Reasons for the Federation not including Marines/Army

[Baffalo]

Hello everyone, I'm here with yet another question and a bit of fact finding while romping around Memory Alpha.

My question tonight came to me while browsing the SW vs. ST thread and it has to do with Federation Marine/Army personnel, or rather, the lack thereof. First, a bit about why from a technical standpoint. We all know Mr. Roddenberry was quite liberal in his views, prefering to imagine Star Trek as an idealistic, future utopia where men and women got along and there was no war or violence. It makes for great philosophical discussion, but not very popular television. So when it comes to the show, Gene had to balance his utopian vision with one of a practical futuristic ship that had the means to defend itself. There was also the consideration that he was trying to produce a scifi show with no real credit for having done so before, so many of his scripts were reviewed to make sure they were good, at least in the beginning. Gene had to be careful in this stage as his show had already been trumped by another scifi show at CBS, Lost in Space.

So, since we already know a little of the production backstory, let's look at the actual weapons featured in the show that are of a personal level used by Starfleet. The most typical weapon used by Starfleet on a regular basis is the hand phaser. It's small and usually comes in three sizes, depending on need. It can, at full power, disintegrate the average sized humanoid and heat objects rapidly. It's pretty good all around. Phaser rifles are typically used when confronting large groups, when additional accuracy is needed, or when more power than a standard hand phaser is necessary. On DS9, a special rifle called the TR-116 was developed for use aboard stations when it would be necessary to fire through walls or over long ranges. There have also been examples of photon grenades, which operate similar to standard fragmentation grenades found today, though they can quickly be scaled in power.

Armor is one thing we rarely see in Star Trek. I can recall only two instances, both in the movies, of Starfleet personnel wearing protective body armor. In Star Trek III and VI, uniformed crew in full body armor respond to emergencies aboard the ship when unauthorized entry or phaser fire is detected. Beyond these two instances, no other Starfleet personnel appear to wear it. Whether this is simply due to a lack of budget or because it didn't fit with Gene's vision of the future is unknown. By the 24th century, Starfleet has apparently made some advancement in personal forcefields, as a mention is made of personal forcefields being stocked by Admiral Leyton in DS9: Homefront. To my knowledge, no Starfleet personnel have ever been seen making use of personal forcefields on screen.

Now, for what technical reason would the Federation have of not issuing personnel with body armor? Well, for one, armor is expensive to produce. It requires advanced materials and manufacturing techniques that make it difficult to justify. Also, Starfleet personnel don't spend much time fighting invaders or hostile targets directly, and so not everyone needs a full suit of armor to protect them. If they insist on body armor, it increases the person's mass, making it harder to move and function correctly, which degrades performance. And of course, there's the issue of phasers or disruptors simply overwhelming any armor and rendering the wearer a pile of ash on the carpet. The cons are very, very negative here. On the pro side, however, is the fact that armor can and maybe does save lives. A crewman shot in the chest has a higher chance of survival when hit there, because the armor absorbs the energy of the impact. In the case of disruptors, any energy absorbed would be beneficial to the user's point of view.

So, the equipment is on the table. So let's look at Starfleet operations to consider why they might not want Marines. Well, starships are very, very large and serve as platforms that can either bombard from orbit, beam troops up and down, and perform many other duties. Every phaser aboard a starship holds tremendous power, and the threat of having such a ship overhead might be enough to discourage a fight. Also, the ability to scan and detect enemy positions makes fighting a group with the power of a starship near suicide, unless the ship is forced to fight and move away. Without air superiority, winning a battle becomes very difficult. So with the starship in orbit, on the ground things would look bleak even if the defenders hide amongst civilians.

And lastly. Space aboard a starship is finite. There's only so much space you can devote to something, and soldiers take up quite a bit of room. Each soldier needs room to work out, eat, maintain their equipment, sleep, and bathe. They don't perform duties aboard a ship, which means they are simply in the way. Granted, in a fight, they're going to be ready to beam/fly over to another ship or to the planet and kick some ass. But really, Starfleet personnel are treated like the ships, in that they seem to know a bit of everything and specialize in one field. Dr. Crusher is a doctor, but can fire phasers. If you have a large crew cross-trained in duties including fighting, then it makes sense to use them instead of assigning men to just stand around.

