[HN Gopher] Why I'm in the Army Reserve - an explainer for my fr...
___________________________________________________________________
Why I'm in the Army Reserve - an explainer for my friends in tech
Author : chrisseaton
Score : 331 points
Date : 2022-04-04 14:15 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (chrisseaton.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (chrisseaton.com)
| alexashka wrote:
| Meh.
|
| There are people willing to go kill strangers when someone tells
| them to.
|
| That's what they are.
|
| What I am, is someone who understands that without people like
| that, we would have world peace.
|
| Now if your desire is so great, that it is more important than
| world peace, fair enough. If maybe it isn't, think on it, will
| ya? :)
| mcguire wrote:
| " _This is 'mission command' and violating it and micromanaging
| my Yeomen is a real taboo._ "
|
| In 1912, a guy by the name of Frank Schofield gave a lecture to
| the US Naval War College that was later published as a booklet
| called _The Estimate of the Situation._ (This was later blown all
| out of proportion, but I think the original is the clearest.)
| (http://edocs.nps.edu/dodpubs/topic/general/est-sit_1912.pdf)
|
| It's a very good way of setting up a mission command-style order:
|
| 1. Here's my understanding of the situation.
|
| 2. Here's what we need to do.
|
| 3. Here's the difficulties preventing us.
|
| 4. Here's the assets we have.
|
| 5. And therefore this is what I want done. (The person getting
| the order gets to go through a similar process to figure out how
| to do it.)
| PoignardAzur wrote:
| The author is... very nonchalant about the ethical aspect of his
| calling.
|
| From the sanitized language (the "destroys the enemy through
| mounted close combat" euphemism kind of glosses over the killing
| part of said combat), to the almost smug dismissal of pacifists,
| I'm seeing a lot of rhetoric being put into deflecting the
| criticisms of the military without actually addressing them.
|
| Like... the author mentions the Peterloo Massacre, the Boer War,
| and the Iraq War, and completely blows past them, and then goes
| on to explain how good the military is at building character and
| stuff. And I have no doubt it's true, but somehow I don't think
| Iraqis were especially thrilled to know the foreign troops
| occupying their country were from socially and economically
| diverse backgrounds.
|
| Speaking as someone who supports my own country's government,
| mostly supports my country's military involvement abroad, and
| would enroll (hopefully) without hesitation if our territory were
| invaded, I've considered taking military-related jobs in the
| future, and I still might.
|
| But if I did, it would be because I decided the positive outcomes
| of France's military interventions outweighs the negatives;
| which, given our past exactions, and the current state of Lybia,
| is... not at all obvious. My moral calculus certainly wouldn't be
| "on the one hand we're destabilizing poorer countries for cheap
| oil, but on the other hand the army sure pushes me out of my
| comfort zone and that's great".
| adewinter wrote:
| This article was about the author's reasons for joining the
| military, not sure why you expect it to also be about the
| detailed history of a particular unit or the general ethics of
| being a modern soldier?
| knd775 wrote:
| I'm not addressing the rest of your post, but pacifism is
| absurd and pacifists should be dismissed. Pacifism allows those
| who are not pacifist to impose their will on others.
| jwithington wrote:
| Thanks, this is really great. I'm in the US Navy reserves and
| it's fun comparing the similarities of our experiences.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Thanks - some of the comments here that say we should literally
| unilaterally disarm just absolutely blow my mind. Can't
| understand how they think that works in practice.
| dogman144 wrote:
| The DoD could certainly use some technical help, and the
| leadership from ex (or current reserve/national guard aka "R/NG")
| officers and NCOs in tech jobs benefits the tech industry.
|
| The issue is this - the American military Reserve/NG is not very
| truthful, in my experience, with the time commitments. The
| marketing slogan is "a weekend a month, two weeks a summer" of
| time commitment, or something to that effect.
|
| In reality, as a National Guard member you'll see commonly see
| month-long "activations" to go supplement active duty military
| training in Louisiana in February. You'll see 9 month deployments
| as R/NG are in fact part of the military and will deploy, and
| you'll go over there with a fraction of the training, funding and
| equipment but the same mission requirements as the funded,
| trained, and equipped active duty unit you replaced. This is
| somewhat akin to a FAANG hiring a suite of contractors and
| subbing them in to take over Google Search for a quarter or two.
| When your R/NG Soldier has domestic issues, you as the R/NG are
| on the hook to go help them quite literally. The list goes on...
| All for pretty bad pay, so-so healthcare, and a civilian employer
| who starts having an aneurism about the lack of managed
| expectations from you as it's not a weekend a month and some
| summer vacation time.
|
| To bring this back to tech - the situation above is very well
| known, and it coincides with the military's efforts to heavily
| ramp up its technical expertise via "software factories,"
| civilian corps, direct-commissions into elevated ranks at higher
| pay if you're a technical SME like the military does with
| civilian doctors, and reserve units focusing on cyber or software
| development.
|
| Unless the military is able to fix that above, which anyone who
| has spent a shred of time in active duty military can confirm
| exists in one form or the other, the upside-down logic of R/NG
| service will keep good technical hires out... unless they really
| need the healthcare. The talented ex-military who go into tech
| stay out of R/NG efforts because of this, as serving actively
| would damage their career.
|
| I hope it is different in the UK!
|
| Edit - I will put a hopeful ending to this: the PLA's (CN mil)
| hackers go to "work" in an officer tower in a city, wearing
| civilian clothes, and (at the risk of speculation I don't enough
| about probably) work a 9-5 or if they're up late, it's for a
| mission. I say this with some background in the US version of ex-
| mil in tech: the moment the DoD and Federal agencies enable its
| technical hires to go to work in NY, Seattle, or SF in a fiber-
| equipped office building (or really just not rural West
| Virginia/North Carolina/Alabama/Mass), can meet at least 60% of
| private sector pay with some tax benefits perhaps, and gets sane
| about past civilian marijuana use re: getting a security
| clearance, they will have more technical patriots signing up than
| they can handle processing. It's really just this simple. The FBI
| was trying to hire talented CS students out of college with a
| great opportunity to go work in their brand new facility for tech
| that they built in.... Huntsville, Alabama.
| akamia wrote:
| This is spot on. I had a coworker who was in the reserves and
| the commitment was significantly more than what they say in the
| brochures. He was often gone for weeks at a time. This made it
| really difficult for him to progress because he was never able
| to start AND finish any major projects. Our manager really
| tried to support him but going through a promo process without
| any good examples of execution is nearly impossible.
|
| Even raises and bonuses were tough because our company's policy
| in these circumstances was to default their rating to "meets
| expectations". The company didn't want to penalize people for
| their service but it also meant he usually didn't get anything
| above the average rating. Middle of the road salary adjustments
| and bonuses. Not bad but not great.
| dogman144 wrote:
| Ya, it's a real organizational management and national
| service tragedy.
|
| So much of the technical modernization is getting pushed
| towards the R/NG units, and you can just see how that will go
| short/mid term. This is paired with a common refrain from
| vets in tech that the pay and lifestyle is great but the work
| is pretty empty, so they'd look to do something else. But,
| they also know the meaningless silliness they'd sign up for
| by going back into the R/NG, let alone active duty. So, they
| land in defense contractors or SV startups doing defense
| tech, and straddle a middle ground that's not much better.
| The good ones won't go to the big defense contractors either.
|
| Therefore, given that the recruitment target is a populace
| that has lived fairly simple lives in duty stations around
| the US, are happy earning something over $100k and calling it
| a day, and have pretty firm moral views on the importance and
| value of service the inability to capture this population
| back into public service due to the lack of any form of sane
| incentives is maddening to watch. Even discussing the pay is
| hard - the general populace and their representatives in
| congress (I say this reading OPEDs via them, although it is
| def anecdotal) can't believe that $70k is too low pay for an
| engineer to leave private sector. I'll stop this rant here,
| but my dream is someone in power finally starts understanding
| it's only (1) pay, (2) work geography matching modern tech
| centers, (3) drug policies from the 1950's keeping the talent
| out in aggregate.
| Upgrayyed_U wrote:
| Thank you for posting this. I'm a USAF vet and former reservist
| and guardsmen. Most of the rest of the comments here are FUD,
| but this one actually captures one of the biggest challenges of
| balancing military service with a developing career.
|
| Here's the actual reality on the ground, from someone who's
| been in and around the military for ~ 20 years:
|
| - A surprisingly high percentage of military personnel share
| views that would fit right in with the HN crowd. They are
| largely anti-war and anti-interventionists but continue to
| serve for a variety of other reasons. What you see on TV and
| TikTok is often a gross mischaracterization of who military
| people are and what they think.
|
| - The military is an amazing escalator for the poor and lower
| middle-class. I know plenty of folks who started out as junior
| airmen making less than $25k a year in their early 20s who are
| solidly upper-middle class/rich millionaires in their 40s. Sure
| tech affords you the same opportunities these days, but that
| wasn't necessarily the case when the folks were getting started
| 20 years ago.
|
| - As a rule, you generally have a lot of freedom when deciding
| which assignments to take as a reservist or guardsman, at least
| on the Air Force side. There are usually more volunteers for
| missions than their are slots available for people to go into.
| From my understanding, this is much less true on the Army side,
| where they will often deploy an entire unit on a mission.
| Anyone assigned to the unit most go, with few exceptions.
|
| - The benefits are generally better than what the HN crowd are
| representing here. It's pretty easy to get a 4-year degree from
| a good (and occasionally great) school with little or no out-
| of-pocket expenses. You can also buy a house up to $650,000 in
| most areas (with adjustments for even higher cost-of-living
| areas) with $0 down and no PMI payment.
|
| You've captured most of the downsides here. But for me, the
| biggest downside was that the military (at least during the
| time I served) has an extremely poor record of properly
| recognizing talent within its ranks. I worked with a lot of
| folks who could and often did land cushy jobs in SV. But back
| in their military jobs, they often were tasked with menial jobs
| that failed to take advantage of their talents. Yes, there are
| leaders that can and do recognize talent in their ranks. And
| the Air Force isn't nearly as hierarchical and directive as
| folks here would have you think. But rank still matters. I left
| when the delta between my "rank" in my civilian career and my
| military rank became to big to bear.
| dugmartin wrote:
| Just a small aside, Huntsville, AL seems to make perfect sense
| to me to build a new facility. It has a huge built in base as
| it supposedly already has one of the highest concentration of
| STEM majors in the USA and the cost of living is 55% lower than
| SF (https://www.nerdwallet.com/cost-of-living-
| calculator/compare...). If you are going to make government
| wages your dollar will go a lot farther there.
| dogman144 wrote:
| It has the highest concentration of STEM majors because the
| govt keeps building and recruiting there. And I would add
| that I agree yes - robotics labs in high school, etc. Very
| solid STEM.
|
| Issue is recruiting people outside the govt network. The
| exceptions prove the rule, but it is a very hard sell to get
| people from Big Tech who aren't Eric Schmidt or the newest CS
| grads from MIT to move to these places. Tell me the 23 year
| old who all things equal to include a comparable salary will
| choose rural AL over SF?
|
| As a result, it perpetrates the issue of insular govt
| technical hires that heavily orient around weapon systems and
| similar, and are out of step with the new practices, which
| means less talent comes in and then dicy implementations like
| PlatformOne are the result.
|
| If you want govt tech to be continually dictated by the
| clowncar of govt contracting and general DoD grift, then
| Huntsville makes perfect sense as you say. Space Force is
| HQ'd in rural AL for similar reasons.
|
| There is a reason why Kessel Run (USAF) is in Boston, Army
| Futures is in Austin, and smaller elite units have outposts
| in SV.
|
| Edit - and fwiw, the fact that the defense tech startups out
| of SV can hire those 23 y/o or ex-Google types without a lot
| of issue is a good indicator to track.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| That's great and I'd love to defend my country.
|
| I don't care about doing missions somewhere else in the world
| though. War is mostly killing random people just because
| politicians decided so and it would be impossible if stealing
| money from people through taxes wouldn't be so widespread, easy
| and accepted. The cost of war is always socialised and it's huge.
|
| I think the ideal way to defend society is to teach everyone how
| to fight, allow people to own guns and have a small army branch
| to do monitoring / deploy army leaders to assemble people when
| the enemy is approaching and organise local combat. There are
| tons of things to consider (think about airborne / naval defense)
| but that's something we can figure out, without having to steal
| profits for people and funnelling in war machines that are rarely
| used for defense. I'd be happy to chip in money to make sure we
| have anti-air weapons to fight the neighbouring country fighter
| jets, in case they invade us.
|
| Instead what's happening is that the government spend my money,
| buy weapons and then give them to the Taliban, another country or
| use them to go and kill people in the middle east - without me
| having any say on the topic. The top-down approach of the army
| and its reliance on corrupted governments makes it so that
| soldier are, most of the times, just an armed gun for the mafia
| you call government.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| There's a difference between being willing to die defending
| your country, and willing to kill to defend yourself. That's
| critical to understand. Until then, I suggest sticking to
| paintball.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| Before joining the military you should at least watch _Winter
| Soldier_ [1] and _Why We Fight_ [3].
|
| Also, you should know that _" Since 9/11, Military Suicides Are 4
| Times Higher Than Deaths In War Operations"_.[3]
|
| All things that military recruiters aren't keen to focus on.
|
| [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzMeQGw4Bfs
|
| [2] - https://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Fight-Gore-
| Vidal/dp/B088PVZHCV...
|
| [3] - https://www.npr.org/2021/06/24/1009846329/military-
| suicides-...
| [deleted]
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| My son was Army Reserve (US), did a tour in Iraq back in the day.
| He reported that Reservists didn't get the respect of regular
| Army, at least in his unit. They got shot at, shot back, did
| convoy duty, got blown up (twice). But somehow not 'real
| soldiers'. His unit got no commendations or promotions from the
| regular army base commander.
|
| He returned, still had enlistment period left, went straight to
| the Army Recruiting office and signed up regular. Went well after
| that - at least the career part. He eventually got a medical
| discharge for his accumulated injuries. At the time was at Ft
| Benning, driver for the Sgt. Major of that base, a Sgt. himself.
|
| Got a Mechanical Engineering degree from state college, GI Bill,
| and is marrying a doctor. So all's well that ends well.
| cassepipe wrote:
| So he almost died in the unlawful invasion of a foreign country
| but his complaint is the he did not get a medal or a promotion
| ?
| jacquesm wrote:
| I don't think he had a say in that.
