attack it or criticise it. So I don't want this to be a versus argument. All I'm saying is Trek has capabilities you seemed to either ignore or, more charitably, simply weren't aware of.

[lPeregrine]

Vader didn't kill people because of lazy writing. That's a core aspect of who he is.

And your point is?

It doesn't matter if the incompetence is a result of a conscious thematic choice, a need to have a "dramatic" plot, or simply writers who don't know how to portray a competent military. You can't simply dismiss that incompetence as "bad writing" just because of your wishful thinking about how it should be.

Now, contrast that to the TNG movies' bad writing. When Picard in Generations picked up Kirk, it isn't because that's part of his established character. It isn't a central aspect of the plot. It barely even fits thematically. They just shoved him in.

It's a fucking plot hole, not a central idea.

No, it fits entirely with what we see previously in Star Trek. Over and over again we see the captain and other senior officers getting involved in every random mission that should be handled by someone far more expendable. Picard's actions in Generations make perfect sense in that context: when one heroic captain isn't enough, he goes off to find a second heroic captain to try again.

The only question here is how common is this kind of stupidity: if it's limited to the Enterprise, then the Federation suffers from the same problems you accused the Empire of having, where a sufficiently high ranking (and well known) officer's personal whim is more important than sane, reasonable policy. On the other hand, if this kind of thing is common, Starfleet suffers from even more serious culture problems.

When Riker blundered in that movie, it's because someone wanted the Enterprise blown up, so they shoved it in. There's no message in the movie about beware the military industrial complex or about the futility of evil. It doesn't jive with established character traits from the TV show. It's just something that happens because the writers wanted it to happen.

See above about how utterly irrelevant it is that there is or isn't some kind of overall message. We see the second-in-command of the Federation flagship lose his ship through a staggering level of incompetence, and he is not in any way punished for it. Like it or not, it is indisputable canon that the Federation has severe cultural problems that allow such a thing to happen.

And I already rejected Insurrection because it actually works, on some level.

It only "works" if you start from the premise that the Federation has to somehow be competent.

In reality, it would be like if a real-world US Navy carrier captain was on his way to help with a natural disaster and, upon finding out that corruption would lead to 1% of the aid going to the black market, threw all of the food overboard and launched air strikes to destroy every military unit within a thousand miles of the disaster area. And somehow, despite these actions, this act of malicious stupidity resulted in a promotion and praise as a hero.

That's the plot of Insurrection.

[lPeregrine]

You assumed the key question here: "legal orders". In Starfleet, they want you to think about what you're told to do and refuse to do something that is wrong. Just because an Admiral says it or even if the Federation Council says it doesn't mean you should actually do it.

There is no legitimate ethical reason to disagree with the orders in question*. Picard is a moron, and he should have been stripped of his rank and thrown in prison for his actions.


*To the point of open rebellion, at least. Picard is entitled to his private disagreements, but there is no plausible argument that the Federation's actions are unethical to the point that a mutiny is the proper response.

The only real WTF here is Picard dramatically stripping off his uniform. He never (that I recall) had trouble standing up to his superior's questionable orders in uniform before.

Exactly. Instead of filing a protest, contacting his superiors, etc, Picard leads a mutiny and gets away with it. It's bad enough that it happens in the first place, but the fact that Starfleet tolerates his actions is a sign of a severe culture problem.

I don't understand your complaint. The Enterprise was trying to contact command and they had to leave the briar patch to do it. The battle wasn't of their choosing; they actually tried to outrun the other ships at first.

I'm not going to watch such a horrible movie again just to find it, but I'm pretty sure there were plenty of opportunities to leave the area and contact their superiors before things escalated to the point of starship combat.

That's the slippery slope the prime directive and other human rights serve to steer you away from. And, in general, it's a pretty good policy. It keeps the Federation from exploiting other peoples the way others like the Cardassians do.

Except that slippery slope doesn't matter at all in this case. Unlike the gray area cases, it's very obvious that the slight harm of relocating a few people is FAR outweighed by the benefits. The "ethical dilemma" only exists because Picard is an idiot.