[Serafina]

So, since we already know a little of the production backstory, let's look at the actual weapons featured in the show that are of a personal level used by Starfleet. The most typical weapon used by Starfleet on a regular basis is the hand phaser. It's small and usually comes in three sizes, depending on need. It can, at full power, disintegrate the average sized humanoid and heat objects rapidly. It's pretty good all around. Phaser rifles are typically used when confronting large groups, when additional accuracy is needed, or when more power than a standard hand phaser is necessary. On DS9, a special rifle called the TR-116 was developed for use aboard stations when it would be necessary to fire through walls or over long ranges. There have also been examples of photon grenades, which operate similar to standard fragmentation grenades found today, though they can quickly be scaled in power.

While phasers really are not that bad by themselves, there are numerous instances where projectile weapons would have been better, chiefly against the Borg.

Worse however is the fact that we NEVER see any squad-support weapons. We have at least one instance where they would have saved the day and should have been available (the Siege of Ar-558).
We do not know the reason why they do not have them - it might be political or cultural, or phasers might just be incapable of performing in a manner that allows you to build a man-portable weapon with rapid, continuous fire capability.

Now, for what technical reason would the Federation have of not issuing personnel with body armor? Well, for one, armor is expensive to produce. It requires advanced materials and manufacturing techniques that make it difficult to justify. Also, Starfleet personnel don't spend much time fighting invaders or hostile targets directly, and so not everyone needs a full suit of armor to protect them. If they insist on body armor, it increases the person's mass, making it harder to move and function correctly, which degrades performance. And of course, there's the issue of phasers or disruptors simply overwhelming any armor and rendering the wearer a pile of ash on the carpet. The cons are very, very negative here. On the pro side, however, is the fact that armor can and maybe does save lives. A crewman shot in the chest has a higher chance of survival when hit there, because the armor absorbs the energy of the impact. In the case of disruptors, any energy absorbed would be beneficial to the user's point of view.

It certainly makes sense that regular Fleet personnel does not wear body armor.
However, there is no reason why they can't equip the security teams aboard their ships (which have existed in every series) with it. Those are the people who are supposed to fight, so give them the proper equipment to do so.

Now you might argue that phasers are powerful enough that body armor is useless anyway. Given that there are numerous lightweight materials that can at least resist a phaser blast, this is doubtful.
As a rule of thumb, if a human being can survive a hit from a weapon to a critical location (such as the chest) without immediate medical intervention, it should really be possible to make armor that provides additional protection.

So, the equipment is on the table. So let's look at Starfleet operations to consider why they might not want Marines. Well, starships are very, very large and serve as platforms that can either bombard from orbit, beam troops up and down, and perform many other duties. Every phaser aboard a starship holds tremendous power, and the threat of having such a ship overhead might be enough to discourage a fight. Also, the ability to scan and detect enemy positions makes fighting a group with the power of a starship near suicide, unless the ship is forced to fight and move away. Without air superiority, winning a battle becomes very difficult. So with the starship in orbit, on the ground things would look bleak even if the defenders hide amongst civilians.

However, dedicated soldiers would allow you to do a number of things orbital superiority does not allow you to do.
You can perform surgical strikes - be that capturing an enemy officer or politician, rescuing your own people or taking a comm relay or other important installation.
It also allows you to hold ground without parking a spaceship in orbit, and more importantly without risking collateral damage to whatever you're trying to hold or capture.
And last but not least, it would allow you to capture enemy spaceships or spacestations without damaging or destroying them.

Basically, ground troops are still necessary for the same reason they are necessary today - they can perform much more precisely than airstrikes - a problem that can not be solved by upping the power of said airstrikes.

And lastly. Space aboard a starship is finite. There's only so much space you can devote to something, and soldiers take up quite a bit of room. Each soldier needs room to work out, eat, maintain their equipment, sleep, and bathe. They don't perform duties aboard a ship, which means they are simply in the way. Granted, in a fight, they're going to be ready to beam/fly over to another ship or to the planet and kick some ass. But really, Starfleet personnel are treated like the ships, in that they seem to know a bit of everything and specialize in one field. Dr. Crusher is a doctor, but can fire phasers. If you have a large crew cross-trained in duties including fighting, then it makes sense to use them instead of assigning men to just stand around.