| pram wrote:
| As someone who did convoy and "force protection" (sitting in a
| guard tower) in OIF/OEF I don't think this is a reserve
| specific thing. It was just kind of a shit-tier job they got
| random people to do from all over (I was in the Air Force)
|
| When I got back to my base literally no one cared or seemingly
| even noticed I had been gone for months lol
| scruple wrote:
| The treatment of reservists, in OIF specifically, across the
| board -- from active duty service members all the way up the
| chain to top military leadership and the GWB admin -- was
| disgraceful. I saw a little bit of it first hand when I was
| enlisted. FWIW, they're all real soldiers in my eyes.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| In Marine Infantry School we would have regular brawls with
| the future weekend warriors it was quite funny.
| sennight wrote:
| It was well deserved in my experience. Toward the end of my
| deployment, statistically the most dangerous period due to
| complacency setting in, we had to take over an AO that the
| Army had given to reservists for a year. They'd been
| reporting for months that all was quite, so we were looking
| forward to an uneventful weeklong left-seat/right-seat
| transition. They no joke met us going the other way as our
| convoy moved into the old British airfield they were using as
| a FOB, and we soon found out why they were so desperate to
| put distance between us and themselves: everything that could
| be wrong was wrong. Total indian country, their patrol routes
| got tighter and tighter as they'd just never return to an
| area they got attacked, they hadn't left the FOB for a month.
| Piles of unmarked UXO, serialized weapons hidden in elephant
| grass... a total nightmare. The first few days we got a lot
| of direct fire engagement on patrol, which NEVER happened -
| but the locals quickly figured out that, unlike Army
| reservists, infantry Marines take that sort of thing
| personally - and they fell back to the familiar coordinated
| IED attacks.
| scruple wrote:
| In fairness, I can really only speak to the first couple of
| years of OIF. I separated in January of 2006.
|
| My larger point would be that the function of reservists
| and National Guardsmen changed dramatically with OEF/OIF,
| that the mobilization in reserve and guard forces was
| unprecedented over the last 20 years.
| sennight wrote:
| heh, this was in 2005. But I agree with you about the
| role of the reserve being changed, though I'd
| characterize it as less "changed" and more "abused". My
| contract ended soon after yours... er, my active duty
| contract - they don't really make it clear during the
| recruiting process that there is a commitment to four
| more years of "inactive reserve" involved. I got
| involuntarily recalled twice, didn't bother re-enrolling
| in college after the second retread - and gave up trying
| to get reimbursed for the GI Bill failing to handle a
| problem of the DoD's own making.
| giantg2 wrote:
| The odd part of that is that many of the reservists were
| active duty, including combat veterans, and then moved into
| reserves. So it's not like they haven't seen stuff.
| doodlebugging wrote:
| >What is the Yeomanry anyway?
|
| >In 1797 the Kingdom of Great Britain feared an invasion by the
| French. You may think of the British as always having a large
| standing Army, but it was relatively small at the start of the
| Napoleonic era. To give a better chance of defending the nation
| against invasion, volunteer units of part-time soldiers were
| formed to serve only within Great Britain. Infantry were easy to
| form as they just needed weapons and other basic equipment, but
| cavalry posed a problem in that it needed trained horses. A way
| to get these was to borrow them from local farmers and country
| estates.
|
| As an American I interpret this to mean that the British took to
| heart a lesson learned from their recent experience in the
| American Revolution. I am reminded of this particular amendment
| to the US Constitution which was ratified by the US states in
| late 1791, a few years before the establishment of the Yeomanry.
|
| >Amendment II
|
| >A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
| free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
| not be infringed.
|
| Codifying this amendment in the Bill of Rights is the cornerstone
| for guaranteeing that trained individuals could be available to
| the United States should an external threat to the security of
| the new country arise.
|
| This amendment has obviously become a trigger and a political
| dividing line here in the US. It's a shame. It is the one
| amendment of all of them that guarantees that a random collection
| of individual citizens drawn from any random locality can be
| quickly made ready to serve their country as an effective
| fighting force if called upon to serve.
|
| Perhaps it is seen as too outdated, too permissive, etc. though
| in fact it is short and sweet defining the important desired
| outcome - (A well regulated militia,) the reasoning behind the
| need for that outcome - (being necessary to the security of a
| free state,) the specific right granted - (the right of the
| people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.)
|
| It would have been awesome if they had laid out the
| responsibilities of the citizenry who exercise this right and the
| types of arms permissible for a citizen to keep and bear. I'm
| sure we can figure it all out in time. I'm not holding my breath
| though and you shouldn't either.
| emmelaich wrote:
| I thought the meaning of the 2nd amendment is now _not_ solely
| understood as _needing_ a well regulated militia. It is
| presented as an example of the benefit. So a modern sentence
| would be something like
|
| _The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
| infringed. For example, it is required if a well-regulated
| militia is to be assembled._
|
| Thus disconnecting the "well-regulated militia" idea as the
| sole justification.
| doodlebugging wrote:
| No disrespect intended at all in my response. I know it is a
| divisive issue.
|
| Looking at the history though you would want to be a
| revisionist historian if you were to be phrasing it in that
| manner.
|
| It was a contentious issue even back then. I have described
| why it reads as it does as it is important to understand that
| in reality, those who drafted the amendment went through
| multiple revisions before arriving at the final version
| precisely because each state had reservations about the level
| of power that should be given to individual citizens. They
| based their reservations on their own experiences dealing
| with threats on the frontier and with their experiences
| raising, training, and incorporating citizens into a force
| capable of defeating a well trained army during the American
| Revolution.
|
| They tried to use what they had learned looking back, and
| craft an amendment that would help preserve the nation's
| ability to look ahead to a more prosperous future as an
| independent nation capable of defending itself from the
| threats they knew about or could expect at the time.
|
| Like all the other amendments, the text in this one was a
| compromise between those who were charged with codifying
| standards for the new nation that all could agree upon.
| emmelaich wrote:
| You probably know a lot more about it than me. I'm not even
| from the USA.
|
| I was using the DC v Heller 2008 case and various
| commentaries on that.
| frankfrankfrank wrote:
| stangles1 wrote:
| I question the relevance of your point to this article, which
| speaks exclusively of the British Army Reserve, specifically
| the Cheshire Yeomanry.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| The british army also invaded iraq.
| _tomasz wrote:
| These are all valid points everything you said resonates with me.
|
| I was in the US Navy myself and have been out for 11 years during
| which time I've finished a Bachelors (thanks GI Bill), will be
| finishing a Masters here shortly (also in CS), and have been in
| tech the entire time. While the pay is great and intellectually
| fulfilling, a part of me certainly misses having contact with a
| broader cross-section of society and of doing things that give
| you purpose.
|
| I've been considering returning to a National Guard unit
| especially as I was born under Soviet occupation and the current
| events of the world highlight the growing threat of certain
| nations deciding to invade Eastern Europe.
| schraeds wrote:
| A nation with a GDP smaller than California and a lot of wound
| licking to do from their most recent foray just to keep things
| in perspective.
| agapon wrote:
| And a lot of hate, and a lot of paranoia, and a lot
| chauvinism / imperialism, and lot of history of invading
| countries just because they can.
| jwithington wrote:
| Join the Navy reserves like me and find a unit that supports
| Sixth Fleet (Europe)! No need to go green (national guard).
| _tomasz wrote:
| hah, tempting but if I went back to the Navy reserves I'd try
| to go to dive school, but I'm well past the age for the Navy.
| For the Army and Air Force their max age is 39 waiverable so
| I have some time there though I'm too old to go pilot :(
| throwawayafsp wrote:
| Your reasons for missing service and considering returning ring
| very true with me.
|
| As someone who's been in tech for a decade now, the biggest
| obstacle to me is the 1-2 years of training and how that would
| affect my career and family. It seems harder for mid-career
| adults to enlist/commission once you're already in a career and
| trying to advance...
| marssaxman wrote:
| I am struck by the author's expansive comfort in the use of "we"
| to describe their military organization, even in the context of
| historical events. I have never felt such a strong identification
| with any organization I was actively participating in, much less
| with its existence before my involvement. I wonder what accounts
| for this.
| Animats wrote:
| Being in the reserves in a NATO country today means a good chance
| of being sent to reinforce the borders of NATO against an
| expansionist Russia.
| [deleted]
| photochemsyn wrote:
| The most important thing to realize about military service is
| that you sign away all your citizenship rights (free speech,
| etc.) when you sign up for the service. Hopefully you won't be
| used in ridiculous debacles like the 2003 Iraq Invasion, based on
| lies about WMDs pushed by Washington (and see British role as
| well), but you'll have no say in the matter.
|
| The other thing to realize is that, at least in the USA, they'll
| do everything they can to deny you medical benefits for injuries
| suffered in basic training, and this will persist after you get
| out, i.e. Veteran's Administration health care is pretty poor by
| all accounts. You can't just trust the system to look out for
| your interests in this area.
|
| In addition, the 'educational assistance' is barely enough for a
| two-year vocational training program, certainly nowhere near
| enough for a full four-year college degree. It's better than
| nothing, certainly, but the advertising and the reality have a
| big disconnect.
|
| If you're a teenage with zero alternative options and are
| completely desperate for a way out of an urban slum nightmare or
| a poverty-stricken rural life, the military is there as an
| option. I was once in a similar situation but I rejected military
| service because I'd heard too many Vietnam vets tell horror
| stories about how they'd been treated by the military. It wasn't
| much better for those who had to serve more recently in
| Afghanistan and Iraq, for equivalently dubious reasons.
| mcguire wrote:
| https://www.military.com/education/gi-bill/new-post-911-gi-b...
|
| " _The GI Bill can pay up to the full resident tuition at any
| public school, if you are qualified to receive benefits at the
| 100% rate based on your active service shown above. If you are
| attending a private or foreign school, the VA will pay you an
| annual maximum of $26,042.81, that amount increases to
| $26,381.37 on Aug. 1, 2022._ "
| sokoloff wrote:
| There are limits to your ability to take leadership roles in
| political parties and to make political statements while in
| uniform or where there could be reasonable confusion about
| whether your activity is as a private citizen or as a member of
| the military.
|
| That is a far cry from "sign[ing] away all your citizenship
| rights (free speech, etc.)."
| totoglazer wrote:
| There are currently serving members of congress...
| starwind wrote:
| > they'll do everything they can to deny you medical benefits
| for injuries suffered in basic training
|
| I know of a guy who got run over by a speeding MP during Basic
| and had his leg broken in like 3 places. The guy who got run
| over got a medical discharge, and now gets a full pension and
| Tricare
| mcguire wrote:
| Every vet I know about has some disability payments. (Part of
| that may speak to a lack of safety culture, but they don't
| fight too hard to prevent anyone from getting them.)
| dawsmik wrote:
| I think there is some incorrect information in this post. I
| know people who have completed their Bachelors and Masters
| completely funded by the GI Bill, including living expenses.
|
| In the experience of the people I know, the VA goes out of
| their way to give benefits as needed. One case, in particular,
| they were granted 100% disability for life with a packet
| submission and one phone call.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| The details matter. A lot of people sign up for a two-year
| active duty contract (it's an eight-year contract in all
| though, you're in the reserves afterwards). That only gives
| 70-80% of the benefit (which only runs for a max of 36
| months, not a full four years). You're also restricted to in-
| state public schools, no private (Ivy League etc.) or out-of-
| home-state schools. Most of the military people I talked to
| at my local community college barely got two years of
| schooling out of it.
|
| https://www.va.gov/resources/how-we-determine-your-
| percentag...
| dlp211 wrote:
| As others have noted, a lot of what you wrote is wrong. The
| Post 9/11 GI Bill will cover any tuition up to the maximum
| in-state university. You also do not have to return your
| Home of Record and can declare citizenship in any state
| post service and receive in-state tuition (you will of
| course need to meet the states requirement for
| citizenship).
|
| Also, many universities (private and public out-of-state)
| have the Yellow Ribbon program that will cover gaps between
| what the government provides and the university's costs.
|
| Finally, the Post 9/11 GI Bill also provides BAH based on
| your universities location which can be quite substantial.
|
| I used the Post 9/11 GI Bill to get my degrees in CS and
| ECE. If I was single, the money from the program would have
| more than covered me.
| bladegash wrote:
| Yep, same here - GI bill + yellow ribbon paid for me to
| go to a very expensive private university in DC. Also
| gave me an additional $2500 a month in BAH while I
| attended.
| LanceH wrote:
| The GI Bill is not at all limited to in state public
| schools.
| nightski wrote:
| The link you posted says 100% of benefits which is either
| all tuition at an in-state school or up to $26k/year at a
| private of foreign school. $26k a year is a lot...
|
| You also get 100% of the benefit if you served for 36
| months. That is a far cry from what you described.
| ericmay wrote:
| Yep! I had my entire undergraduate degree and my MBA (for a
| couple of semesters) paid for. While I'm undergrad I also got
| BAH which was around $1,000/month in Southeast Ohio. Not to
| mention full Pell Grants. I used every cent of my GI Bill.
| scottshamus wrote:
| Agreed. Even if your GI bill doesn't technically cover all of
| your expenses, many schools have Yellow Ribbon Programs that
| waive any excess cost
|
| https://www.va.gov/education/about-gi-bill-
| benefits/post-9-1...
| jriot wrote:
| I served in the military for 11 years as an air traffic
| controller; 95% military jobs are non-combat related. Moreover,
| the military does more than fight wars, we launched aircraft to
| aid Indonesia after the tsunami hit them, Haiti after the
| earthquake hit them, Antartica for scientific research, etc...
| Additionally, the military completely paid for my bachelors and
| two masters degrees and I am now employed as a data scientist
| for a cyber-security company. I still have GI Bill benefits if
| I want to pursue further eduction.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I got my humanitarian ribbon by rendering assistance in
| Indonesia.
| Tacos4me wrote:
| There is so much misinformation in this post is appalling.
| Plenty of responses have pointed out some but I will just say
| this: I know several people that have received masters degrees
| while serving
| soared wrote:
| Thank you for the post. I had friends in college who were
| previously marines, but their entire school was paid for along
| with something to the effect of "Anything you need to achieve
| the career you want, within reason". New laptops, writing
| easels, etc.
|
| Are there varying levels of educational assistance?
| LanceH wrote:
| There are varying levels of accuracy in his post.
|
| For the GI Bill, I put in $1200 ($100/month for the first
| year), and I while enrolled at an accredited university I was
| paid $400/month. I could use that however I wanted. Early
| 90's, that didn't come close to paying for much, but it was
| certainly something.
|
| I was in the Marines, however. The Army, Navy and Air Force
| had matching funds and paid a lot more (like triple). This
| may have all changed or become consolidated.
