Are redshirts the standard Federation ARMY troops?

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2003-05-04 12:12pm

Redshirts are used for ground ops, but clearly they are no real ground force and the Feds don't have one.

I theorize that this is because the Fed. is a defensive alliance and has chosen to fight its battles in space, although they have done more ground stuff lately (Dominion and all that).

As for them being pacifists, and Luddites, that's clearly not true since their starships are military vehicles.

It doesn't make sense that they're not developing a ground force now, but their not. *shrug*

As for children on starships, the E-D was a science ship with weapons meant to be out for a long time, though it did get into lots of fights (blame that on the captain). The E-E is more of a warship and has no children on board.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-05-04 12:30pm

What about that episode of DS9 where Jake got caught in a battle between Starfleet and the Klingons? The Starfleet "soldiers" he encountered wore black uniforms with red bands IIRC. I thought they were supposed to be Starfleet Marines.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2003-05-04 01:48pm

Occasionally we see Feddie Spec Ops units when the story demands it. Any other time it's ye old Gold/Red shirt.

In they reality of Star Trek it's not that hard to take a world and hold it. IIRC 4 ships where almost able to stage a coup on Earth during the build up to the Dominion War. I think it was the Federation Head of Security behind it.

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-05-04 05:00pm

He was the head of Starfleet intell and he was going to use a few heavy cruisers.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-05 12:01am

Tsyroc wrote:What about that episode of DS9 where Jake got caught in a battle between Starfleet and the Klingons? The Starfleet "soldiers" he encountered wore black uniforms with red bands IIRC. I thought they were supposed to be Starfleet Marines.

Still not an army, and their astonishing ineptitude was every bit as bad as that of the redshirts we've seen, shiny new gray uniforms notwithstanding.

The most telling piece of evidence was "Paradise Lost". In the event of a military threat, they need to mobilize a ground force to protect Earth. They want soldiers on every street corner (in San Francisco, at least). So what do they do? They BEAM THEM DOWN FROM AN ORBITING STARSHIP!!!!

In other words, Earth did not have a local security force. The capital world of the Federation!

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2003-05-05 03:40am

Hence the Mars defense perimeter or whatever that we see in places like First Contact, which also sucks.

Like I've said. The Feds have chosen to fight their battles in space. If they were better at it, they wouldn't need an army. But then it wouldn't be Trek. Cross apply all of my ideas about heros and the need for only Kirk and Picard to be even remotely near competent, etc.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-05-05 04:30am

Worlds Spanner wrote:Hence the Mars defense perimeter or whatever that we see in places like First Contact, which also sucks.

Like I've said. The Feds have chosen to fight their battles in space. If they were better at it, they wouldn't need an army. But then it wouldn't be Trek. Cross apply all of my ideas about heros and the need for only Kirk and Picard to be even remotely near competent, etc.

Actually even if you had a good space fleet, you would still need soldiers to hold planets.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-05-05 04:36am

Darth Wong wrote:
Tsyroc wrote:What about that episode of DS9 where Jake got caught in a battle between Starfleet and the Klingons? The Starfleet "soldiers" he encountered wore black uniforms with red bands IIRC. I thought they were supposed to be Starfleet Marines.
Still not an army, and their astonishing ineptitude was every bit as bad as that of the redshirts we've seen, shiny new gray uniforms notwithstanding.

The most telling piece of evidence was "Paradise Lost". In the event of a military threat, they need to mobilize a ground force to protect Earth. They want soldiers on every street corner (in San Francisco, at least). So what do they do? They BEAM THEM DOWN FROM AN ORBITING STARSHIP!!!!

In other words, Earth did not have a local security force. The capital world of the Federation!

That reminds me, if it's their capital planet, shouldn't they use some sort of transporter inhibitor or something to prevent enemies from beaming down?

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-05-05 11:20am

neoolong wrote:That reminds me, if it's their capital planet, shouldn't they use some sort of transporter inhibitor or something to prevent enemies from beaming down?

Nah, that would be the intelligent thing to do.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-05-05 12:24pm

Darth Wong wrote: The most telling piece of evidence was "Paradise Lost". In the event of a military threat, they need to mobilize a ground force to protect Earth. They want soldiers on every street corner (in San Francisco, at least). So what do they do? They BEAM THEM DOWN FROM AN ORBITING STARSHIP!!!!