They could perform duties aboard a ship - those that their normal security contingent is performing. They have dedicated security personnel, there is no reason why some of those could not receive additional equipment and training.
Furthermore, those Marines would have come in handy on numerous occasions. Boarding actions are not a rarity in Star Trek, and there are plenty of ground operations. Last but not least, an armed contingent could serve as a honor guard during diplomatic meetings - while that might not be the style of the Federation, there are plenty of militaristic civilizations where such a display would be worthwhile.


Furthermore, the Federation is extremely liberal with space aboard their ships. Quarters have a very large size, they even afford the luxury of transporting civilians who are completely unimportant to the operation of the ship.
Training facilities could simply be provided via the Holodeck without taking up any additional space.


Bottom line:
There is no real practical reason why Starfleet spaceships do not carry dedicated combat personnel other than a light security detachment (which are more similar to police officers).
Any reason must therefore be cultural or political, and we've seen plenty of overdone idealism and pacifism in Star Trek.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

Any reason must therefore be cultural or political, and we've seen plenty of overdone idealism and pacifism in Star Trek.

I'd like to elaborate on that. If we take it that the Federation's enlightenment is culturally imposed (one of the themes of 'Siege of Ar-558), then it would make sense for a Federation aware of human history to avoid that kind of warfare. Space combat is bad enough, but planetary combat is just the sort of environment where humanity's darker side could re-emerge. The result is a significant number of squeaky-clean idealistic Starfleet humans going to war and coming back changed, and not necessarily for the better. This doesn't necessarily have to take the form of noticeable psychological damage either, but simply a 'darkening' or 'coarsening' of attitudes (from the Federation's perspective). One of the most traumatic aspects of the Vietnam War, for some Americans, was the effect it had on the attitudes and values of some veterans. One of the Federation's greatest fears, I submit, is that its culture and values could be degraded by the sociological effects of war.

[Metahive]

In ST3 and 6 Starfleet's security detail wore armor and in 3 they even wore helmets. STE introduced the MACOs as dedicated combat units on ships, though armor- and helmetless albeit being somewhat more sophistaced in small arms tactics.

Then again no potential enemy of the Federation bothers much with dedicated armor (that is armor able to withstand raygun hits), helmets or SAWs/mortars/tanks etc. either, so it's a universe-wide phenomenon rather than something that's just affecting Starfleet.

[Darth Tedious]

WRT armour: Given that phasers can be fatal even when they hit you on the fingers, armour would need to be full-body, akin to medievil knight gear. Although this is a PST thread, I'm going to use Imperial Stormtroopers as an example: Assume plastoid is 100% phaser-proof. If you hit their glove, neck seal, or any exposed part of the undersuit, the trooper will still be 'vapourised'. And if you use such armour, enemies are going to be aiming for those areas. Negating this with complete coverage is only going to increase the restriction of movement. And partial armour hits the same problem- if you wear chest armour, enemies will just aim for your legs- it's still going to kill you.

[Serafina]

WRT armour: Given that phasers can be fatal even when they hit you on the fingers, armour would need to be full-body, akin to medievil knight gear. Although this is a PST thread, I'm going to use Imperial Stormtroopers as an example: Assume plastoid is 100% phaser-proof. If you hit their glove, neck seal, or any exposed part of the undersuit, the trooper will still be 'vapourised'. And if you use such armour, enemies are going to be aiming for those areas. Negating this with complete coverage is only going to increase the restriction of movement. And partial armour hits the same problem- if you wear chest armour, enemies will just aim for your legs- it's still going to kill you.

That's not true. Armoring the torso is useful even when a hit to the finger would be equally deadly - because the torso is a large target and therefore likely to be hit. You would force the enemy to aim for the exposed parts, therefore putting him at an disadvantage.

Your logic that doing so is NOT putting the enemy at an disadvantage applies almost equally to real-life weapons - and it also applies to taking cover, which is regularly done in Star Trek.