|
| I've also been through the VA for something and it's very
| much a government bureaucracy. If you have things documented
| it will run smoother, and it may run slow at times, but there
| is certainly no policy of denying everything.
|
| The poster above just has an axe to grind and isn't concerned
| with reality.
| brandmeyer wrote:
| It changed a ton. Over the late 90's (ie, in my day) the
| per-month payments were increased up to a little over 1k.
| The Post-9/11 GI Bill is structured very differently and is
| far more generous: Tuition + BAH. There's a ton of fine
| print around the tuition part, but in practice it really
| does fully cover tuition just about everywhere in the US.
| trackone wrote:
| My experience is a bit old (2008 ish) so things might have
| changes.
|
| I had the GI Bill. I submitted paper work each month that
| showed I was taking a certain number of credits towards my
| degree to the VA dept at the school. Money was deposited into
| my bank account a couple weeks later. I could use that money
| for anything I wanted. Sounds like this is what your friends
| had/have.
|
| There are other programs such as paying off student loans
| when you join up, but I am not familiar with them.
| ge96 wrote:
| > If you're a teenage with zero alternative options and are
| completely desperate for a way out of an urban slum nightmare
| or a poverty-stricken rural life, the military is there as an
| option.
|
| yeah... I was in DEP for Marines felt like an ahole when I
| didn't follow through/returned to school. I was desperate to
| escape my life situation but I had to wait a while before going
| to bootcamp. I made a dumb choice with what I was going to do,
| despite getting 90's in ASVAB. I was going to drive trucks. I
| felt bad for the people that wanted to get into the military
| but could not pass the ASVAB or they had a medical condition.
| My education was funded with student loans/aid but I was able
| to leave my home.
|
| Edit: in retrospect if I didn't go into school (debt) I could
| have just lived off labor jobs... It was the piling up debt
| from school that was freaking me out because I was also failing
| out of it (low 2.0's GPA). Idk if I would have ended up in
| tech/make the 3-4x labor wage (medium-level dev).
| dogman144 wrote:
| UCMJ is pretty clear re: the free speech angle and all points
| in that direction. UCMJ != the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
| Always blows my mind when people complain about this aspect.
| mcguire wrote:
| The last I heard, there was a US destroyer undeployable
| because the Captain refused to get vaccinated and (so far)
| has successfully sued to prevent his being transferred to
| another position.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| > at least in the USA, they'll do everything they can to deny
| you medical benefits for injuries suffered in basic training
|
| Explain this please. Are you a veteran? I am and this doesn't
| correspond with my experience.
| RobRivera wrote:
| uhm, having been active duty for 10 years...i disagree.
| qgin wrote:
| https://news.gallup.com/poll/186527/americans-government-hea...
|
| > Americans' satisfaction with the way the healthcare system
| works for them varies by the type of insurance they have.
| Satisfaction is highest among those with veterans or military
| health insurance...
| Fomite wrote:
| https://www.rand.org/news/press/2018/04/26.html
|
| RAND found that the VA typically also provides higher quality
| care.
| scottlamb wrote:
| > Americans' satisfaction with the way the healthcare system
| works for them varies by the type of insurance they have.
| Satisfaction is highest among those with veterans or military
| health insurance...
|
| Sounds about right to me. The VA health care system has
| problems [1] but on the whole doesn't seem worse than the
| rest of the US healthcare system, maybe better.
|
| Anecdote: when my dad retired, my parents lost their
| insurance through his work, and my mom wasn't eligible for
| Medicare yet. They looked around at individual insurance
| options, which were horrible. My mom ended up using her VA
| benefits and was very glad to have them. The VA has treated
| my parents quite well, although the VA doesn't seem used to
| having a lot of female patients my mom's age.
|
| [1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/veterans-affairs-
| backlog...
| sdoering wrote:
| Wow. I am always stunned reading accounts like this.
|
| I can't imagine living in a country where you loose health
| care when loosing a job or going into retirement.
|
| I have to admit reading posts like yours makes me realize
| how lucky I feel with the German system.
|
| And yes. I am well aware of the monthly costs that brings
| in terms of around 14% of my salary for health insurance.
| And of the limitations.
|
| But to me this still sounds better than the risk of loosing
| everything due to an accident.
|
| I am glad your parents found a way with your mom's
| benefits.
| scottlamb wrote:
| It's a terrible system, and it was more terrible before
| Obamacare.
|
| In general when someone retires they're old enough to be
| eligible for Medicare (government-sponsored health care).
| My dad was. But my mom was just enough younger that _she_
| wasn 't eligible for Medicare when _he_ retired. There
| were (and still are) all kinds of weird gaps like this.
| aksss wrote:
| Obamacare created new gaps that absolutely sucked - made
| over 58k and self employed? No subsidies for you and
| paying a skyrocketing premium higher than any reasonable
| home mortgage with a 10k deductible. Completely
| unrealistic. And then the IRS hit you for thousands in
| penalties via the individual mandate.
|
| I lived through that, uninsured, for five years or so as
| a business owner - to "rich" to get subsidies, too poor
| to afford 20k+ per year for nothing except a theoretical
| out-of-pocket max (I say theoretical because there are
| many exceptions, loopholes, and the annual reset). Being
| hammered by the IRS for this was.. just.. swell.
|
| So for me Obamacare sucked because it made the cost of
| individual market plans completely unaffordable and then
| taxed me for not being able to afford it. As a business
| owner responsible for employing others, it seemed
| especially ridiculous because here was a strong
| disincentive for me to continue on, which would mean a
| negative ripple effect beyond just me, i.e. layoffs, if I
| shuttered the operation.
|
| Once the individual mandate went away, and some new
| options for employer cost sharing like QSEHRA/ICHRA came
| about, it has gotten a bit more manageable, but most
| small business owners I know still struggle with
| healthcare. Cost sharing programs like CHM are about the
| only workable alternative but they don't offer the kind
| of bankruptcy protection a solid insurance premium would
| cover, and they are religious by nature. Alternatively,
| DNR and a term life insurance policy.
|
| Best option is to be married, have spouse work for the
| man to get into corporate group plan for family, while
| you grow your business enough to sustain an insurance
| scheme.
|
| But it sucks out there on the individual market - the raw
| actuarial numbers to insure you are bad - and subsidies
| disappear quickly with any amount of AGI. Since the vast
| majority of Americans are on employer-paid healthcare
| plans, this is a view into it that most don't see. The
| cynical side of me (as a small business owner) says this
| is by design to keep you working for corporate America -
| consolidation of labor, consolidation of the profits. For
| me, Obamacare further entrenched this aspect of the
| system, which has become more terrible, not less.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > and subsidies disappear quickly with any amount of AGI.
|
| This has not been true for 2021 and is not true for 2022.
|
| Your payments for health insurance are limited by a cap
| that is hard to explain, but basically, you should not be
| paying more than 8.5% of your AGI for the 2nd most
| expensive silver plan in your state.
|
| I (self-employed) have an AGI in the mid-100k range, and
| these subsidies more or less reduced my wife and my
| insurance payments by half.
|
| This system still sucks - we are paying private
| corporations, via government subsidy, for their
| overpriced goods and services. But from a numerical
| perspective, it's much closer to being inline with most
| of the rest of the industrialized world: 8-14% of income
| for health insurance that covers most stuff.
|
| And in all likelihood, Congress will not renew it at the
| end of this year.
| sdoering wrote:
| I see how this sucks for you.
|
| Just out of curiosity I calculated roughly the cost in
| Germany. If you were self employed and made 5.000 EUR a
| month your health insurance would be somewhat around 900
| EUR per month. Partly tax deductible if I am not
| mistaken.
|
| So quite a bit of money. But probably manageable for
| many/most people.
|
| I am lucky. As I only do freelance work on the side I am
| insured via what I pay from my main income. So no
| additional costs for me as long as I don't make more on
| the side than in my main job.
| scottlamb wrote:
| That's horrible, my sympathy. Personally, I think
| Obamacare fixed more than it broke, even immediately. In
| particular, it was a huge relief to get rid of the
| possibility you could be permanently uninsurable after
| even a tiny gap if you have a "pre-existing condition".
|
| I wanted Medicare for everyone (still do), but
| politics...and lies about "government death panels"...
| mcguire wrote:
| " _Obamacare created new gaps that absolutely sucked -
| made over 58k and self employed? No subsidies for you and
| paying a skyrocketing premium higher than any reasonable
| home mortgage with a 10k deductible. Completely
| unrealistic. And then the IRS hit you for thousands in
| penalties via the individual mandate._ "
|
| I am currently paying $800/mo for a "silver" plan in a
| state that did not accept the extended Medicare. No, I
| don't get subsidies. I believe my deducible is roughly
| $2000, although I don't know because all of my costs have
| been covered, including the trip to the emergency room
| after I wacked myself in the eye. (The out-of-pocket
| limit for 2022 is $8700 for an individual.
| (https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/out-of-pocket-
| maximum-li...))
|
| Before the ACA, individual market plans were cheaper
| (although for the first couple of years they were
| comparable), but did not cover asthma (as a "pre-existing
| condition). Hello, $750 daily inhalers.
| qgin wrote:
| For what it's worth, currently you can get a mid-tier
| Obamacare / ACA health insurance plan for no more than
| 8.5% of your income. It's a big jump to have a new
| expense of 8.5% for sure, but we do have that option now.
| mcguire wrote:
| Does that subsidy depend on what state you live in?
| AFAICT, it doesn't apply here in scenic Alabama.
| mywittyname wrote:
| TRICARE is great. The VA: not so much.
| goodpoint wrote:
| > you sign away all your citizenship rights
|
| > completely desperate ... the military is there as an option
|
| This does not happen by accident. It's practically indentured
| servitude with extra steps
|
| Step 1: cut public schooling, food programs, job programs,
| affordable housing, public transportation, free healthcare
|
| Step 2: fund the army to recruit a lot of people. Provide
| schooling, housing, food and healthcare to soldiers.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| False.
|
| The US spends a lot on public education. A lot of it is
| inefficient due to highly politicized unions and top-level
| admins that pilfer the money out from benefitting ground
| level teachers and students.
|
| https://www.manhattan-institute.org/issues-2020-us-public-
| sc...
|
| > 1. Thanks to decades of increases, America spends more per
| student than any other major developed nation. U.S. per-pupil
| expenditures have nearly tripled over the past half-century,
| from $4,720 in 1966 to $13,847 in 2016 (2018 dollars).
| America spends more per pupil than any other major developed
| nation--10% more than the United Kingdom and 28% more than
| France; in the OECD, only Norway, Switzerland, and Luxembourg
| spend more. Per Pupil Nearly Highest in the
| World and in History
|
| The U.S. spends 35% more per pupil than the average among
| countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
| Development (OECD).[7] Among those countries, the U.S. falls
| behind only Denmark, Norway, and Luxembourg.[8] In 2015, the
| latest year for which OECD data are available, combined
| primary and secondary spending in the U.S. reached $12,800,
| significantly higher than other major European nations such
| as the United Kingdom ($11,400), Germany ($11,100), France
| ($10,000), Italy ($9,100), and Spain ($8,300).
|
| Similarly, we spend a lot on other social programs. But
| inefficiently.
|
| This is due to both governmental inefficieny and rent
| seeking.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| People are talking about post-secondary education here. You
| are quoting primary and secondary. Your numbers do not
| apply.
| shukantpal wrote:
| "Step 1: cut public schooling"
|
| False
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| 1. False.
|
| 2. Even then, my point stands. US is #2 in post secondary
| education (#1 is the tiny state of Luxembourg). US spends
| more than twice the OECD average.
|
| https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmd
|
| (See Figure 2)
|
| You are welcome!
|
| These are easily verifiable numbers.
| relaxing wrote:
| Comparing nationwide figures is misleading since there
| are huge disparities in funding between rich and poor
| school districts.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| > Comparing nationwide figures is misleading since there
| are huge disparities in funding between rich and poor
| school districts.
|
| We spend a lot. A lot gets wasted due to rent seekers in
| the govt and unions.
| relaxing wrote:
| So you admit the money does not reach those in need.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| So you admit we have increased funding.
| ylkjt2 wrote:
| Is there anything similar in US for non-citizens? I am an
| immigrant (H1B) and would love to serve regardless of pay or
| other incentives.
| dubbel wrote:
| Maybe a volunteer fire department, Search and Rescue Unit or
| another local civil protection organization?
|
| I'm volunteering at my local "Sea Rescue" station as a boat
| commander (not in the US). I feel like I'm getting similar
| things out of it, that are described in the article, namely
|
| - leadership experience
|
| - taking decisions under pressure
|
| - contact with many different groups of society
|
| - feeling like I'm doing something concrete to help my
| community
|
| Even though I am sure Chris is a great guy and who is
| absolutely doing this for the right reasons, he mentions a
| "daring raid across the desert in Libya to rescue captured
| sailors". When you read about the dash, it ended with the
| "captors attempted to run away but were gunned down by the
| enraged British rescuers. The prisoners attempted to stop the
| killings but failed." Sure, that was a long time ago, but the
| guy commanding this raid still seems to be a fondly remembered
| role model for the squadron. Not because of the above war crime
| I'm sure, but they are overlooked in favor of a "daring dash".
| That is one of the issues I have with the military.
| notch656a wrote:
| I believe French foreign Legion, YPG, and possibly the Georgian
| National Legion (operating in Ukraine) accept non-citizens,
| although none of these are in the US. There is at least one
| foreign legion protecting Yazidis that does as well.
| quantumwannabe wrote:
| If you have a green card you can enlist.
| https://www.uscis.gov/military/naturalization-through-milita...
| Jtsummers wrote:
| You need to be a permanent resident or citizen to join the US
| military. As an H1B visa holder you can apply for permanent
| residence, but you wouldn't be able to join the military until
| you have received that status.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| That's pretty close to being a mercenary.
| throw8383833jj wrote:
| It's commendable that he's explaining some things the average
| person probably doesn't understand. He also explains why a
| military is needed.
|
| In the US, I think a lot of people may have a negative opinion of
| the military/defense in general because in the last 20 years it's
| been used more offensively (at least the stuff covered in the
| media) than defensively.
| omaranto wrote:
| Are people that use the word "explainer" just unaware of the word
| "explanation"? Also, what do those people call someone who
| explains? "Explainerer"?