In other words, Earth did not have a local security force. The capital world of the Federation!

No they used the ship to deploy the "troops" which were already on Earth (Earth's entire power grid was down).

LEYTON
(confident)
Mister President, we can use the
Lakota's transporters and
communications system to mobilize
every Starfleet officer on Earth
in less than twelve hours.

LEYTON
We've been preparing for something
like this for a long time. We
have stockpiles of phaser rifles,
personal forcefields, photon
grenades, enough to equip an
entire army. I can start placing
troops in the streets immediately.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-05 12:30pm

TheDarkling wrote:No they used the ship to deploy the "troops" which were already on Earth (Earth's entire power grid was down).

Point taken, but this still means the troops are incapable of moving to their deployment locations without the central power infrastructure, thus proving once more how inept their military planning is.

LEYTON
(confident)
Mister President, we can use the
Lakota's transporters and
communications system to mobilize
every Starfleet officer on Earth
in less than twelve hours.

Key dialogue:Every Starfleet officer on Earth. Where's the army? Hell, where are the enlisted men? And given the transport rate limitations of a single starship (see "Ensigns of Command"), how much material can they actually move around this way?

LEYTON
We've been preparing for something
like this for a long time. We
have stockpiles of phaser rifles,
personal forcefields, photon
grenades, enough to equip an
entire army. I can start placing
troops in the streets immediately.

They have stockpiles of material, enough to equip an entire army? This means they don't already have an army in place. They need to scramble Starfleet OFFICERS, hastily give them weapons, and expect them to serve as an impromptu army. This merely proves the point.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-05-05 12:50pm

Darth Wong wrote: Point taken, but this still means the troops are incapable of moving to their deployment locations without the central power infrastructure, thus proving once more how inept their military planning is.

Agreed but it should be noted that the power failure was a very long shot of actually happening.

Key dialogue:Every Starfleet officer on Earth. Where's the army? Hell, where are the enlisted men? And given the transport rate limitations of a single starship (see "Ensigns of Command"), how much material can they actually move around this way?

Well according to the tech manual the transport rate of a GCS is 1000 people per hour, the Lakota is probably less than that so an upper limit would be 12,000, apart from the tech mannual though I am not aware of a canon estimate of transporter limitations (I only remember the rate of movement with Shuttles from "Ensigns of Command" but I may be forgetting something).

We know that the orbital facilities still had power, so while he doesn't mention it is possible Layton includes these in his estimate (it would be idiotic to not use those).

I also think it is realised by now that the term officer is interchangeable with personnel when it comes to SF, so while I believe enlisted men would also be used I very much doubt a dedicated army exists (just SF security personnel and in this case all other personnel as well).

They have stockpiles of material, enough to equip an entire army? This means they don't already have an army in place. They need to scramble Starfleet OFFICERS, hastily give them weapons, and expect them to serve as an impromptu army. This merely proves the point.

I imagine they have a few 100 security guards guarding key installations but I doubt a full and proper army exists and as Layton points out any defence of Earth will simply use rank and file SF officers.

Striderteen · Post by **Striderteen** » 2003-05-10 02:31am

It appears that the Federation is so pacifist that it has no army at all; Federation Security handles ground combat (poorly) when it's called for.

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2003-05-10 03:06am

neoolong wrote:Actually even if you had a good space fleet, you would still need soldiers to hold planets.

Not if the Federation was a purely defensive alliance (which it stopped being in the Dominion war, in my opinion).

You only need to hold planets if you conquor them in the first place!

You would 'hold' a planet with soldiers if it had a hostile populace. If the populace was friendly, you could defend them from space.

This is in theory - the Feds' don't do too well at this.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2003-05-10 12:12pm

Yeah but how can the Federation hold a planet under their protection from outside invaders which is the more pertinant question. It's all very well saying that they are a defensve alliance but you still have to defend your terratory on occasion from an aggresive incursion.

Admiral Drason · Post by **Admiral Drason** » 2003-05-10 04:54pm

Worlds Spanner wrote:
neoolong wrote:Actually even if you had a good space fleet, you would still need soldiers to hold planets.
Not if the Federation was a purely defensive alliance (which it stopped being in the Dominion war, in my opinion).

You only need to hold planets if you conquor them in the first place!

You would 'hold' a planet with soldiers if it had a hostile populace. If the populace was friendly, you could defend them from space.