And of course the Prime Directive doesn't really even matter here. An exception to the rule had already been approved higher up the chain of command, and the Prime Directive is simply a matter of Federation policy, not an absolute ethical law. In fact, if it WAS treated as an absolute rule, that lack of flexibility would also be a severe culture issue.

If they argued the needs of the many idea to the people and got their consent, problem solved. Everybody wins. And why didn't this happen? I blame the writers. Picard has done it plenty of times before during the TV show. I guess it doesn't make as exciting trailer material as "saddle up, lock and load". Ugh.

Of course it's terrible writing. From beginning to end, both Insurrection and Generations embody the worst of the "fanboys will buy anything, so we don't have to do a good job" milking of the Star Trek cash cow. The entire premise is fundamentally stupid, and everything that follows from it is full of plot holes and irrational behavior. If it was up to me, I'd declare them non-canon and never print another copy of either movie.

However, that doesn't change the fact that they're still canon, and in a debate like this you can't just dismiss a movie because you don't like it.

[Blayne]

I think it helps that the Admiral in charge was killed by the Soma and it ultimately turned out to have been a private vendetta, and that the advantages in medical science simply did not outweigh the fact that the incident would not have been in the Federations interest or principles.

The Federation's actions were illegal by their own laws, they had no right to relocate those people "For Science!"

Regarding Captain's doing Kirk like things we have to remember that in Starfleet the Captain is essentially barring a few specialists is the most qualified individual on the ship to handle various situations.

[Simon_Jester]

Why did this turn into a debate over Star Trek that demands canon-pounding? Isn't that kind of dumb?

Hm.

Do we still have any nominations left for "worst?" As in, most cartoonishly bad? D-13 was talking about the Star Wars Empire- and sure they're bad, but are they worst?

[weemadando]

Star Wars Empire are pretty impressive for the most part. When they have been beaten it's been "on screen" by hero characters.

Their major failings are political and leadership, both of which contribute to their massive defeats.

Then again, how far are we extending "military"? You can have the finest military out there, but no political will to use it. You can be like what people say hte UNSC is - something that should be a military, but everyone has forgotten what a real war looks like and so leadership and doctrine have suffered.

[lPeregrine]

I think it helps that the Admiral in charge was killed by the Soma and it ultimately turned out to have been a private vendetta, and that the advantages in medical science simply did not outweigh the fact that the incident would not have been in the Federations interest or principles.

In 20/20 hindsight? Maybe. But you don't get credit for doing something stupid and getting it right by blind luck. At the time, the mutiny was unjustified, and it should have been a career-ending move for everyone involved. That's just not something you can allow if you want to have a stable and functional chain of command.

Also, the question of how useful the magic plot device would have been was left unresolved, it's just left at "we can't do something so obviously evil". The mutiny was based on childishly simplistic "ethics", not scientific evidence that the plan was a bad one.

Regarding Captain's doing Kirk like things we have to remember that in Starfleet the Captain is essentially barring a few specialists is the most qualified individual on the ship to handle various situations.

And that's just stupid as hell. You have specialists for a reason, after all. The captain is supposed to be good at high-level leadership, and commanding a starship. For everything else, the captain's job is to come up with an overall plan, assign appropriate people to execute the plan, and watch from a safe distance (with appropriate updates from the people under his command) while being ready to respond with a new plan if the situation changes. Sending the captain down personally is just exposing one of the least expendable people on the ship to pointless risk.

If the Federation genuinely runs things as you say (instead of a glory-seeking captain going on his own initiative even when it isn't necessary), that's an even more serious problem.

[Ultonius]

There is no legitimate ethical reason to disagree with the orders in question.

...

Except that slippery slope doesn't matter at all in this case. Unlike the gray area cases, it's very obvious that the slight harm of relocating a few people is FAR outweighed by the benefits. The "ethical dilemma" only exists because Picard is an idiot.

...

Also, the question of how useful the magic plot device would have been was left unresolved, it's just left at "we can't do something so obviously evil".