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| There are multiple dialects of English language and the author
| is definitely not from California.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| I hope that the recent moral turn against all military work in US
| big tech has abated now with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
| Gollapalli wrote:
| Great read.
| ZanyProgrammer wrote:
| > I spend about a hundred days a year of my spare-time in
| evenings, weekends, and holidays, training my Squadron.
|
| From an American perspective, as someone who was in our Army
| Reserve, that's an insane amount of time if you aren't a full
| time AGR. I guess he like's his big time Major pay and status,
| but if you're really dedicated to being a part time soldier, the
| higher you rise in rank the more you'll be expected to contribute
| in your own personal time.
| HL33tibCe7 wrote:
| > I guess he like's his big time Major pay
|
| I doubt pay is a factor for the author at all. A quick look
| (https://apply.army.mod.uk/what-we-offer/army-reserve/army-
| re...) reveals Majors in the reserves make PS135/day, which is
| frankly nothing compared to what the author would earn in his
| job at Shopify.
| ZanyProgrammer wrote:
| Well presumably he gets paid at the normal active duty rate
| when he's called up, or whatever the UK equivalent is.
| HL33tibCe7 wrote:
| http://www.armedforces.co.uk/armypayscales.php#.YksfMKTTXDs
| the salary for an actively-serving Major ranges from
| roughly PS55k-PS65k pa. The author is probably earning at
| least twice that at Shopify, if not considerably more.
| exdsq wrote:
| When you join the reserves you have to go through basic
| infantry training (you can't just go straight to Sandhurst
| like if you went into the regulars). You're paid PS40.13
| per day at the moment (I think I was paid something like
| PS30 a day when I went through it a decade ago). I don't
| think anyone goes in for the money - I've made a days
| training sat on the toilet after lunch at my last contract
| gig.
| jmyeet wrote:
| So one of the things I like about Tiktok is you get exposed to
| something you normally wouldn't and it can be fascinating. One
| example of this I had an Air Force recruiter pop up on my fyp.
| This is obviously US-centric (as opposed to the article, which is
| the UK) but here are some things I've learned:
|
| 1. The difference between Reserve and Guard? Reserve is Federal,
| Guard is State (this was news to me);
|
| 2. Signing up for the Guard or Reserve is typically a 6 year
| commitment;
|
| 3. Your commitment begins when you sign up but you can defer your
| enlistment for up to a year;
|
| 4. You can sign up having completed your junior year in high
| school and defer training until after you graduate (which I think
| you have to anyway) but that's 1 of your 6 years down already;
|
| 5. Reservists get tuition assistance of up to $9,000/year;
|
| 6. Assuming a 4 year college degree and early enlistment, you can
| graudate with 5 years of your 6 year commitment done;
|
| 7. For one weekend a month and 2 weeks a year, you typically get
| $250-300/month (plus active duty pay where appropriate);
|
| 8. You also get medical and dental insurance.
|
| As ridiculous as the US college system is in terms of cost, I'm
| happy things like this exist to at least give people more
| options. If you go to college, the above can amount to $50,000
| plus benefits over a 6 year period.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| This isn't a positive. It is a tragedy that these services
| (education, healthcare) are difficult to obtain without
| military service in a supposedly developed country.
| pxmpxm wrote:
| > "difficult to obtain without military service"
|
| This is factually incorrect - you literally can get $400k in
| education of your choosing at the tender age of 18, which is
| why we frequently discus articles revolving around student
| debt for degrees that don't pay anything. There isn't
| anything even remotely equivalent when it comes to money
| access of this sort (try getting a $400k mortgage with zero
| income and zero assets )
| saiya-jin wrote:
| You can get mortgage of 400k USD, what a great thing to get
| when entering 18... Sorry guys but this is so fucked up
| from European point of view. And that poor people are
| pushed to enlist to kill innocent folks half around the
| globe just to be able to study is yet another level of
| fuckery.
|
| But at least you guys get some semi-decent medical
| insurance to live like a human being. For which we also
| don't need to pay (or very little bulk sum with hard
| ceiling). Something about basic human rights, future of our
| race and all.
| pxmpxm wrote:
| European here as well; I suspect you misunderstood:
| Getting college loans in the US is absolutely trivial and
| the amount of money you can have access to is objectively
| preposterous. Any notion that the only way to get access
| to education is by joining the military is patently
| wrong.
|
| > "we also don't need to pay"
|
| You certainly are paying, sir.
| DamnYuppie wrote:
| Last time I checked most the best human rights had to be
| fought for and defended at some point. Stop taking for
| granted what was paid for in blood by your predecessors
| and being all sanctimonious about what are "basic human
| rights" it makes you sound like a spoiled child.
|
| Your healthcare isn't a human right, is is a benefit you
| collectively decided to pay for. Others can make
| different decisions.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > It is a tragedy that these services (education, healthcare)
| are difficult to obtain without military service in a
| supposedly developed country.
|
| Don't be silly. Education is not difficult to obtain without
| military service.
| barbazoo wrote:
| It's nuts that some people have to consider joining the
| military to be able to pay for tuition and/or to get health
| care. I have nothing to contribute other than expressing how
| soul crushing this seems for someone outside the US.
| letitbeirie wrote:
| > This isn't a positive
|
| It's a silver lining. It's shameful that the need exists at
| all, but it's definitely a positive for the people who are
| getting _mostly_ screwed by the status quo but would
| otherwise be getting _completely_ screwed.
| dogman144 wrote:
| I'd argue it's a positive in that its the only route out
| currently for people born in certain zip codes, such that
| with 2 years in active duty, your whole life trajectory can
| change (free college, "honorable military service" stamp on
| your resume, so on - I'll spare the recruiting pitch). The
| local high schools aren't doing it, the government isn't
| doing it, but the military will. But...
|
| The tragedy is that this is the only route available for
| people born in certain zipcodes. The dynamic of needing to
| volunteer to discernibly bump up the odds of your own
| gruesome death in order to get the only decent fair deal on
| succeeding in the civilian world is everything that is wrong
| with the US at the moment.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| How can you call something a positive and then immediately
| call it a tragedy? that's not a positive at all!
| bitxbitxbitcoin wrote:
| It is positive on a micro level (that the opportunity
| exists) but a tragedy on the macro level (that that is
| the only opportunity that exists).
| dogman144 wrote:
| I will never view military service as a bad thing in
| totality. Locally evaluated, it's a good option. Putting
| aside the more heady concepts of public service and
| sacrifice, it is one of the last remaining conduits to
| change your stars and "make a man/woman/adult out of
| you," *although it is certainly not without faults and
| has certainly caused horrible experiences for people who
| served*. It is an imperfect organization that does its
| core mission well (fight and win wars), and it does its
| best beyond that. I know this can spark a lot of debate
| and "what about X" discussions, and I won't participate
| in those if they show up so I apologize in advance.
|
| The tragedy is that it's the only option to change one's
| stars for a lot of folks and this dynamic is present
| across the entire country - poor rural south, poor urban,
| poor rust belt. High schools and governments, local or
| otherwise, are failing these kids, and the military is
| the only semi-competent entity available to help. That's
| not a dynamic we want.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| As the son of a son of a father who wouldn't have gone to
| college without WWII-era tuition assistance, can confirm
| it changes entire family trajectories.
|
| My grandfather had the work ethic and intelligence in
| him, subsequently proven, but was born dirt poor with a
| snowball's chance in hell he could have afforded college
| without the GI Bill.
|
| The military is an option which largely accepts you if
| you say "Yes" and can pass a basic intelligence test.
| Those are the only requirements. Not your family name.
| Not your family wealth. Not (now) your race or gender or
| sexual orientation.
|
| And in trade for that, they open up benefits that change
| lives.
|
| It certainly shouldn't be the _only_ option, but that it
| is _an_ option is better than not existing.
| briffle wrote:
| Same thing here. My grandfather was excited when his dad
| found some pallets 'that fell off the back of a truck' so
| they could have a floor for the tent they lived in
| outside Portland, and not see the rats. (funny when
| people in PDX complain about the homeless problem, my
| grandpa was in those cities in the 30's and 40s)
|
| GI bill put him into college, and set him up with an
| eductation that setup my mom and her 6 siblings with a
| 'normal' middle class life. Not too shabby for a man that
| literally grew up dirt poor.
| dogman144 wrote:
| I knew a Soldier with a 32 ACT (yes, I double checked as
| that's a great score) from East St Louis. Guidance
| counselors and everything else failed them, so they
| joined the mil.
|
| How that kid (making an adult's decision by joining)
| wasn't scooped up by basically anyone other than their
| local recruiter blew my mind. If you spend some time
| around the military jobs that require smarts, these
| stories are very common. The non-high test score jobs
| tend to be staffed by very solid and smart people who
| just didn't have many other options at the time.
|
| Soldiers from enlisted to General can and often are
| idiots and by glorifying them one risks the same risk as
| glorifying a professional athlete or any other symbol,
| but in aggregate the above story is common.
| jasonladuke0311 wrote:
| I was kind of like that. 30 ACT, barely graduated high
| school, joined the Marine Corps and chose infantry.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| It's rare that survivorship bias gets to be used quite so
| literally.
|
| Nearly 300,000 families also had their trajectories
| changed because their loved ones died.
|
| The military as a class on-ramp disproportionately harms
| the poor, and ethically that's wrong. It's almost
| literally a lottery where you're gambling your life in
| exchange for basic needs.
| dogman144 wrote:
| Is that wrong-ness the responsibility of the military, or
| that of our govt/"society" not bothering to offer
| anything else as capable?
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| It's the responsibility of the government and by
| extension, the military. I suppose you could blame
| society at-large because we elect our representatives,
| but the majority of Americans already support single-
| payer healthcare and free or reduced college tuition.
|
| It's disturbing to me that it's normal to concentrate
| efforts on recruiting poor teenagers to fight wars. The
| focus on the poor also has the effect of
| disproportionately impacting minorities.
|
| Even if you survive, over the past decade hundreds of
| thousands of veterans have ended up with PTSD and even
| then they're left to fight for proper treatment under the
| VA. The VA has been failing veterans for _decades_ and in
| some cases causes additional harm, including using
| experimental and ineffective treatment for covid while
| under their care
| (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7276049/).
| nradov wrote:
| Americans may claim that they support healthcare or
| education reform in the abstract, but they don't actually
| vote that way. Most people aren't willing to voluntarily
| pay higher taxes or cut other programs in order to
| actually implement those policies.
|
| I'd like the government to give me all sorts of stuff for
| free as long as someone else is paying.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| We're all _already paying for it_ through health
| insurance companies, who are siphoning off huge profits.
|
| Unless you're living off-grid the government already
| gives you mountains of "free" stuff paid for by taxes!
| dogman144 wrote:
| Guess I'm unclear what policy you think the military
| could do. Not recruit?
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| Specifically abandon recruiting methods that target the
| poor would be a start.
| jmyeet wrote:
| > Nearly 300,000 families also had their trajectories
| changed because their loved ones died.
|
| What are you referring to here? 300,000 is a specific
| number and you qualify it with "because their loved ones
| died". Let's assume you're talking about active military
| deaths, which are less than 100,000 since 1945 [1], the
| vast majority of which is Vietnam and Korea.
|
| Up until the Vietnam War, the draft was a significant
| factor. That's not really a factor because you have no
| control over it.
|
| You'll also note that my comment was specifically about
| the Air Force Guard and Reserve. Your chances of getting
| deployed to a war zone and dying are incredibly low and
| so many roles aren't active combat anyway. Unlike active
| service you enlist ofr a particular job. If you sign up
| to do logistics in Ohio. your risks are pretty low.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military
| _casualt...
| nradov wrote:
| The military mostly recruits from the middle class now.
| Unfortunately, poor people often can't meet the
| eligibility requirements due to medical problems
| (especially obesity), poor fitness, criminal record,
| history of drug use, lack of a high school diploma, or
| low test scores. Of course there are exceptions but
| relatively few. The modern military is pretty selective
| in whom they take.
|
| Many years ago my uncle got in minor trouble with the law
| as a young man. The judge gave him a choice: join the
| Navy or go to jail. The Navy worked out pretty well for
| him, but today he probably wouldn't even have that option
| to get his life back on track.
| uoaei wrote:
| > Locally evaluated, it's a good option.
|
| Locally evaluated, it's a _rational_ option. But I think
| you 're going to lose a lot of people by framing it as
| "good". Rational decisions are not always good ones, and
| vice versa.
| lkbm wrote:
| Do you think homeless shelters and food stamps are a
| positive? It's clearly a tragedy that we need them, but
| I'd say they are very clearly a positive.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| I don't think gambling with your life is a requirement to
| get on food stamps though?
| [deleted]
| abduhl wrote:
| You're just complaining. The world exists as it does now and
| broad generalized complaints like yours are often used to
| support positions which actively harm those you purport to
| help.
|
| Say we take away the military on-ramp to class mobility. What
| can we do for those trapped in poverty whose only ticket out
| was enlistment? Your answer should be focused on what we can
| practically do as the world stands now, not in your fictional
| utopia where militaries aren't necessary and education is
| free. The military is offering "good" and you're looking for
| "perfect." We all know the saying.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Things don't get better if you don't complain. All of my
| siblings have come back from military service (marines,
| army rangers, navy) worse off, and the benefits in no way
| compensate them for what they lost. I recommend it to no
| one. The best military service is the service you did not
| perform. The VA is notorious for being terrible. The US has
| non profits for wounded/disabled veterans because care and
| support (most importantly around mental health) the
| government should be providing isn't. Since 2001, more than
| 114,000 veterans have died by suicide [1] [2]. Over 40,000
| veterans are homeless on any given night [1]. This is a
| pipeline problem; stop putting people into the pipeline.
|
| I max out my contributions to progressives, similar PACs,
| and canvass door to door at every election I can for those
| who champion for these public goods (healthcare, education)
| to be universal. I'm doing my part to sway anyone I can
| from putting themselves through a grinder for services they
| should be entitled to without military service. Yes, the
| world sucks current state, and yes, I agree whole heartedly
| that complaining is not enough.
|
| [1] https://stopsoldiersuicide.org/vet-stats ("Veterans are
| at 50% higher risk of suicide than their peers who have not
| served." ; "Depending on branch, up to 31% of service
| members develop PTSD after returning from combat." ; "The
| rate of suicide for veterans in the LGBTQ+ community is up
| to 7x higher than for non-LGBTQ+ veterans." ; "More than
| 40% of female veterans report experiencing military sexual
| harassment or military sexual trauma.")
|
| [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/22/us/911-suicide-rate-
| veter... ("Suicides among post-9/11 veterans are four times
| as high as combat deaths, a new study finds.")
| abduhl wrote:
| The military is no picnic and it's no savior. It's not
| billed as a day spa and the people who join up are
| without question taken advantage of. It's hard on many
| families, including mine and yours apparently. Support
| isn't there once you're out. Support probably isn't there
| while you're in either.
|
| But there's nowhere else to go for someone stuck in the
| cycle of poverty. They don't have money. They go to one
| of the few places that still recognizes that cash isn't
| the only currency the young have to give and offer their
| bodies and lives. If you're just as likely to get shot in
| the streets of Chicago as overseas, well you might as
| well get your tuition paid for.
|
| The groups you support (progressives, similar PACs,
| politicians) have recently started telling the world
| about how poverty is systemic and how useless poor
| people's actions are in the face of such a fucked up
| system, so how can you sit here and tell me that these
| people need to find a new way to pull themselves up by
| their own bootstraps while taking away their army issued
| boots?
