Star Trek and Naval Protocol; Accurate Or Not?

[Covertwalrus]

 OK, I confess I'm not of a naval background, and have most of my military experience second-hand from the army, and a British-based one at that. Nevertheless, I thought I had some grasp of naval procedure and protocol until this week (And yes, those who know me know I declare a ceasefire at this time of year on social media, leaving all the negativity behind; Seems like 2020 is going to test me on THAT as well, but just here ) , when during a discussion on the Star Trek: TOS episode "The Doomsday Machine" I made the error of claiming that the drama on the bridge when Kirk is on the wreck of the "Constellation" and Admiral Decker has taken command of the "Enterprise", Spock's actions and Kirk's reactions are within naval protocol and all the better for it.

 However.

 Another commentator, after laughing at me for "Not spending any time on a ship" informed me that it was all wrong; That a ranking officer simply couldn't commandeer a ship when the Captain was absent and unable to return, that a second officer couldn't summarily disobey a superior officer who had delivered an illegal order, nor attempt to relieve them of duty without the co-operation of others, nor could anyone be permitted to give orders without a prior medical examination to determine competency.
 While I can concede the last applies, given how the admiral was in a state of exhaustion and mental distress over the total loss of his ship's complement, I have my doubts about the others given my knowledge of standard military practice. Plus which, given how the episode "Obsession" has been praised for the accuracy of the scene in which Spock and McCoy approach Kirk to relieve him of duty when they suspect his judgement is impaired, in much the same way as Spock does in Decker's case, I fail to see the difference.

 Anyone care to put me on the right course, as it were, here? Am I in error, or is the episode a bit out of line in regard to the rules?

[Easy E]

Well, I have no idea. 

However, I will say this.  It doesn't matter what happens in any Navy in the world today or yesterday.  The question in my mind is what we saw on the screen internally consistent with how Starfleet does it elsewhere on the screen? 

I am not a Trek expert, but you portrayed an in-universe example that mirrored the approach used.  That has more weight to me than what happens in any Navy today.

Just my useless thoughts.

[Ruckdog]

Anyone care to put me on the right course, as it were, here? Am I in error, or is the episode a bit out of line in regard to the rules?

Well, the way the command interaction played out in The Doomsday Machine is certainly not something you would ever see with regards to USN practice. However, the USN would also never see something like the planet killer, so  who knows!

The big issues that we see with Decker taking command in the Doomsday Machine from my perspective are:

1. He is not formally assigned to take command of Enterprise by a higher authority.

2. While he out-ranks Kirk, that does not necessarily confer any actual authority over Kirk or the Enterprise crew. Unless the Enterprise is assigned as part of a force that he is in command of, he has no more right to tell the ship and crew what to do than one of the ship's cats. That is to say, he is simply not in their chain of command, and can't just insert himself into it.

Now, as I alluded to in the first sentence, some of this might be easily explained by assuming that there are Starfleet regulations that govern such situations, which makes since in that Starfleet is an interstellar organization where ships operate independently for months or years at a time, and can easily find themselves out of communication with higher headquarters.

However, its also obvious that Starfleet, for whatever else it is, is not a suicide pact, and that its only proper for competent individuals (like Spock and McCoy) to step up when a commanding officer is clearly impaired or acting erratically.

Oh, and I found the statement about "illegal orders" odd...at USNA we were taught that if we receive an order that we know to be illegal, it was our duty NOT to obey it. In our ethics class, we had a whole segment on how at the Potsdam warcrime trials the excuse of "I was just following orders" was no defense at all.

[Covertwalrus]

Now, as I alluded to in the first sentence, some of this might be easily explained by assuming that there are Starfleet regulations that govern such situations, which makes since in that Starfleet is an interstellar organization where ships operate independently for months or years at a time, and can easily find themselves out of communication with higher headquarters.

 Not sure whether this was alluded to, but it would explain much if Starfleet had some standing order regarding the highest ranking officer in a given Solar System/sector of space out of immediate contact with Command, or even a Starbase. It would make sense after all.

Oh, and I found the statement about "illegal orders" odd...at USNA we were taught that if we receive an order that we know to be illegal, it was our duty NOT to obey it. In our ethics class, we had a whole segment on how at the Potsdam warcrime trials the excuse of "I was just following orders" was no defense at all.

 That's certainly my understanding of military ethics, though I point out frequently that its still a more than adequate excuse for some shocking behaviour by civilians in business.

[Easy E]

Oh, and I found the statement about "illegal orders" odd...at USNA we were taught that if we receive an order that we know to be illegal, it was our duty NOT to obey it. In our ethics class, we had a whole segment on how at the Potsdam warcrime trials the excuse of "I was just following orders" was no defense at all.

 That's certainly my understanding of military ethics, though I point out frequently that its still a more than adequate excuse for some shocking behaviour by civilians in business.
[/quote]

The even funnier part, as an Executive you get similar training around "Just following orders" is no defense at all in business.  However, higher ups always have the option to try and hide behind "Fiduciary Responsibility" and "not really knowing" what the organization they are in charge of is actually doing.  Something lower level folks can not do internally or externally for some reason?  However, that is a tangent.

Perhaps the Star Trek RPGs that have been made at various times and places would have some more detailed information about Star Fleet regulations and such?  RPGs tend to go deep in the minutia at times.   

[Ulric the Grey]

1. He is not formally assigned to take command of Enterprise by a higher authority.

2. While he out-ranks Kirk, that does not necessarily confer any actual authority over Kirk or the Enterprise crew. Unless the Enterprise is assigned as part of a force that he is in command of, he has no more right to tell the ship and crew what to do than one of the ship's cats. That is to say, he is simply not in their chain of command, and can't just insert himself into it.

Hey Andy, If an admiral did do something like that, could that be a Courts Martial offense, or more of bad Fo Pa and several frowned upon getting you the title of USN commanding Admiral of naval base north pole?

[Ruckdog]

Hey Andy, If an admiral did do something like that, could that be a Courts Martial offense, or more of bad Fo Pa and several frowned upon getting you the title of USN commanding Admiral of naval base north pole?

Good question; I think that a courts martial would very likely be the result, as the offending admiral would essentially be committing insubordination against the other admiral or admirals that are in the proper chain of command. If found guilty, they would never be in command of anything again! At best, they would be drummed out of the service and into retirement; at worst, they might have some brig time waiting for them.