Reading between the lines, it does seem to be suggested that the So'na plan was not the only way to gain medical benefits from the radiation. The Briar Patch, while hard to get through, is not impassable, and if I recall correctly, Riker and Geordi began to rejuvenate/heal before they even went down to the planet, so there's no reason that people for whom the radiation is the only cure could not be transported to a medical station in orbit, which would cause no interference to the Ba'ku. Even if one did need to be on the planet's surface to benefit from the radiation, a base could easily be built on the other side of the planet from the Ba'ku settlement. The So'na may have decided upon destructive harvesting to take revenge on the Ba'ku, and possibly because the radical rejuvenation they desired could only have been achieved by higher concentrations of the radiation than occur naturally. They may have deceived Dougherty into believing that their harvesting method was necessary for normal medical treatments, or they may have promised him that the Federation would have access to the same radical rejuvenation they were going to use themselves.

[Simon_Jester]

Hm.

What about more obscure stuff? Anyone have any really random ones?

I mean, I agree with Eleventh Century Remnant that the Galactic Patrol from the Lensman series comes out pretty close to the top- and while they were utterly famous if you were an SF fan in the '40s or '50s, they're not exactly a household name the way Star Wars is.

So I wouldn't be surprised if the worst were pretty obscure too.

[Mr Bean]

Hm.

What about more obscure stuff? Anyone have any really random ones?

I mean, I agree with Eleventh Century Remnant that the Galactic Patrol from the Lensman series comes out pretty close to the top- and while they were utterly famous if you were an SF fan in the '40s or '50s, they're not exactly a household name the way Star Wars is.

So I wouldn't be surprised if the worst were pretty obscure too.

What about the Lost Fleet Series who's entire point of the series is that a hundred years of continuous conflict has rendered both sides down to the point that only the fastest to be built, most economic ships are used anymore. That fleet engagements tend to have 50% attrition rates and that the average officer knows few tactics beyond "charge the enemy" due to the only way to advance being to survive one battle and then get set to the rear long enough for attrition to open up higher spots? That the best officers are assigned to the Battle cruisers which are both lightly armored and always the first ones into any fight? That most of the admirals are admirals due to the patronage system?

[Skywalker_T-65]

Yeah, finding a 'worst' military could be more difficult than finding a good one really. I mean, the worst that comes to mind for me is (ironically enough) another Stargate one. The Ancients must have had absolutley horrible tactical judgement to loose to the Wraith. Considering how much more advanced their tech is...you can argue numbers all you want...no amount of Wraith ships should have been able to overtake the Ancients as fast as they did.

Not unless the Ancients (Lanteans to be technical) are bloody morons anyway.

EDIT: Though Bean's is even more worse apparently...

[Blayne]

I'm gonna make a top ten list, this list is relative to other Scifi militaries; the closer they are to being "good" by real life standards even if no where close even allegedly, will not qualify for "worst".

10. The Gould.

Reasoning: Semi-feudal and stagnant for thousands of years and brought down by hit and run tactics. Could never adapt to changing circumstances or prevent the Jaffa rebellion, Baal is the one exception to the whole thing as the only intelligent one. 10th because for seven seasons they were an effective thread.

9. The JSDF in virtually any Kaiju movie, and Neon Genesis Evangeliblah I can't spell.

Reasoning: How many times does Tokyo get destroyed and not somehow get a counter that isn't "Lets simply through a bigger Kaiju at that other kaiju so we can kaiji in your kaiju?" Also I hate the fans of NGE who think it is the best anime ever of all time and put it on the list out of spite.

8. NATO in World in Conflict.

Reasoning: Who the crap lets the Russians sneak up on you and invade the West coast?

7. The Imperium of Man, Warhammer 40,000

Reasoning: Don't hate me for this, but we clearly know that under the Emperor the whole galaxy had to bend over, but nowadays for every planet they retake they lose two and things just seem to be getting worse. Not because their enemies are just that powerful but because they themselves have weakened considerably and no amount of Canadian regiments can plug the gap and hold the line forever.