Armoring the torso would put large restrictions on the enemies targeting abilities. Armoring the head would be useful because it is often exposed when shooting at the enemy. Partial armor on the arms is useful for the same reason, albeit less so. The legs are actually at the bottom of that priority list, because they are easy to put into cover.


Armor is supposed to lower your casualty rate - even if we assume that a phaser hit on an exposed location is 100% lethal (which is clearly NOT the case throughout the series!), armor would still do that job assuming you have access to a phaser-proof material.

[Baffalo]

I'd like to add to this comment. I was watching a documentary on SWAT (Special Weapons And Tactics, basically commando cops here in the US), and the man in charge said that SWAT officers wear only armor on their faces and chests. Why? Because SWAT moves fast and deadly, moving on targets and engaging them. When a SWAT team goes in, they're moving so fast, it's literally impossible to aim at anything specific, and so many targets aim for the largest target they can snap a shot off at, which is the center of mass. They showed a gun cam where they went in and even with advanced warning that SWAT was coming, the gunman was unable to make any specific shots at exposed limbs, just going for the first large target he saw.

I heard a statistic from somewhere that said modern body armor is also being used in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it turns out that it's having an effect. Many soldiers are staying alive, though with the increased use of IEDs (Improvised Explosive Device), many are suffering injuries on their more exposed arms and legs. Given that we don't see much in the way of grenades in Star Trek, I'm willing to assume that this threat would be minor, at least for a few months, of wide-scale introduction of body armor.

Projectile weapons, at least the kind we're familiar with, do have some advantages and disadvantages compared to phasers. Ammunition would be fast to manufacture, especially with replicators, it has reasonably good penetration, many weapons come tailor made to exploit certain situations, and can include squad based weapons. The downside is that ammunition's weight adds up, limiting the amount you can carry at one time. Also, even with full metal jacket rounds (required by international treaty) it causes quite a bit of pain before death occurs. Hollowpoint rounds are illegal in military weapons because they're considered inhumane, and it might be that phasers are considered more humane than standard projectile ammunition.

Unfortunately, we don't have much evidence of projectile weapons vs. phasers, especially against the Borg. Except for the one holodeck scene on the Enterprise, we don't know if the Borg could adapt to projectile weaponry at all. If they can, then phasers would have a slight advantage in that they can rotate frequencies, but both would eventually be adapted to and overcome. If the Borg are not immune to projectile weapons, then the scene where Starfleet gets its ass handed to it by trying to sneak into Engineering would be unnecessary. They could just stand off and pick the Borg off, moving forward and continuing on until they got to Engineering. Given how slow the Borg move, a quick burst to the chest would put down most Borg I reason.

[Darth Tedious]

I'm not contending that armour wouldn't cause a disadvantage to the enemy- but it would have to be weighed against the disadvantage it causes to the wearer. Reduced mobility, visibility, flexibility are all issues to contend with.
More pertinent than theories on the value of armour is the fact that the Federation did employ armour at various times- why did it stop doing so? Whether it was a question of economy or casualty management, they must have concluded it simply wasn't worth it.

Also consider- will a phaser-resistant armour stop disruptor fire? Will your enemy develop new weapons in order to defeat your armour? There may be a kind of arms race/MAD policy in place- everyone can kill each other with their current weapons, wearing armour will only lead to more powerful weapons. For an RL example- Kevlar was invented in 1965. Armour pirecing rounds that could penetrate it were developed by 1968.

EDIT: The example about SWAT teams is quite valid in RL, but not really applicable to Starfleet, given that they don't have specialised soldiers. I've certainly not seen SF security teams operating in any manner that could be compared to a SWAT team. Though they should.

[Stofsk]

The use of body armour would be worthless in countering Star Trek hand weaponry, which set on the higher settings can dissolve/destroy people and materiel. With stun and the lower kill settings, armour might mitigate or even negate the damage; in response, enemies would just increase the settings. The only real, sure-fire defence against phasers and disruptors would be some kind of portable or personal sized force field - just like what the Borg have.