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| > The groups you support (progressives, similar PACs,
| politicians) have recently started telling the world
| about how poverty is systemic and how useless their
| actions are in the face of such a fucked up system, so
| how can you sit here and tell me that these people need
| to find a way to pull themselves by their own bootstraps
| while taking away their army issued boots?
|
| Much easier to get out of poverty with universal
| healthcare and subsidized education versus going to the
| sandbox and coming back with PTSD just to get your GI
| Bill and Tricare. Don't tell me it isn't affordable, the
| productivity and wealth demonstrably exists. The system
| chooses cannon fodder over plowshares. It is _very easy_
| to sit here and tell you this with every other OECD
| country providing models to crib off of.
| abduhl wrote:
| Establish the other pipeline out of poverty then come
| after the military. Or, alternatively, establish the
| other pipeline and let the government compete for young
| people. Don't just try to fuck poor people by taking
| their options away and then promising that a different
| option is "coming."
| dntrkv wrote:
| > Much easier to get out of poverty with universal
| healthcare and subsidized education
|
| Isn't that the case though? Medicaid provides great
| healthcare for those in the lower income brackets (my
| family used it for the majority of my childhood years)
| and most colleges are basically free (community college
| and some state schools will actually pay you).
|
| I don't think the ability to pay for education or
| healthcare is really the reason for poverty here.
| dogman144 wrote:
| Sounds like your siblings had tough deployments or unit
| issues, which is certainly a thing and the ugly side of
| the tradeoff of service.
|
| But, most of what you point out is a veteran issue, and I
| 100% agree, but that's not the military's fault, its the
| VA and the executive/legislative branch.
|
| Arguably no branch of the government is more invested in
| a strong veteran support network than the military
| itself, as the dynamic you point out is well known, and
| keeps people from service for probably good reasons.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| What are the services people should be entitled to and
| who should pay for it? I am just curious how this works.
| vkou wrote:
| We already pay for most of those services, it's just that
| right now, we often get to pay twice for them, in both
| the upfront dollar cost, and all the non-dollar suffering
| that untreated medical issues, chronic homelessness, and
| generational crime cause.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| I thought it is healthcare, education (enumerated) and
| maybe others. Now I am even more confused.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| > What can we do for those trapped in poverty whose only
| ticket out was enlistment?
|
| You just give them the fucking food, education, and
| healthcare. Look at the current US military budget and tell
| me that's impossible.
|
| The military is not offering "good" -- it's offering the
| roll of a dice. Sure, one side says "good" but you've got a
| "death" side too. Wealthy people do not have to roll this
| dice at all.
|
| The majority of our lives has featured a "war" almost
| entirely based on false pretenses. Thousands of soldiers
| died. Do you think their families were happy about having
| this on-ramp to class mobility?
|
| I had recruiters coming to my house and deriding my living
| conditions to get me to enlist _when I was 17_. It 's
| predatory, abhorrent, and not even remotely "good."
| trash001 wrote:
| > You just give them the fucking food, education, and
| healthcare. Look at the current US military budget and
| tell me that's impossible.
|
| It's impossible.
|
| Here is some analysis:
|
| https://hwfo.substack.com/p/peace-in-ukraine-and-
| universal-h...
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| This almost entirely ignores the phenomenon of insurance
| companies inflating healthcare costs and making
| incredibly large profits. Health insurance industry
| profits ($31bn in 2020) are almost equivalent to what
| your link says the entire military expenditure for the
| European theater is ($35bn in 2018).
|
| Not to mention the bureaucratic, political, and
| productivity costs _plus_ the costs to employers and what
| individuals pay out of pocket.
| trash001 wrote:
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >It's impossible.
|
| _Nothing_ is impossible. Well, except certain classes of
| time travel into the past.
| trash001 wrote:
| Cederfjard wrote:
| Higher education funded through government spending is not
| a utopia, it already exists in many places and would not be
| prohibitively expensive for the United States if there was
| a will.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| Try it first, then compare. I had free college, it was
| mostly a waste of time for everyone. It was not a bad
| college, it was the best in the country, the others were
| worse.
|
| In many cases you get what you pay for. In my case it was
| approximately zero. From what I hear from new hires, the
| quality these days it's worse, they are mostly diploma
| factories.
| [deleted]
| simulate-me wrote:
| Plenty of developed countries have compulsory military
| service (South Korea, Israel, Switzerland). If anything,
| we're lucky that it's a choice.
| barbazoo wrote:
| A quick search determined that at least in Switzerland and
| South Korea, there is an avenue for conscientious
| objection, so I wouldn't say that "military service" is
| mandatory there. Even in Israel there seem to be plenty of
| options to get around military service.
|
| I recommend the Wikipedia articles about "Conscription in
| <insert country here>".
| jltsiren wrote:
| There are four relevant categories:
|
| a) People conscripted to serve in the military.
|
| b) People who choose civilian service to avoid military
| service.
|
| c) Conscientious objectors who go to prison instead of
| serving.
|
| d) People who could be conscripted but somehow manage to
| avoid serving.
|
| From my Finnish perspective, "mandatory military service"
| means that the ratio (a + b + c) / d is high. Civilian
| service does not exist because the country wants to use
| slave labor instead of paid labor, but because it's
| socially more acceptable than imprisoning people who
| refuse to serve in the military.
| simulate-me wrote:
| In both South Korea and Switzerland you'd still be
| required to do civilian service in lieu of military
| service.
| barbazoo wrote:
| True, that wouldn't be "compulsory military service"
| though imo.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| It is compulsory, but with exceptions. Defining something
| by the outliers just messes with the language of things
| :)
| simulate-me wrote:
| "The exception that proves the rule"
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Is education difficult to obtain? America is the #6th most
| educated country in the world, when viewed from the
| perspective as percentage of population having at least some
| tertiary schooling:
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/30/the-10-most-educated-
| countri...
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SLOAS
|
| https://hbr.org/2019/09/what-will-it-take-to-solve-the-
| stude...
|
| https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Debt-Trap/Josh-
| Mi...
|
| https://www.npr.org/2022/04/01/1089750113/student-loan-
| debt-...
| oh_sigh wrote:
| People having a lot of student loan debt doesn't imply
| that education is hard to obtain. Having a low percentage
| of your population with tertiary degrees would show that.
| But that is not the case in the US.
| [deleted]
| brimble wrote:
| The US military is largely a blue-collar jobs program that
| lets you opt in to service in exchange for something
| resembling standard European social benefits (retirement,
| healthcare, housing, education). Which sucks for a bunch of
| reasons, including that some are excluded from eligibility,
| but it's what we've got. That's obviously not the _whole_
| reason we have a military, or even close to it, but it 's
| become a big part of its role in society.
|
| As far as I can tell, the closest we have to a white-collar
| jobs program is the health insurance industry and insurance-
| related jobs elsewhere. Keeping millions employed while being
| a drag on the rest of the economy.
| [deleted]
| jmyeet wrote:
| I really hate this kind of argument because it's an argument
| that springs from privilege and entitlement.
|
| We can sit around and say that education should be free and
| accessible and that would be nice but it's not the world we
| live in. The fact of the matter is that life isn't fair and
| some people get substantially better or worse starting hands.
|
| Yet you would seemingly rather remove opportunities from
| those with the fewest options because of how the government
| chooses to use the military.
|
| It's pretty easy to say that others with fewer options than
| you should make sacrifices that that are at best symbolic
| when it requires no such sacrifice from you.
|
| What are you doing to effect change? I guarantee you that
| influencing the government that sets policy is going to be a
| whole lot more effective than a few disadvantaged people
| sitting out a Reserve program where they might otherwise just
| be doing admin work.
| antattack wrote:
| Universal healthcare or free college education would lower
| Army recruitment for sure.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > I'm happy things like this exist to at least give people more
| options.
|
| Risking getting killed and having to kill people to pay for
| your education and being happy about it is up there in the list
| of "only in America"
| foldr wrote:
| >You also get medical and dental insurance.
|
| This reminds me of a point Michael Moore made in Sicko - that
| Americans are generally fine with government spending if it's
| directed at the military. As he put it, America could probably
| have a national health service as long as the doctors and
| nurses wore camo.
| dugmartin wrote:
| IIRC, Bill O'Reilly wrote about this idea while he was
| getting his MPA from Harvard. Create a universal national
| health service run by the Surgeon General where all the
| doctors wore military uniforms. This would radically reduce
| any big government scare messaging from financial
| conservatives.
| zdragnar wrote:
| It's a pretty lame point. We're fine with spending on members
| of the military because, at any point, they may have to put
| their lives on the line for the rest of us. National defense
| isn't something you can prepare for after you need it.
|
| There are valid arguments to be made for society banding
| together and providing health care for everyone. "but the
| military gets it" isn't one of them.
| ahtihn wrote:
| It's always funny to call it "defense" spending when so
| much of it goes to wars of aggression.
| foldr wrote:
| Still though, government-provided medical insurance is
| accepted as a perk in this context, where as in other
| contexts, many Americans express extreme skepticism about
| the concept.
| zdragnar wrote:
| In this context, the government is the employer. Why are
| you treating it like a different one?
| speed_spread wrote:
| "We'll fill those cavities (aka teeth terrorists) full of
| lead!"
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > As ridiculous as the US college system is in terms of cost,
| I'm happy things like this exist to at least give people more
| options.
|
| The only people I want in an army are those who have freely and
| independently chosen to join the army and who have been
| psychologically and physically checked to be fit for service.
| The motivation of a soldier should _exclusively_ be to serve
| their country, not financial or status (e.g. citizenship) gain.
|
| People who have "chosen" because they have no other perspective
| to rise in life later-on should they survive their service or
| because they were pressured to do so by their family or friends
| have no place in the armed forces.
|
| An army should strive for excellence - Putin's troops are the
| current showcase for entire generations to see what happens
| otherwise.
| yywwbbn wrote:
| ' The motivation of a soldier should exclusively be to serve
| their country, not financial or status (e.g. citizenship)
| gain.'
|
| No successful professional military has ever worked like
| this. Basically you want a an army comprised mainly of
| fanatical nationalists whose only purpose is to 'serve their
| country' (whatever that means). Hate it to break it to you
| but such a force would more closely resemble the Waffen SS,
| rather than the citizen militias of colonial America or
| ancient Greece. A modern professional military should mainly
| made up from balanced and educated professionals to be
| effective. People like this usually have other choices in
| life and thus need certain incentives to join. Not saying
| serving you country shouldn't be a part of it, but for most
| such people that alone is not enough.
|
| For that you either need to decrease the general size of the
| army dramatically or find other ways of 'motivating' new
| recruits to 'join'. The second options has not historically
| resulted in anything resembling ' excellence' outside of
| ultra-militaristic, jingoist societies.
| ksec wrote:
| >Most people have some big misunderstandings about what the Army
| is like, and some have a very negative reaction to the whole
| idea.
|
| " _Some_ " in Tech is likely an understatement. At least pre
| Ukrainian Russia War era.
|
| I wonder, if there are the anything from compiler optimisation
| that could be applied to running an Army and vice versa.
|
| The closest thing I got to the Army was CCF. Something I wish my
| kids could experience as well.
| jleyank wrote:
| A fair number of people in the US, probably in other countries
| with similar programs, use the military as a means of funding
| their education at the uni or post-uni level. The govt pays for
| them, and in return there is a multi-year commitment in some form
| of the military. It's a good deal for both sides, although the
| risks were pointed out big-time back when Desert Shield became
| Desert Storm and a whole lot of EMT...MD's disappeared from
| neighbourhoods and reappeared in the Middle East. Something about
| the King's Shilling.
| [deleted]
| chrisseaton wrote:
| In the UK you typically go to college (university in our
| terminology) before you join the Army, rather than after, but
| we do have bursaries to support some technical specialities if
| they commit to joining after they graduate. You can also do in-
| service degrees, up to PhD I believe.
| zip1234 wrote:
| In the US, all officers must be university grads. The
| enlisted ranks do not need a university degree to join. I
| would assume the same is true of enlisted ranks in the UK.
| digikazi wrote:
| Technically you don't need a degree to be an officer in the
| UK: you only need A Levels (finish high school) to go to
| Sandhurst and begin officer training. In reality however
| something like 98% of Sandhurst applicants are university
| graduates. I don't know the exact percentage of entrants
| who don't have a degree though, so don't quote me. It has
| been a while.
|
| P.s. as a famous example, I believe Prince Harry went to
| Sandhurst without going to university first.
| namelessoracle wrote:
| The American military is a social welfare program in many parts
| yes.
| hunterb123 wrote:
| It's not welfare, you put work in, it's a great route for
| many people. It set my entire family along their career
| paths.
|
| I wouldn't really recommend it while warhawks are in charge,
| but generally it's a nice route to take.
| bobkazamakis wrote:
| it's absolutely welfare. Just because you're working
| doesn't make it not a socialist policy for the benefit of
| those who join.
|
| You can have a jobs program that pays the civilians to dig
| the holes and the military to burn shit in them and fill
| them - just because they all now have jobs doesn't make it
| not welfare, and you've got 100% employment rate.
| hunterb123 wrote:
| In a sense federal jobs is socialistic I suppose, which
| is why you should want limited government.
|
| But you do need a military force in the country, and you
| should give people benefits for their sacrifice.
|
| It's not genuine to say military service is a welfare
| program, it's more of a jobs program.
| bobkazamakis wrote:
| > In a sense federal jobs is socialistic I suppose, which
| is why you should want limited government.
|
| Before one spends a trillion that could be going to the
| welfare of the citizens themselves, yeah probably.
|
| >But you do need a military force in the country
|
| Obviously, not sure why this is said here.
|
| >It's not genuine to say military service is a welfare
| program, it's more of a jobs program.
|
| It's not genuine to say it's a jobs program either - my
| healthcare money is being strapped to rockets and shipped
| across the ocean. Are those rockets filing taxes?