6. The Ancients (Stargate Atlantis, lanteans)

Reasoning: while I give them more credit than give above, the point is they lost only because they got careless and allowed for a Zed-PM to get captured by the Wraith. At which point you had a galaxy wide front and too many holes to plug and not enough fingers.

5. UNIT (United Nations Intelligence Taskforce) & Torchwood

Reasoning: While they were pretty ballin' in The Sontaran Strategem their performance against world threatening alien invasions and ignorance of the Cardiff Rift doesn't reflect too well overall and almost always need the Doctor to help out. The *best* contingency plan they came up with was to blow up Earth to deny it to the enemy. In stark contrast to Babylon 5's similar plot point... Torchwood somehow managed to get its ass kicked by Cybusmen and having no contingencies for such an event, Dalek's notwithstanding.

Furthermore both lose points for never cooperating even when it would be in their best interests to do so, especially in the World Becomes Immortal Arc with no mention of UNIT.

4. Every Red Alert army ever from any game.

Reasoning: Yes I know they're meant to be funny with an emphasis on the fun but it takes very special people to come up with weapon systems outside of a few reality breaking gimmicks that are worse than real world stuff.

3. The Seraphem (Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance)

Reasoning: For somehow being an extra dimensional alien threat, they have weapons and tactics virtually identical to the original three factions; I emphasise that this is where the "relative" qualifier comes into play as they are losing points for unoriginality.

2. The Empire (Star Wars)

Reasoning: As mentioned and I think convincingly argued throughout this thread by D13, the Empire's tactics, weapon systems, and leadership all seem inherently self defeating despite the massive advantages their industrial and technological base provide. It really takes the cake to have virtually an entire galaxy at your disposal in one form or another and still lose and badly.

1. The Worst Science Fiction Military of All Time

*drumroll*

The award goes too...

Band of Brothers/IT Alliance (EVE Online)

Reasoning: They lost to goons, and we're bad at the game. :V

Honorable mentions

-Virtually any army in Code Geass. They can't even play chess right.
-The Warsaw Pact in Fullmetal Panic. For somehow being weaker than in real life despite having mecha.
-JSDF (again), Synthogear. Spirits Within levels of incompetence in being unable to fight ghosts.
-US/Earth military, Stargate for not using AFV/IFV's when there's clearly situations where they could have.

[Metahive]

The Seraphim absolutely don't belong on this list.

-They managed to put up a capable military after who knows how many millenia of total pacifism where even violent thoughts were taboo
-They subverted two of the human factions from before open hostilities even began and severely weakened the third with an absolutely vicious first strike at its heart
-They let their human pawns do most of the fighting, saving their assets and ensuring they'd have less to clean up after stabilizing the quantum rift

As far as alien invaders go, the Seraphim are one of the more intelligent ones.

Lambasting them for having unoriginal units is besides the point since this thread isn't about aesthetics but military capability.

[the atom]

7. The Imperium of Man, Warhammer 40,000

Reasoning: Don't hate me for this, but we clearly know that under the Emperor the whole galaxy had to bend over, but nowadays for every planet they retake they lose two and things just seem to be getting worse. Not because their enemies are just that powerful but because they themselves have weakened considerably and no amount of Canadian regiments can plug the gap and hold the line forever.

What are you talking about? Not only are their numerous enemies "just that powerful", but they also face near-crippling and unavoidable logistics issues because of their dependence on warp travel. In spite of this however, they've pretty much managed to break even for the last 10 000 years, and even the slightest breather would allow them to pretty much kick the shit out of nearly everyone else in the galaxy.

2. The Empire (Star Wars)

Reasoning: As mentioned and I think convincingly argued throughout this thread by D13, the Empire's tactics, weapon systems, and leadership all seem inherently self defeating despite the massive advantages their industrial and technological base provide. It really takes the cake to have virtually an entire galaxy at your disposal in one form or another and still lose and badly.