As for why the Federation don't have a standing marine corps/army - they're not in the business of invading planets. Despite that, security forces act like naval infantry anyway, so it's a moot point. It would be antithetical to Starfleet's primary mission. Out of universe, it's because the idea is terrible and not very Star Treky, to say nothing of the increased costs to the budget of a show that it would entail. I would rather they spend the money on other things.

[Big Phil]

Two things in favor of the Federation approach to combat:

1. Ground combat might be pointless when a starship in orbit can effortlessly wipe out the defenders on the ground.

2. Federation starships and their equipment don't seem to require the same sort of logistical support as modern warships or militaries. It is possible that it is more efficient to have 100 poorly trained, phaser-equipped crewmen landed on a planet than to spend those same resources on fewer numbers of highly trained, well equipped soldiers that require significant logistical support. Let's face it, the biggest problem modern soldiers face is the weight of their equipment. If you could give someone a light, easy to use weapon like a phaser and not require them to lug 100+ lbs of equipment, ammunition, etc. around, it might be better.

[Alyeska]

The use of body armour would be worthless in countering Star Trek hand weaponry, which set on the higher settings can dissolve/destroy people and materiel. With stun and the lower kill settings, armour might mitigate or even negate the damage; in response, enemies would just increase the settings. The only real, sure-fire defence against phasers and disruptors would be some kind of portable or personal sized force field - just like what the Borg have.

Armor would still be useful. It forces the opponent to crank up the firepower. More firepower, more energy used. More energy used, fewer shots available. And depending on the weapon, there could very well be a cool down required between shots to prevent the weapon from over heating.

[Mr Bean]

The use of body armour would be worthless in countering Star Trek hand weaponry, which set on the higher settings can dissolve/destroy people and materiel. With stun and the lower kill settings, armour might mitigate or even negate the damage; in response, enemies would just increase the settings. The only real, sure-fire defence against phasers and disruptors would be some kind of portable or personal sized force field - just like what the Borg have.
.

Except as seen numerous times there exists plenty of materials that phasers/disruptors and other ST weaponry don't work against. See episodes like DS9's Seige of AR 558 or the dozens of episodes where firefights break out and people take cover and the cover holds. Whatever material that Starfleet uses for storage boxes for example is excellent in stopping phaser fire.
Why? Because the Star Trek weaponry is material dependent. Shooting rocks with the "human flesh" setting only gives you tiny scorch marks. So making bodyarmor makes perfect sense because the wrong setting would make such things highly effective, either you have it on "body armor melting mode" and thus if they hit anything other than the armor it's a light wound or you have it in "flesh" in which case hitting the body armor does nothing.

[Agent Sorchus]

Given how slow the Borg move, a quick burst to the chest would put down most Borg I reason.

Really? Because it may be that the Borg might not be able to 'adapt' to projectiles, but based on the amount of damage that Picard had to shoot into either of the two Borg drones in FC with the SMG it would appear that the Borg are at the least somewhat resistant to bullets to the point that you could easily run out of bullets at a rate nearly equal to their adaption rate to phasers. What good would bringing a gun to a raygun fight do you then?

[sc_owl]

I suppose the main reason we don't see the Federation having a standing Army or Marines is because they simply don't need one. Having enjoyed a prolonged period of time without full scale war they simply didn't need one, and I doubt they had the political will to keep an Army on standby.

During the Dominion War I would have liked to have seen some "heavy infantry" (for lack of a better term). Federation troops in full body armour with personal shields. They could have been used to support squads of normal security.

On a side note; in the C24th Federation, with their utopian mentality, who would volunteer to serve in an army fighting Jem'Hadar hand to hand when they could join Starfleet and be on board a ship instead? I just wonder how much the normal citizen of the UFP was affected by the war?

The only mention I recall in the whole run of TNG, DS9 and VGR of soldiers was in a DS9 episode where they talk of thousands of troops being transported through the badlands... can't remember the episode though?

Just realised this is a bit of a directionless ramble as well... ooops...

[Batman]

Given how slow the Borg move, a quick burst to the chest would put down most Borg I reason.