| hunterb123 wrote:
| > Before one spends a trillion that could be going to the
| welfare of the citizens themselves, yeah probably.
|
| So your suggested system would be to do away with the
| jobs and just give the taxpayer money away? That's much
| more socialist. You need to incentivize people or they
| won't work. If you do away with the military, you might
| as well not tax the people as much in the first place
| rather than taking their money and distributing it in a
| welfare program.
|
| > Obviously, not sure why this is said here.
|
| It was said because it wasn't clear what you were
| suggesting. If you're for keeping the military I'm all
| for lowering the industrial war complex, but I thought we
| were talking about military service and the benefits we
| give soldiers. Salaries make up a big part of military
| expense but those are jobs filled and livelihoods
| supported. It's the rockets and money we funnel into the
| middle east that could be cut, not GI bills.
|
| > It's not genuine to say it's a jobs program either - my
| healthcare money is being strapped to rockets and shipped
| across the ocean. Are those rockets filing taxes?
|
| That's fine, along as we agree that it's not genuine to
| say it's a welfare program. While I don't agree with a
| lot (or most) of our overseas ventures, especially Middle
| East or LATAM, you do need a force to protect freedoms.
| So I agree overall in the branches, just not the
| leadership, unless they are reducing our presence in
| places where they aren't needed.
| namelessoracle wrote:
| Many other social welfare programs require you to do X or Y
| to keep receiving benefits as well. From a societal level
| its absolutely used as a social welfare program to create
| opportunities for lower class individuals to advance. Thats
| even used as a part of their recruitment pitch! If you can
| handle the military service its well known that its a very
| easy way to make 6 figure salary is to join the military
| get a high clearance level and then go get a job that
| requires the clearance after you leave.
|
| Its also a social welfare program in the sense that its
| goal is to create jobs/employment/training more so than to
| accomplish its ostensible mission of winning wars. (see how
| aggressively states try to keep military bases nearby, and
| a little thing called the military industrial complex)
| hunterb123 wrote:
| Most social welfare programs have limitations as
| requirements, which has a negative effect. It keeps
| people content with the welfare because if they work they
| no longer qualify for it. A lot of the time the welfare
| will pay similar to a job so they won't bother with the
| slight increase.
|
| The military you put your 4 years in, you get your
| experience, and you earn your GI bill for further
| education (or you go into private security or whatever
| your job in the military was).
|
| I've known people who went into programming after doing
| it in the military. Chefs, airline pilots, IT analysts,
| etc.
|
| It's more of a jobs program than a welfare program.
| jleyank wrote:
| Officers = jobs, enlisted = welfare if you want a naive
| partitioning. Although high-ranking NCO's probably do
| quite well as they actually do/direct the work. Officers
| just look good :-).
| hunterb123 wrote:
| Welfare has a connotation that there's no work done for
| your pay, there's a lot of work done for it, and it's
| hard work.
|
| Btw noone likes officers due to their lack of work
| required / cushy status.
|
| Honestly that's the welfare of the military, giving out a
| sense of purpose and power to trust fund kids :p
| bob2222 wrote:
| systemvoltage wrote:
| > I meet a lot of people in tech who tell me with a straight face
| that they genuinely think we should just unilaterally disband the
| Army right now, and cannot comprehend why I'd have anything to do
| with it. At RubyConf 2014 someone in the lunch queue asked what I
| did before I was in tech and asked me if I enjoyed killing babies
| when I explained.
|
| I think Silicon Valley has a lot to learn from this. I worked
| with a defense contractor (one of the largest ones), designed
| parts in military airplanes and always found it uncomfortable to
| share this history of mine after moving to SV. What I did was so
| cool and always wanted to contrast it with software engineering
| (which is also cool sometimes but in a totally different way). I
| was met with tremendous guilt, disdain and unfair judgement of my
| character. The whole thing would flip after I explain to them
| that the airplanes I worked on were used for search and rescue
| recon. SV is myopic and politically fraught, sorry to say.
| adolph wrote:
| "a lot of people in tech . . . think we should just
| unilaterally disband"
|
| Not SV, but similarly myopic: https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-
| industry/dell-apple-should-cl...
| systemvoltage wrote:
| I'm not following, what's Dell vs Apple in 1997 has to do
| with disdain for working on Defense in SV?
|
| I want to clarify: there is still a massive spectrum from
| people working on Defense in SV and the types of engineers I
| interacted with (Googlers). What I find incredibly worrying
| is that the people that have disdain for Defense, it is sort
| of shallow and the main motive is to use it as a moral-
| superiority weapon against people that are on the receiving
| end. It's free points to score with their colleagues. This is
| truly despicable behavior and I've seen it first hand.
| Fortunately, I've always been able to avert the discussion
| and diffuse it before it gets worse.
|
| But it has left with me a sort of a chilling effect. Not
| being able to express one's history, however marred it is in
| the opinion of the listener. This was not the case in places
| I've lived (East coast). Anyhow this thread is a way for me
| to share my grievances, for those listening please be kind to
| people that may not share your political or philosophical
| background. They're not all baby killers.
| Imnimo wrote:
| >I think a country absolutely must be able to fight to defend its
| people and friends.
|
| Does this really feel like an accurate description of what the
| British military has done over the past, say, 20 years?
| hugh-avherald wrote:
| To be fair, a country that is able to defend its people is
| unlikely to actually ever need to. And the more able the
| country is, the less likely it will need to defend itself.
| simonh wrote:
| Yes it does. Was Afghanistan better off before the pull out, or
| now under the Taliban? Iraq is a mess, sure, but at least
| nobody is gassing whole cities and we can be immensely proud of
| the liberation of Kuwait although that was more than 20 years
| ago. Right now we are providing vital military assistance to
| Ukraine, and I wish we were doing a lot, lot more.
|
| The failures were political ones. Militarily the army did the
| job it was given efficiently, ethically and professionally. I'm
| not saying it's perfect by a long shot and in war mistakes
| often mean deaths, it should be held to account where
| necessary, but what organisation is flawless?
| basisword wrote:
| >> Was Afghanistan better off before the pull out, or now
| under the Taliban?
|
| Why is that the comparison? The comparison should be was
| Afghanistan better off before we invaded in the first place.
| And committed war crimes. And radicalised a tonne of people
| who then came into Europe to murder civilians. You'd have to
| do mental somersaults to justify the Iraq + Afghanistan wars
| and think they were the right choice.
| DonaldFisk wrote:
| Before the 2001 invasion, Afghanistan was ruled by the
| Taliban.
|
| Invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a different matter. At that
| point, Iraq didn't have WMD, and wasn't harbouring Al
| Qaeda, so the invasion was unjustified.
| simonh wrote:
| The 2003 invasion is obviously contentious. I'd argue we
| should have done it the first time, but that's moot.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| It's as contentious as the russian invasion of ukraine
| is. Meaning, not at all unless you fall for the obvious
| war justifying rhetoric.
|
| I dont know why but it seems like there's been such a
| weird push for rehabilitating what the US and it's allies
| did to the middle east since the start of the russian war
| of aggression against ukraine.
| simonh wrote:
| The situation in Iraq is tough but no, I don't think it's
| obvious to me it would be better off still under Saddam
| Hussein, or maybe by now one of his sons. If you wonder
| what a dynastic succession like that can look like, check
| out Syria, and the young Assad is a pusseycat compared to
| Uday or Qusay.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| There was no dynastic succession in syria, if anything
| the baathist regime shows how weirdly resilient it is
| even when faced with insane pressure. Keep in mind the
| iraqi baathist party was much more popular in iraq that
| assad is in syria. Also, no matter how violent a
| hypothetical baathist succession crisis would be, it
| would not have come close to what happened due to the
| invasion.
|
| If anything, the iraqi war was the reason the syrian
| civil war was so bloody. The al qaida elements in iraq
| overtook the grass root rebellion in syria, and ISIS
| would literally have not existed if Saddam was still in
| power. Same for the sectarian violence that will plague
| iraq for decades to come.
|
| Saddam absolutely deserved the rope, but that does not
| mean the US had any right to intervene because of that.
| Plus, the reason the US invaded had officially nothing to
| do with regime change. The "saving iraq from it's
| dictator" narrative only came after the WMD lies became
| evident.
| simonh wrote:
| > The "saving iraq from it's dictator" narrative only
| came after the WMD lies became evident.
|
| True, none of which can be laid at the feet of the
| British army. I'm no fan of Blair but I'm not sure to
| what extent he knew it was all flimflam either.
| simonh wrote:
| There was no shortage of radicals coming to Europe already.
| I think the lesson from all of our engagement and lack of
| it in the Middle East, and beyond, is you can't not be
| engaged. It will come and kick you in the arse whether you
| like it or not. For all the problems our interventions
| might have caused, our attempts to disengage have caused as
| many if not more problems.
|
| I suspect anyone who thinks our withdrawal from
| Afghanistan, and abandoning its people to their fate is the
| end of our problems in that direction is going to be sadly
| disappointed.
| throwaway743 wrote:
| > For all the problems our interventions might have
| caused
|
| Might have caused? US is heavily responsible for the
| current state of the Middle East. A lot of the issues
| stem from the coups in Syria and Iran which were
| orchestrated by the CIA. Nevermind the shit show there of
| the last 30 years.
| Aunche wrote:
| >Iraq is a mess, sure, but at least nobody is gassing whole
| cities
|
| We didn't invade Iraq because of Saddam's genocide. That
| occurred while Iraq was allied with the US against Iran. The
| sudden concern for the Kurds was simply to manufacture
| consent for the war.
| simonh wrote:
| That's a fair point, but the first gulf war was all about
| Kuwait.
| throwaway743 wrote:
| So it's okay that the US military is used as the world
| police?
|
| Neither the war in Afghanistan nor Iraq were justified. Not
| to mention Saddam was an ally of the US for some time. US
| even gave Iraq the chemical precursors for their chemical
| weapons program.
|
| Yes, what's happening in Ukraine is awful, but by this logic,
| why has the US been supporting the Saudi Arabian regime in
| its war on Yemen? Why isn't the US providing humanitarian aid
| to the people of Yemen? There's political motives for nearly
| every recent conflict the US has gotten involved in. It's not
| for moral reasons. The "moral reasons" politicians give are
| sales pitches to gain support.
|
| We've got our own problems at home. The taxpayer money thrown
| away on contractors and needlessly getting involved in these
| conflicts could have very well gone towards funding universal
| healthcare and higher education programs for the public,
| rather than giving folks the stick and carrot of putting
| their life on the line for such "benefits".
|
| They're "benefits" because they're walled off in our country,
| whereas elsewhere they're covered by taxes. Providing them to
| each citizen from day 0 would only boost productivity/GDP in
| the long run, if money is the concern. But it's likely
| there's an awareness of that, and a worry of a healthy and
| educated population getting ahead, which would disincentivize
| people from joining the military.
|
| A government that doesn't provide its people with, at the
| very least, healthcare, and uses healthcare (and education)
| as a means of drawing in folks to put their lives on the line
| in its military for selfish and offensive purposes, does not
| give two shits about its people. Its interests are morally
| devoid and elsewhere, not with its people nor the people of
| other nations.
| formvoltron wrote:
| Putin understands how you think, and it's part of his plan.
| throwaway743 wrote:
| What an original, dismissive, red-baiting-ish comment.
| Next it's gonna be the other classic dismissal,
| "whataboutism". Truth is, I despise Putin just as much as
| the next and am fully against the war.
|
| Oh and Mohammed bin Salman understands _you_. See what I
| did there? Didn 't take much effort.
| Imnimo wrote:
| >The failures were political ones.
|
| When you sign up to join the military, you are signing up to
| enforce those political decisions. You are not only signing
| up to "defend its people and friends." I would find this sort
| of article much more convincing if the author took an honest
| accounting of what it is that a military does. He has chosen
| to enable and participate in all aspects of British military
| activity, not just the patriotic soundbite version.
| simonh wrote:
| That is correct, but by and large I think the army is used
| mainly for those purposes. Not perfectly or without error,
| but mainly.
|
| In any case defending our citizens and allies is a task
| that needs to be done no matter how much we wring our hands
| about the consequences. If we want it done more competently
| it's on us to elect more competent governments, not the
| army.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| I'm sorry but this is pure apologist rhetoric. It's so hand
| wavy that it puts even russian propaganda war justification
| to shame. "I bet they are doing better, if we ignore the 2
| decades of war and hundreds of thousands of deaths!" is not a
| great argument, especially since you ignore the even more
| repulsive intervention in libya.
| [deleted]
| VictorPath wrote:
| > defend its people and friends
|
| Like the people in Derry marching to protest the internment of
| Irishmen without trial in concentration camps? Guess not, the
| Parachute Regiment shot into the crowd in 1972 and the Queen
| pinned medals on them.
|
| How about the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in India, or the Batang
| Kali massacre in Malaysia in 1948, and so on.
| stevenklein wrote:
| thanks for sharing - found this super interesting
| [deleted]
| shantnutiwari wrote:
| > First of all, nobody ever shouts 'sir yes sir'.
|
| Yeah, that myth comes from Hollywood's portrayal of US Marines--
| I dont know if actual US Marines are like that, but that's
| certainly how Hollywood (and most fiction) portrays them.
| Bahamut wrote:
| In the Marine Corps you never do a sir sandwich - that gets
| corrected in boot camp or beforehand for the few that do do
| that.
| 0des wrote:
| Don't ask don't tell was a long time ago. Sir sandwiches are
| fine.
| chrisBob wrote:
| As an Army officer, I didn't say `sir yes sir` very much,
| because most people don't like a sir sandwich. I did say
| "Hoorah" (Who-Ra) a lot.
| robwg wrote:
| The closest accurate Hollywood portrayal IMO would be the
| series "The Pacific". As far as shouting something similar to
| "sir yes sir" that typically can be found from boots(folks who
| havent deployed yet).
| exdsq wrote:
| I had quite a lot of fun in the Army Reserve in England (6
| Rifles, B Company) while I was a teenager (17.5 - 19.5). Being
| paid to spend my weekends running around a field, camping, and
| shooting was a lot better than alternatives like working in a
| shop. I do partly regret not joining a deployment (some of my
| buddies went on Herrick XIII) but I still toy with the idea of
| rejoining in the future so maybe one day.
| [deleted]
| ilrwbwrkhv wrote:
| All armies and troops should be abolished. We will look back with
| shame at our chimp ways.
| fy70 wrote:
| Justsignedup wrote:
| The saddest thing is the #1 reason why people join the military
| in the US is financial or college assistance.