What? How are their tactics or weapons systems 'self defeating'? Endor wasn't exactly their shining moment, but in nearly every other engagement we see them in they preform (relatively) efficiently and effectively, and they basically beat the Rebels at nearly every turn. The fact that they're ruled by an evil wizard and his toadies is somewhat self-defeating to be sure, but then that's like saying the Wehrmacht sucked because Hitler was a deranged madman.

[Stark]

Come on dude; he makes a list of scifi that includes not scifi, obviously cares nothing for context, and sees 'has no option but bad options' as some kind of systemic failure.

Protip Blayne - a 'bad scifi military' would be a) actually scifi, and not 1985, b) would approach problems poorly or fail to learn from mistakes and probably c) use absurd pew pew scifi bullshit that doesn't work or is less effective than something less visually impressive.

And not 'I think they suck because FACTIONAL DIVERSITY'.

[Blayne]

How is unit not scifi?

Not sure why your saying what I can and cannot include as scifi.

[RogueIce]

Not sure why your saying what I can and cannot include as scifi.

You listed an MMO guild as a scifi military force, dude. Seriously?

Maybe I'll go look up some STO fleets that routinely fuck up STFs and use those to talk shit about Starfleet.

[Stark]

8. NATO in World in Conflict.

Reasoning: Who the crap lets the Russians sneak up on you and invade the West coast?

Pretty sci-fi there! Maybe you're thinking MW2, where the exact same thing happens but at least they have heartbeat sensors to make it maybe loosely scifi if you squint.

I just don't think you understand what people are looking for with 'worst'. Oh noes, the Japanese repeatedly lose to literally invincible giant monsters! They suck because ... they should have won ... somehow?

Pretty sure people are looking for poor decisions, or bad cultures, or ineffective doctrine and stuff like that, and not 'they suck because they lost or I simply don't like them'. The joke is that including EVE guilds and Supreme Commander factions is just like picking on the awfully stupid UNSC because people played Halo.

[Blayne]

Alternate History generally tends to be loosely defined as "Sci Fi" because it certainly isn't "Fantasy" as it usually involves the deployment of theoretical weapon systems that weren't otherwise deployed. If we're being nitpicky than I could easily substitute it for Red Storm Rising and it's "F-19" superstealth fighter that would likely not have worked the way Tom Clancy thought it would.

Regarding EVE, the so called "guilds" as you put them, are integral parts of the game world and setting with their actions affecting the lore itself. Then again, no one specified the parameters beyond it had to be from a "medium" and it had to be an organized "force" as per the OP. Sure including "guilds" and borderline edge cases are silly but that's built into the premise of the discussion.

Additionally I never used the "guilds" to bash anyone, I did not use it to reflect upon something or someone else, that would be putting words into my mouth.

It should also be obvious that my brief, very brief reasonings are meant to be taken somewhat humorously in the interest of brevity, since it would be unfair to presume I could possibly sum up all of the mistakes of an entire military in a single sentence.

For example, a part of the problem with this of discussion is that some mentioned militaries even if "scifi" and in a "medium" as agreed upon in consensus like Star Trek I feel actually contradicts the premise of this discussion, at the risk of taking it too seriously and losing track of the goal. Because Star Trek as envisioned by Roddenberry was never meant to be about "the military", it was meant to be about his utopian future for humanity where those things are supposed to have been obsolete and unneccasery.

So we end up with an on screen organization that by our standards doesn't have a proper standing military, because that was never the point of the show, and never considered. So in many ways its not very fair to the material and smacks of rigging the competition. To get Star Trek to the point where it *does* resemble a conventional military we need to include Enterprise, Star Trek Online, all the books and so on; and like I did earlier with the UNSC with Haloverse; presume that just because we don't see something on screen does not mean it does not exist to a reasonable degree.

But some rejected that premise, and I feel that's taking the discussion too far and too seriously because people want their favorite SciFi military to "win" essentially making it a VS thread which is not what we want.

So I don't think its fair to say my picks are bad for not being within a narrow definition of Scifi, so long as there's a loose connection to the genre; which should be fair as 90% of people don't have a good grasp on what defines genre anyways.