This is in theory - the Feds' don't do too well at this.

During WWII did Britan have just the navy and RAF defending it? No Britan was full of armys for its defence. Although they were never invaded they were ready for one. A good navy does jack when the enemy is already on its soil and is marching to the capital.

You need ground forces to hold own planet even if the populace is on your side. You can't expect the masses to rise up and over throw an enemy army. history proves time and time again that the masses are cowards and will grovel at the victors feet.

The Feddies are fortunate that every one else in the Universe are total morons.

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2003-05-10 08:11pm

You're right, but you can see that if one put absolute faith in one's navy one could justify not having ground forces.

In the Feds case the faith is misplaced, but my point is that there IS a logic to it.

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2003-05-10 10:22pm

In the Feds case the faith is misplaced, but my point is that there IS a logic to it.

You are right that in the fed's case, the faith is misplaced. You are wrong in saying that there is logic to it. Modern America relies very heavily on our ability to launch cruise missile or air strikes against targets anywhere in the world, on very short notice. Our millitary is centered around the force projection capability of our supercarriers.

Does that mean we negelect having an army?

The Federation is faced with numerous foes, all of which have force projection capability. These forces are likely interested in Federation worlds. They would, if they had the chance, launch invasions of those worlds.

The Federation navy is hardly all-powerful. They do not have enough power, enough reaction time, and enough numbers to provide an unbreakable defense of the Federation worlds.

Therefore, Im the event of all-out war, Federation worlds would have to be able to hold out an enemy invasion. We know that this is possible- after all, the Bajorans kept up guerilla resistance against the Cardassians for a long period of time.

Therefore, any sensible government would have a trained army with which to defend it's worlds, or capture world from it's enemies.

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2003-05-11 12:43am

Thirdfain wrote:
In the Feds case the faith is misplaced, but my point is that there IS a logic to it.
You are right that in the fed's case, the faith is misplaced. You are wrong in saying that there is logic to it. Modern America relies very heavily on our ability to launch cruise missile or air strikes against targets anywhere in the world, on very short notice. Our millitary is centered around the force projection capability of our supercarriers.

Does that mean we negelect having an army?

The Federation is faced with numerous foes, all of which have force projection capability. These forces are likely interested in Federation worlds. They would, if they had the chance, launch invasions of those worlds.

The Federation navy is hardly all-powerful. They do not have enough power, enough reaction time, and enough numbers to provide an unbreakable defense of the Federation worlds.

Therefore, Im the event of all-out war, Federation worlds would have to be able to hold out an enemy invasion. We know that this is possible- after all, the Bajorans kept up guerilla resistance against the Cardassians for a long period of time.

Therefore, any sensible government would have a trained army with which to defend it's worlds, or capture world from it's enemies.

Can you explain to me how exactly what you said is different from what I said? The USA has an army for defense because it isn't stupid. The Fed IS stupid. Misplaced faith (which you agreed with me on) = stupidity.

Read my post again!

Worlds Spanner wrote:You're right, but you can see that if one put absolute faith in one's navy one could justify not having ground forces.

In the Feds case the faith is misplaced, but my point is that there IS a logic to it.

Notice the phrase "absolute faith."

If the USA could put ABSOLUTE FAITH in it's force projection to defend it AND never wanted to attack (which doesn't fit George II's policies but would fit the Federation's) it would indeed have no reason to have an army.

Presto, logic!

This is all moot since the Fed. Navy is anything but absolutely reliable, but it IS logical.

mauldooku · Post by **mauldooku** » 2003-05-11 12:57am

How/when would it be logical to put absolute faith in the navy?

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2003-05-11 01:08am

Notice the phrase "absolute faith."

My grasp of english is quite thorough, thank you.

If the USA could put ABSOLUTE FAITH in it's force projection to defend it AND never wanted to attack (which doesn't fit George II's policies but would fit the Federation's) it would indeed have no reason to have an army.

Absolutly not. There are two purposes for ground troops:

1. To take ground.
2. To hold ground.

The Federation doesn't try to invade worlds, true. But they DO try to defend worlds. They need troops to accomplish this.