|
| Shows why the US is so hesitant to provide UBI or Free college.
| We'd lose one of our biggest recruiting tools.
|
| If the US Military can appropriately show why people should be
| enthusiastic about joining, I'd be much more positive about it.
|
| Also I have ex-military friends... Getting that college funding
| isn't easy. The health insurance they provide for you is sub-par
| (I know a lady who had Indemetriosis, and was completely
| untreated and in excruciating pain for years because... they just
| don't understand female anatomy at the VA hospitals apparently)
| [deleted]
| freedomben wrote:
| college is definitely a top reason people join, but anecdotally
| I don't think it's number 1 (though any data on the subject
| would be interesting).
|
| It's also very complicated because there are almost always
| multiple reasons at play, and usually they change as you go. I
| joined because I was homeless and floating around from crappy
| and physically demanding jobs, and I wanted to GTFO of where I
| grew up. After a couple of years though, college became the
| most important reason to me.
| rhinoceraptor wrote:
| The real number 1 reason is to get a 96 month loan on a Dodge
| Charger :)
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| This is so prevalent that the military actually spends a
| significant amount of money trying to educate young
| recruits about predatory car loans. Dealerships know
| they're easy marks and have been funneling them into the
| debt pipeline for decades.
| inopinatus wrote:
| If you peer at the photo very carefully you can see that the
| author is not in fact holding operations orders, but hard copy of
| a long discussion from bugs.ruby-lang.org regarding optimizations
| of the third implicit context
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| If I knew my country's armed forces were 100% a domestic defense
| and emergency response force, I would absolutely have considered
| signing up when I was young. You learn good skills, and I see
| great value in some larger-than-self contribution to community
| there. My father is German and left Germany for good not long
| after doing his compulsory 1 year service. He hated it, and it
| was one of many factors that led to him emigrating. But one thing
| my aunts have told me is that before he joined he was a
| disorganized messy irresponsible person, and afterwards he was
| neat and structured. He is also an amazing marksman, which he
| learned there (before he left they were talking to him about
| advancing him through sniper training). He amazed my Canadian
| uncles when he went hunting with them.
|
| But even here, in Canada, the armed forces gets involved in
| adventures abroad which I can would characterize as "dubiously
| thought through" at best ... but "blatantly imperialist" at
| worst. Being deployed to Afghanistan or some other adventure that
| I could not support would both enrage and depress me.
| golemiprague wrote:
| pmoriarty wrote:
| See _" War Is A Racket"_ by Major General Smedley Butler:
|
| https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdf
| oneoff786 wrote:
| Yeah. I've grown up starkly anti military due to the kinds of
| fights the American military has fought in my lifetime. It's
| been evil. Plain and simple. And yet, I'm glad we have a strong
| military given happenings in Ukraine. I would strongly support
| putting boots on the ground.
|
| To have the training necessary to join the volunteer defense
| forces in Ukraine or something similar resonates as a valuable,
| important skill.
|
| Hard to mix such feelings.
| nradov wrote:
| Putting American military boots on the ground in Ukraine
| would likely escalate to WW3.
| formvoltron wrote:
| So says Putin. So you better give him what he wants.
| throwaway743 wrote:
| So mutual assured destruction is what you're advocating
| for? That's some big brain shit
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Ukraine has been attacking targets inside Russia, why
| haven't they been nuked yet?
| oneoff786 wrote:
| Bring it motherfucker
|
| Edit: but bravado aside, I think no, it would not. I think
| Russia would just back down. If they were willing to
| escalate, I think we would have seen a nuke in kyiv by now
|
| Edit edit: and it is worth it to show we are willing to
| stand up for such things. We cannot afford to roll over to
| anyone with nukes
| nradov wrote:
| Russians would likely shoot at US forces in Ukraine. Then
| what? I sympathize with the Ukrainian people but Ukraine
| is not a US treaty ally.
|
| If you're brave enough, the Ukrainian military is
| accepting volunteers. Other foreigners have already
| enlisted. Go join them. And I'm not being snarky: if you
| really believe in the cause then I sincerely think you
| should do something about it.
| brandmeyer wrote:
| In the US, the military doesn't choose the targets. Elected
| civilians do. The way to square those feelings is to direct
| them at the people who give the top-level orders, and the
| rhetoric used to support those orders to the public.
|
| There is an entire branch of ethics and philosophy dedicated
| to the topic: Just War Theory. The US interventions in Serbia
| and Kuwait were both well-justified in my eyes.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| You're not responding to the point the OP is making though.
| They (and I) are aware that the military isn't making these
| decisions, and I'm not blaming the military for them. But
| who gets the blame isn't the question being asked here,
| it's whether we as individuals should join, and for that
| the question of blame is irrelevant. I would also serve if
| there was some kind of guarantee that I would only see
| deployment in self-defense or against another Hitler. But
| what I absolutely will _not_ do is be cannon fodder in
| another imperialist war like Iraq or Afghanistan, and part
| of serving in the military means you don 't get any choice
| in the matter. So I don't join.
| seti0Cha wrote:
| Were you around for the buildup to the second gulf war? The
| rhetoric against Saddam Hussein was not terribly different in
| tone than that against Putin. People were similarly outraged
| and many people wanted us to invade because of all the awful
| things he did, e.g. his treatment of the Kurds. In fact,
| pretty much all the major conflicts that have happened in my
| lifetime have been accompanied by a call to action based on
| moral outrage. I don't mean to offend, but it seems to me
| it's people such as yourself who have abetted our
| participation in so many conflicts, and precious few have
| been better for our involvement.
| oneoff786 wrote:
| Media literacy seems like it was a lot worse back then. I'm
| not convinced I would ever support the invasion of another
| country.
|
| I'm not supporting the invasion of Russia. I'm supporting
| the defense of Ukraine.
| blobbers wrote:
| Question for you all: I'm coming into my forties, so if I want to
| volunteer for the reserve, I need to start now. Is it a
| ridiculous thought? If SHTF, I'd like to have some more useful
| life skills than typing at a computer. I do have responsibilities
| to my family, so it would not be an easy sell. That said, it does
| appeal to me.
|
| Thoughts? Opinions?
| [deleted]
| SaintGhurka wrote:
| If your family responsibilities don't prevent you from going
| away for ~5 months for the initial training (depending on MOS),
| then it's not utter madness to join at 40 if you're in decent
| shape.
|
| It may be a pride-swallowing experience at first. You'd be
| thrown into a barracks with a lot of 17-20 year olds and you'd
| be treated like one of them. We had a 35 year old in my basic
| training. The trainers gave him only a tiny bit of slack.
|
| You'd also spend some time as a 40 year old private - which
| might get you some looks.
|
| Whatever you do, pick your MOS carefully. Look around and see
| what type of reserve and guard units are local because that's
| going to dictate your job choices. If there's nothing but
| infantry locally, then you're going to be infantry or something
| that supports them. If that's the case, be a medic. Everyone
| likes the medic.
| loxs wrote:
| The most bizarre thing in the article for me (as a total layman)
| is that linked Jackal vehicle[1]... It's an armored vehicle which
| does not protect the... crew??? Why is it armored at all? Why are
| they not just using a Toyota Hilux instead of this 7 tonne
| monster?
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackal_(vehicle)
| pjc50 wrote:
| It is basically a big technical, isn't it?
|
| It appears to be the replacement for the
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snatch_Land_Rover , which got its
| name from the use by military units grabbing civilians off the
| street in Northern Ireland.
| loxs wrote:
| Yeah, but I don't get the concept at all... why use this kind
| of vehicle, why develop it at all? What is the benefit of
| having the crew so exposed and how is it a good idea at all?
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Our Jackal vehicles are lightly armoured so that we can
| see more and use our weapons more freely.
|
| Armour is a trade-off. More armour means less
| manoeuvrability and less ability to fight. You could
| completely encase yourself in a foot of steel if you wanted
| and just sit there on the battlefield, but you wouldn't be
| able to achieve anything.
| evancox100 wrote:
| Your comment is not really worth responding to, since the
| article you linked addresses all your points/questions, but the
| armor is on the bottom to protect the crew from IEDs.
| juanani wrote:
| advisedwang wrote:
| The author glosses over my biggest question "Who might you have
| to fight?" with a informative "Queen's enemies."
|
| Might his squadron be called in to quash civil disturbance? Sent
| to the next Iraq? Is it reserved for defending the UK from
| invasion?
| Tepix wrote:
| While reading, that paragraph really stood out to me. Why would
| you even want a queen? It's an expensive relic of darker times.
|
| The whole idea of fighting for your life is completely alien to
| me. But then again i guess the people in Ukraine weren't
| expecting to be invaded for the longest time either.
|
| Humans are animals.
| jpgvm wrote:
| The Queen basically serves as an extra head of state, a
| useful diplomatic figure and not much more. I don't think the
| UK monarchy is a net-negative but admittedly isn't all that
| necessary either.
|
| I come from a military town so my view may be different to
| some but I believe you need to be able to fight when you are
| threatened and to do that you need to be prepared. It's very
| hard to be prepared if you don't have a military and
| competent, motivated and well trained people to fight in it.
| tetromino_ wrote:
| Or closer to more recent events, imagine signing a contract to
| defend your country from NATO or Chinese invaders, and then one
| evening receiving an order to kill your friends and relatives
| in Ukraine...
| Gadiguibou wrote:
| I was wondering exactly this. I see the author is still here in
| the comments and I'm curious to know how he feels about this.
|
| Does he get to choose whether he fights or not? Does he get
| reasonably and transparently informed about the issues leading
| to him being deployed?
|
| Having to fight or kill is not something one should consider
| lightly. It's a responsibility that very few should have to
| bear and hopefully you should be as informed as possible about
| why you're doing it when making the decision to bear that
| responsibility.
| watwut wrote:
| Afaik, soldiers don't get to choose. The queens enemies is
| pretty much good description, because his guess is as good as
| yours.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| I don't think they were literally looking for an answer for
| this specific question, but pointing out how unsettling, at
| the very least, the lack of concrete answers is.
|
| Anyway if they won't say it I will: signing up to fight
| without knowing who or why you'll be fighting is morally
| compromised _at the extreme very best_.
|
| Modern economic powers like the UK do not use their
| militaries for self-defense. Someone able to write with his
| sophistication about the military knows what they use them
| for. In serving, and even in writing this piece of pro-
| military propaganda, he's supporting imperial violence.
| daedalus_f wrote:
| > Modern economic powers like the UK do not use their
| militaries for self-defense.
|
| Modern economic powers have militaries and alliances that
| make attacking them unattractive. They have sufficient
| teeth to dissuade conflict.
|
| If you are fortunate enough to live in a Western democracy
| your safety and security is preserved by the actions of
| those who you call morally compromised.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| Doesn't really matter for this purpose, I'm not arguing
| that the military is inherently wrong, or that military
| service is.
|
| I'm asserting that _by far the most likely use of a
| wealthy nation 's military is going to be a bad one_.
| Encouraging people to join the military in that context
| is bad.
|
| People have an incredibly wide range of reasons for
| joining or supporting militaries, and I would absolutely
| not universally condemn all of them. Just this one.
|
| ---
|
| That aside, just because I benefit from something doesn't
| make it ok. What kind of first grader ethics is that?
| daedalus_f wrote:
| > I'm not arguing that the military is inherently wrong,
| or that military service is.
|
| Just that everyone who signs up for the military of a
| developed nation _is morally compromised at the extreme
| very best_. Can you square that statement with believing
| in the moral existence of a military for a developed
| nation?
|
| > By far the most likely use of a wealthy nation's
| military is going to be a bad one
|
| And yet, as I said, developed nations require a military
| for defence. The world is not a nice place, as Russia is
| current proving, and modern conflicts cannot be fought
| successfully with poor quality untrained troops recruited
| on the fly for a particular conflict, where those signing
| up know what they are going to be doing in advance.
| Developed nations therefore need a well trained standing
| army. In signing up for this army, people put their lives
| on the line, and in doing so protect you, me and others
| from harm. I do not consider doing this for that ideal
| morally compromised.
|
| You are right that nations have engaged in wars of
| aggression that should not have been fought. Living in
| such a nation I bear some of the responsibility for those
| wars, as do the soldiers who fought in those wars, but
| much less than the politicians and dictators who declared
| them for their own or their nations strategic gain in the
| first place.
|
| Unfortunately nice binary moral choices are few and far
| between.
|
| > That aside, just because I benefit from something
| doesn't make it ok. What kind of first grader ethics is
| that?
|
| My point was not to suggest that because you benefit from
| something that makes it ok, as you well know.
| selectodude wrote:
| >And yet, as I said, developed nations require a military
| for defence. The world is not a nice place, as Russia is
| current proving, and modern conflicts cannot be fought
| successfully with poor quality untrained troops recruited
| on the fly for a particular conflict, where those signing
| up know what they are going to be doing in advance.
| Developed nations therefore need a well trained standing
| army.
|
| Seriously, how do people miss this. The US Military is
| currently advising the Ukrainian armed forces while
| Germany has their thumb up their ass spending billions on
| Russian hydrocarbons. Unfortunately conscientious
| objection only works in the world we all wished we lived
| in. Somebody has to hold the guns and spend the money on
| this shit.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| +1. Part of being part of a national military is
| subordinating your desires to the chain of command, which in
| a democracy usually flows to the highest elected official.
|
| If one wants to pick and choose "right" conflicts, one
| shouldn't serve.
|
| And ultimately... while I know HN has a pretty anti-authority
| bend... if you don't trust your government to deploy military
| power, what do you trust them for?
|
| Which isn't saying that uses of military power in reality are
| _always_ right or justified, but is saying that effectively
| every other government power rests on top of its having the
| _authority_ to use force to enforce compliance. And a
| military is a major component of that.