Really? Because it may be that the Borg might not be able to 'adapt' to projectiles, but based on the amount of damage that Picard had to shoot into either of the two Borg drones in FC with the SMG

Which was 3 to 5 rounds each or thereabouts IIRC, the vast majority of that endless salvo did nothing but shatter glass and ruin the bar.
Assuming that thing performed like a real world Tommy, that's not really more than a human could take (especially if they hit that closely timely spaced so he doesn't have time to drop from the first hit) with the same result-both are down and out.

it would appear that the Borg are at the least somewhat resistant to bullets to the point that you could easily run out of bullets at a rate nearly equal to their adaption rate to phasers.

5 to 20 dead Borg per man per magazines depending on the weapon, more for beltfeeders, vs maybe 8-10 total for the entire team.

What good would bringing a gun to a raygun fight do you then?

It means I can keep killing Borg until I run out of ammo?

More energy used, fewer shots available.

It may be that you just brought them to 100,000 shots instead of 1,000,000 shots - doesn't make much of a difference in battle, but the trade off is now everyone is using lethal force at every opportunity.

Or maybe now you only have 20 instead of a thousand, which definitely does. If the difference is that marginal, why don't they ever NDF away the cover people are hiding behind?

[Batman]

Or maybe it's simply more economical to go with standard kill.We've never seen phasourize used in what passes for a protracted firefight in Trek.

[Batman]

What, they never shoot to kill, even when their lives are at stake, out of the kindness of their hearts?
But even if we assume this to be true, it doesn't tell us beans about the drain discrepancy between kill (or stun, if you prefer) and NDF away.
Could be 1000 to 20, could be 200000 to 100000, could be it's identical but those stupid controls make it nigh impossible to quickly set up NDF away, the point is we don't know if it's practical to simply ramp up the power in the face of body armour.

[Skylon]

Two things in favor of the Federation approach to combat:

1. Ground combat might be pointless when a starship in orbit can effortlessly wipe out the defenders on the ground.

That always seemed to be TOS' stance. TOS appeared to have a take that by the 23rd century the Starship, at war, against a civilian population was a WMD. We see the pinpoint accuracy of the Ent-Nil's phasers in "A Piece of the Action" (and they could be set to stun!) Combat was decided in space, between ships...if the enemy's ships got above your planet, you were fucked.

It also fits with the mind set of the time the TOS writers were living in.

[Batman]

By the time their shields are down and you can beam in, why not stun the lot of them with your ship phasers and be done with it?

That always seemed to be TOS' stance. TOS appeared to have a take that by the 23rd century the Starship, at war, against a civilian population was a WMD. We see the pinpoint accuracy of the Ent-Nil's phasers in "A Piece of the Action" (and they could be set to stun!) Combat was decided in space, between ships...if the enemy's ships got above your planet, you were fucked.
It also fits with the mind set of the time the TOS writers were living in.

Heck, by the 24th century apparently even the Romulans seem to believe in this. Their invasion force in 'Reunion' was what, 4,000 soldiers? You couldn't invade Belgium with that, nevermind an entire planet. But if you have a warship (or even any ship outfitted with a torpedo launcher or two) in orbit, you can say 'Now, be nice while we dig in, or we start blowing up your cities', and once they're dug in, the Federation can't oust them with massive civilian casualties thanks to not having an army.

Still shouldn't work on that kind of scale, 4,000 soldiers is nothing, but marginally less utterly stupid than the idea looks at first, second, and third glance.

[Skylon]

Heck, by the 24th century apparently even the Romulans seem to believe in this. Their invasion force in 'Reunion' was what, 4,000 soldiers? You couldn't invade Belgium with that, nevermind an entire planet. But if you have a warship (or even any ship outfitted with a torpedo launcher or two) in orbit, you can say 'Now, be nice while we dig in, or we start blowing up your cities', and once they're dug in, the Federation can't oust them with massive civilian casualties thanks to not having an army.

Still shouldn't work on that kind of scale, 4,000 soldiers is nothing, but marginally less utterly stupid than the idea looks at first, second, and third glance.

To add, TOS' "Mirror, Mirror" also suggests a "total war" use of the starship. In the normal universe, the Halkans note Kirk and the UFP could force the dylithium crystals from them, they were trying to negotiate access to. In the mirror universe, we're shown just how they could do that: by blowing up cities until they capitulated, or presumably, they killed enough that they could just take the crystals with no interference.