The Federation's navy is incapable of providing complete protection to all the Federation member worlds. We see in DS9 that it is possible to launch attacks as deep into Federation space as at Earth herself. The Federation's tacticians KNOW that their navy can not possibly stop attacks from hitting Federation worlds. We see the Borg torch a few colonies at the edge of Federation space, without seeing the Borg having to fight defending spacecraft. It is obvious that the Federation does not picket every world it owns. If they saw their navy as a defense, they would have it our there, defending their planets.

There is no way the Federation could think of their navy as the be all and end all of defenses- It has proven not to be so many times.

If the USA could put ABSOLUTE FAITH in it's force projection to defend it AND never wanted to attack (which doesn't fit George II's policies but would fit the Federation's) it would indeed have no reason to have an army.

The USA CAN'T put absolute faith in it's force projection to defend it. The idea is ridiculous. Even New Zealand has a modern, expensive army, and they are far more insular than the US.

Neither is it logical for the Federation, a bloated collection of distant worlds, to place absolute faith in their navy. The Navy is a force projection tool, not a defensive one.

Besides, the Federation is not so pacifistic as you would like to think. The Federation makes a practice of "claiming" large swaths of space for itself, and then asserting control later. Don't tell me that every race they consume in such a fashion is as pacifistic as the So'Na were. They must need soldiers to keep the "uncivilized natives" down on the Federation's colonial holdings. The lack of such forces is particularly nonsensical.

Darth Negation · Post by **Darth Negation** » 2003-05-11 01:57am

There is no way the Federation could think of their navy as the be all and end all of defenses- It has proven not to be so many times.

Even though beaten repeatedly, they still hold faith in their ships. Illogical, yes, but most likely true. Who said that the federation was logical?

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2003-05-11 11:28am

Even though beaten repeatedly, they still hold faith in their ships. Illogical, yes, but most likely true. Who said that the federation was logical?

Worlds Spanner, that's who.

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2003-05-11 11:36am

Thirdfain wrote:
Notice the phrase "absolute faith."
My grasp of english is quite thorough, thank you.

If the USA could put ABSOLUTE FAITH in it's force projection to defend it AND never wanted to attack (which doesn't fit George II's policies but would fit the Federation's) it would indeed have no reason to have an army.
Absolutly not. There are two purposes for ground troops:

1. To take ground.
2. To hold ground.

The Federation doesn't try to invade worlds, true. But they DO try to defend worlds. They need troops to accomplish this.

The Federation's navy is incapable of providing complete protection to all the Federation member worlds. We see in DS9 that it is possible to launch attacks as deep into Federation space as at Earth herself. The Federation's tacticians KNOW that their navy can not possibly stop attacks from hitting Federation worlds. We see the Borg torch a few colonies at the edge of Federation space, without seeing the Borg having to fight defending spacecraft. It is obvious that the Federation does not picket every world it owns. If they saw their navy as a defense, they would have it our there, defending their planets.

There is no way the Federation could think of their navy as the be all and end all of defenses- It has proven not to be so many times.

If the USA could put ABSOLUTE FAITH in it's force projection to defend it AND never wanted to attack (which doesn't fit George II's policies but would fit the Federation's) it would indeed have no reason to have an army.
The USA CAN'T put absolute faith in it's force projection to defend it. The idea is ridiculous. Even New Zealand has a modern, expensive army, and they are far more insular than the US.

Neither is it logical for the Federation, a bloated collection of distant worlds, to place absolute faith in their navy. The Navy is a force projection tool, not a defensive one.

Besides, the Federation is not so pacifistic as you would like to think. The Federation makes a practice of "claiming" large swaths of space for itself, and then asserting control later. Don't tell me that every race they consume in such a fashion is as pacifistic as the So'Na were. They must need soldiers to keep the "uncivilized natives" down on the Federation's colonial holdings. The lack of such forces is particularly nonsensical.

Quite right. I said that it would be logical to not have an army if one could put absolute faith in one's navy.

I'm contending that in fact the Feddies are logical, just delusional.

It's the only way to explain there not being a ground force of any real impact.

If they know they need a ground force, where is it?

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2003-05-11 11:49am

Quite right. I said that it would be logical to not have an army if one could put absolute faith in one's navy.

I'm contending that in fact the Feddies are logical, just delusional.

It's the only way to explain there not being a ground force of any real impact.

If they know they need a ground force, where is it?

They must be keeping their ground force in the same place they keep their reactors which don't explode, their ship designs which aren't retarded, and their economic model which isn't communist.