I don't see this as utopian. I see this as the TOS writers writing about warfare as they saw it evolving, and lived it during the Cold War. Infantry didn't matter. It came down to who had the biggest bomb. In Star Trek's case, the bombs were delivered by Starships, which had the firepower to lay waste to planets. And Gene Roddenberry as a WWII bomber pilot may have even agreed with that viewpoint.

[Darmalus]

In universe, It could be a lack of historical knowledge. If each planet was supposed to maintain a defensive army strong enough to make invasion impossible, then enemies go directly for the planetary bombardment option. Wait a few generations, and planets cut their military budgets down to nothing because no one invades, they always got for planetary bombardment, forgetting why they always go for planetary bombardment.

[Alyeska]

More energy used, fewer shots available.

It may be that you just brought them to 100,000 shots instead of 1,000,000 shots - doesn't make much of a difference in battle, but the trade off is now everyone is using lethal force at every opportunity.

Do you know how much energy is in a cell? In "Siege of AR-558" they were passing out extra power packs. The energy required to vaporize would be horrifically more than the energy required to kill. Vaporizing every enemy seems great, but it can waste energy. But if your opponent wears armor, it forces you to crank up the juice. While it might not make much of a different for the poor son of a bitch who gets shot, less available energy means you can potentially drive back your opponents sooner.

[Batman]

Err-since they don't vapourize, they magic away, technically we have no Valendamned clue how big that differential would be. Phasorization is routinely associated with higher power settings so that it does drain the power cell faster is, I think, agreed upon by all parties, the question is by how much it does so.

[Scottish Ninja]

By the time their shields are down and you can beam in, why not stun the lot of them with your ship phasers and be done with it?

That always seemed to be TOS' stance. TOS appeared to have a take that by the 23rd century the Starship, at war, against a civilian population was a WMD. We see the pinpoint accuracy of the Ent-Nil's phasers in "A Piece of the Action" (and they could be set to stun!) Combat was decided in space, between ships...if the enemy's ships got above your planet, you were fucked.
It also fits with the mind set of the time the TOS writers were living in.

Heck, by the 24th century apparently even the Romulans seem to believe in this. Their invasion force in 'Reunion' was what, 4,000 soldiers? You couldn't invade Belgium with that, nevermind an entire planet. But if you have a warship (or even any ship outfitted with a torpedo launcher or two) in orbit, you can say 'Now, be nice while we dig in, or we start blowing up your cities', and once they're dug in, the Federation can't oust them with massive civilian casualties thanks to not having an army.

Still shouldn't work on that kind of scale, 4,000 soldiers is nothing, but marginally less utterly stupid than the idea looks at first, second, and third glance.

I don't think that what we saw in "Reunification" was in any way particularly representative of any kind of major land invasion. (Entirely besides the fact that the "2000 soldiers" cited were the crews of the three stolen Vulcan ships, which didn't include anyone aboard the Warbird that destroyed those ships, or any other Warbirds that may or may not have been there.) The Romulan plan really only makes sense as landing commandos to take control of the top levels of Vulcan government and coercing them to sign a treaty renouncing Vulcan's membership in the Federation and joining the Romulan Star Empire before anyone can figure out what's happening; that would be the only way for them to get away with it. If the situation blew up into a full-scale invasion of Vulcan, there's absolutely no way the Federation as a whole could avoid getting involved - at which point the Romulan attackers are stranded deep inside Federation space at the end of a seriously vulnerable supply line, and that's assuming the "incident" was contained and didn't spiral into a general war.

So for that reason, as soon as their plan was exposed, the Romulans cut their losses and prevented the capture of those who would have been able to provide information about the plan to the Federation.

[Alyeska]

Err-since they don't vapourize, they magic away, technically we have no Valendamned clue how big that differential would be. Phasorization is routinely associated with higher power settings so that it does drain the power cell faster is, I think, agreed upon by all parties, the question is by how much it does so.

Gone is gone. To make things go away would still require substantial power.