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| Being subordinate didn't work for the Nuremberg "I was
| following orders" crowd, which makes me doubt your
| assertion.
|
| > if you don't trust your government to deploy military
| power, what do you trust them for?
|
| Do you have to trust them for anything? It's not like it's
| a viable option to decide that you don't want to designate
| any government as "yours". Good luck surviving in no man's
| land if you do. What makes government "theirs" for lots of
| people is just the threat of organized violence or
| exclusion.
| hugh-avherald wrote:
| It's often misunderstood, but the Nuremberg Defence is a
| genuine defence to criminal behaviour, including war
| crimes. It's just not an absolute one, and cannot be used
| for the crime of genocide. If you're in a missile silo
| and you're ordered to nuke Moscow, you're not responsible
| for the outcome.
| throwaway743 wrote:
| From what perspective is there no responsibility for the
| actions of the last one in the chain of command?
| ethbr0 wrote:
| > _Being subordinate didn 't work for the Nuremberg_
|
| It didn't work for those convicted in the Nuremberg
| trials because the Nazis _lost_. Had the Third Reich
| persisted with a truce, do you really think they would
| have been charged, convicted, and sentenced?
|
| Legal liability gets pretty hazy when applying it in a
| non-sovereign arenas (i.e. international matters). Yes,
| there are treaties [0], but what are treaties without
| enforcement?
|
| > _Do you have to trust them for anything?_
|
| People are welcome to move to areas where government
| interaction is less or non-existent. They generally
| choose not to. Largely, because the economies in places
| like that suck, because it's hard to employ capital in an
| anarchist, solely-"might makes right" environment.
|
| [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war#Internati
| onal_tr...
| watwut wrote:
| > Had the Third Reich persisted with a truce, do you
| really think they would have been charged, convicted, and
| sentenced?
|
| Pre Nuremberg expectations on soldiers were blind
| obedience nazi or not. Nuremberg set the expectation on
| soldiers from then on. WWII changed that.
|
| It could not happen due to their own ideology. It did not
| allowed for lasting compromise which everyone else knew.
| Third Reich would not prosecuted those people, because by
| their ethical standards they were doing right thing.
|
| Then again, Pablo Escobar believed he is cool guy by own
| standards too.
| adewinter wrote:
| Hard to tell if you're just trolling or being serious.
|
| * Nuremberg and "just following orders" was about actual
| orders to specific individuals to do things that were
| literal war crimes, and those individuals carrying those
| orders out. One country designating another country an
| enemy is not, in fact, a war crime.
|
| >> Do you have to trust them for anything?
|
| I mean, yes? Even when you live in a libertarian fantasy
| land it turns out you need to have some level of trust in
| a government. You trust the road you're driving on won't
| collapse and that the folks at fire department know which
| end of the hose the water comes out of. You trust that
| because you trust that the gov that pays for that made
| the right choices. You can pretend you can have a society
| without relying on an organized collective of people who
| live in that society but I cannot logically see how that
| would work.
| uxp100 wrote:
| > One country designating another country an enemy is
| not, in fact, a war crime.
|
| But an illegal war of aggression is a crime against
| humanity, right?
| PeterisP wrote:
| _Starting_ an illegal war of aggression is a crime for
| which some people were convicted in Nuremberg Tribunals.
|
| However, soldiers fighting in such a war are not
| considered responsible for such a crime. For "simply"
| fighting a war and killing uniformed enemy soldiers "I
| was just following orders" actually is a legitimate
| excuse, and should not result in any convictions (of e.g.
| murder) unless they commit some explicit war crimes, e.g.
| murdering captured civilians.
| 8note wrote:
| I'd consider deploying the military to be a much higher bar
| of trust than building and maintaining roads and tax
| policies, providing healthcare and education, etc.
|
| I don't trust the government to use force responsibly,
| especially on people who are not part of a social contract
| with it. The government's authority comes from the consent
| of the governed, not by force
| ethbr0 wrote:
| > _I 'd consider deploying the military to be a much
| higher bar of trust than building and maintaining roads
| and tax policies, providing healthcare and education,
| etc._
|
| What happens when roads are destroyed or barricaded for
| tolls, taxes aren't paid, or healthcare and education are
| withheld from anyone who isn't a white man? (to offer a
| few hypotheticals)
| watwut wrote:
| I am more ok with destroyed roads then with expansive war
| or atrocities and so on. Those cause way more harm. I not
| ok with racist education. By I am even more not ok with
| army being used for racist project - and that one causes
| more harm.
|
| Also, by current legal standards, soldiers are supposed
| to refuse orders if those lead to genocide and such. It
| is so after Nuremberg after WWII.
|
| I am very fine with the rare Russian soldier refusing to
| fight Ukraine. The one following orders when "filtering"
| or killing civilians should be prosecuted.
| p_j_w wrote:
| >if you don't trust your government to deploy military
| power, what do you trust them for?
|
| Building roads, schools, and fire stations are pretty high
| on the list.
| voakbasda wrote:
| Every soldier has the choice whether to follow or disobey an
| order of dubious legal/moral consequence. If you are asked to
| kill babies, you sure as shit had better say "no". As a
| species, there is broad agreement that "just following
| orders" is not a defense for committing crimes against
| humanity.
| monocasa wrote:
| > A lot of people talk about My Lai, and they say, 'Well,
| you know, yeah, but you can't follow an illegal order.'
| Trust me. There is no such thing. Not in the military. If I
| go into a combat situation and I tell them, 'No, I'm not
| going. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to follow
| that order', well, they'd put me up against the wall and
| shoot me.
|
| ~ Lawrence La Croix, a squad leader in Charlie Company in
| My Lai
| watwut wrote:
| Soldiers claim they arw willing to die as part of job. If
| one brags he is ok to go on super dangerous missions, he
| should be OK also to die in order to not commit attrocity
| monocasa wrote:
| True, but there are plenty of soldiers who are simply
| trying not to get killed. The calculus of "if I don't
| commit this war crime, I'll for sure die, but if I do,
| the US has pledged to literally invade countries that try
| to investigate us war crimes, and don't have a great
| track record of internally policing war crimes" is pretty
| clear.
|
| My point isn't to defend the actions of war criminals,
| but instead point out that relying on foot soldiers to
| become conscientious objectors at the spur of the moment
| against the structural pressures against that is well
| documented to not be a great strategy for reducing war
| crimes.
| drran wrote:
| Illegal/immoral orders can be silently sabotaged and
| reported later. Look at RF and Belarus. Russians are
| happy to kill Ukrainians, while Belarussians are wrecking
| Russian military trains. They received same orders.
| monocasa wrote:
| Only if the lower echelons of leadership are on board
| with sabotaging the orders. If they're not that's when
| you end up taking the "enemy fire" that back authorizes
| the use of force for the war crime.
| watwut wrote:
| Dude, they are illegal and are risking torture and jail
| of they will be caught. It is underground opposition
| doing those things.
| monocasa wrote:
| That generally agrees with my statements.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| I'ts likely whatever wild hair the politicians dream up. Which
| has always made that a "hell no" for me. Not willing to go
| murder people because some politician thinks it's a good idea.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > Might his squadron be called in to quash civil disturbance?
| Sent to the next Iraq? Is it reserved for defending the UK from
| invasion?
|
| Yes, yes, and no. His own explanation mentions Peterloo! He
| joined the full time army during the Iraq war (although doesn't
| mention being deployed). This is evidently not something he's
| curious about.
|
| Ukraine has certainly highlighted the need for a defensive
| force. It's also made the question of whether all the fighting
| of the past 20 years has made the world safer or more dangerous
| - you could argue that Iraq re-established the precedent for
| aggressive war, and the fallout has made most of the muslim
| world _less_ safe. Including Russia 's war in Syria. Which they
| used as training for invading Ukraine.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| He should fight the Grammar Nazi's: "A Hobby Gotten Out Of
| Hand"...very American(?), and terribly un-British.
| qiskit wrote:
| > "Queen's enemies."
|
| I can't believe people still fight for royalty. Ants fight
| their queen's enemies. Free human being should fight for
| themselves, their families, etc.
| adewinter wrote:
| Sure if you take the most hardcore literal interpretation.
| It's just short hand for "the enemies of the state" or
| "whoever my duly elected leadership consider to be the bad
| guys". Yes, people still willingly give up their independence
| for what they consider to be the greater good. Consider the
| entire united states armes forces and almost all government
| employees (in particular the folks who work for 3 letter
| agencies).
| jpgvm wrote:
| It's not meant literally. Even in Australia our armed forces
| are still "Royal" but this is just a vestige of the past. i.e
| our ships are designated Her Majesty's Australian Ship
| (HMAS).
|
| What is means in practice is they fight for their country and
| its allies, just like any other military. While technically
| the Queen's representative in Australia (the Governor-
| General) is the chief of Australias armed forces (as defined
| in the constitution) this has never been used in practice
| (and would probably be ignored at this point).
| qiskit wrote:
| Then don't say it period. Also, isn't the british queen
| still the head of state of australia? Every time I bring
| this up, it's always australians, canadians, british, etc
| making excuses.
| [deleted]
| jpgvm wrote:
| What do you mean excuses? It's just history. It's said
| for the same reason, because history.
|
| I'm sorry it offends you but nobody in Australia is
| overly motivated to change something that has no
| practical impact and given you don't seem to be from a
| Commonwealth country I don't think you are entitled to
| complain about it either.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| Symbolism matters.
|
| It's why some people freak out when someone "disrespects"
| their flag, why judges wear special clothes and why
| courthouses/government buildings are so frequently built
| to look impressive.
|
| Such symbols perpetuate attitudes of deference and
| subservience to what the symbols represent... not for
| everyone, but they are effective on a lot of people,
| which is why they're still being used.
| adolph wrote:
| Isn't using the literal meaning of that oath similar to
| claiming that an American oath [0] is to a sheet of paper?
| It's indicative of either ignorance [1] or lacking good
| faith.
|
| 0. https://history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html
|
| 1.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom
| michaelt wrote:
| According to [1] in 2004, when numbers were at their peak,
| reservists made up 20% of Britain's strength in Iraq; and
| 'large numbers' of reservists deployed in Afghanistan.
|
| Seems to me that's the big downside to joining the TA - you're
| putting your life and honour in the hands of professional
| politicians.
|
| (However, it also says 'many' reservists were deployed as
| 'individuals' rather than units - presumably meaning they were
| deployed by choice?)
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Reserve_(United_Kingdom)#...
| scandox wrote:
| > At RubyConf 2014 someone in the lunch queue asked what I did
| before I was in tech and asked me if I enjoyed killing babies
| when I explained.
|
| To some extent your question is in the same category as the
| above. It decontextualizes the situation entirely. He lives in
| a democracy. He obviously believes that society is less worse
| than some visible alternatives. He therefore believes he can
| fight on its behalf based on what the democratic leadership
| determine. It's obviously possible for him to morally re-
| evaluate that at a later point: it might even cost him his life
| to do so. But his actions are morally considered whereas I
| think the question is morally thoughtless.
| pphysch wrote:
| > He therefore believes he can fight on its behalf based on
| what the democratic leadership determine.
|
| This is, at best, a naive portrayal of how London and
| Washington start wars.
|
| See the infamous Downing Street Memo [1].
|
| In Washington, which often leads the rest of the West in
| military adventurism, Congress hasn't approved a military
| operation since 2002, despite a US-led coalition destroying
| sovereign Libya in 2011 and occupying Northern Syria since
| 2015.
|
| Indeed, the 2002 AUMF authorized by Congress for the Iraq War
| is still in effect 20 years later [2], and used by the
| executive branch to dictate any military operation, bypassing
| Congressional approval.
|
| [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo
|
| [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_
| Milit...
| adewinter wrote:
| It might be naive but doesn't make the statement any less
| accurate or true. Some people have a strong belief, and
| faith, in democracy and democratic leaders. To the point
| that they'd join up and go fight if called upon. It's not
| for everyone but that's ok in a democratic society.
| Implying that people who do believe in the system are
| stupid or "lesser," is perhaps something you should
| consider not doing.
| oneoff786 wrote:
| No, you don't get to avoid judgment for your actions just
| because your particular flavor of naivety favors virtue
| and righteousness.
|
| People with blind faith in leaders because democracy are
| not demonstrating critical thinking.
| pphysch wrote:
| It does make the statement less true, because it is
| evidently not based in reality.
|
| In actually-existing 21st-century "democracies", the
| people do not choose who gets bombed. Those choices are
| made by unelected officials in the MIC and rationalized
| by think tanks and communications firms funded by the
| same MIC.
|
| > Implying that people who do believe in the system are
| stupid or "lesser," is perhaps something you should
| consider not doing.
|
| Strawmanning isn't cool.
| adewinter wrote:
| Hey fella, you're the one moving goal posts here.
|
| First you say it was "used by the executive branch to
| dictate any military operation"... ie the executive
| branch are the ones calling the shots. Now all of a
| sudden it's "unelected officials in the MIC" who are
| choosing who gets bombed. So which is it? The author
| clearly believes elected officials are in charge and he
| trusts them. Emphasis here on "believes".
|
| I'm not here to make a judgement on whether the article
| author's *beliefs* are correct or based in reality as
| defined by you. It's pretty straightforward to see how
| the author came to his conclusions (described in parent
| replies in this thread), when you begin with his starting
| assumptions. Clearly you disagree with those (e.g.
| whether democracy exists and whether it's worth signing
| up/fighting/dying for), but that's a real boring
| conversation.
|
| Also, fail to see how it's "strawmanning" when I'm
| pointing out your name-calling the author "naive," and
| how it's not great.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| _" Some people have a strong belief, and faith, in
| democracy and democratic leaders. To the point that
| they'd join up and go fight if called upon."_
|
| There must be some serious cognitive dissonance going on
| in those people who give Congress and the President
| abysmally low ratings and yet believe in democracy so
| much that they'd join the military and then trust their
| elected leaders (who they have such awful opinions of) to
| "do the right thing" when deciding who to wage war on.
| monocasa wrote:
| https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/98018.
| ..
|
| The royalty is still very much in charge in the UK, actively
| using their constitutionally protected veto power over new
| laws.
|
| It's only in the vaguest sense a democracy.
|
| Edit: At least read the article. There's documentation that
| all new law including simple amendments gets passed by the
| royal family before being voted on, and the royal family asks
| for major changes of both removals and additions to these
| laws. Having a monarch who has to sign off on all law and
| actively participates in the writing of that law is not a
| democracy, full stop. As a british subject, you are only
| allowed the laws that the queen thinks you should have,
| demonstrably, by the uk government's own documentation on the
| matter.
| jnwatson wrote:
| You can simultaneously believe in democracy and believe that
| ceding one's moral agency to the whims of the populace is
| immoral.
|
| We've had several recent examples of absolutely tragic uses
| of our military might. Voluntarily putting oneself in a
| situation where you have to "kill babies" or face serious
| consequences is itself immoral.
| giaour wrote:
| I don't know if this was your intention, but your comment
| comes off as extremely dismissive. If you are joining a
| fighting force, you absolutely should consider where and how
| you might be deployed should your unit get mobilized. There
| is a tremendous difference between doing an active tour of
| duty in a foreign country and being called up domestically,
| and it is fine to use your own moral calculus when weighing
| the two.
|
| In the US, for example, part time opportunities are either in
| the reserves or the national guard, with the former having a
| foreign focus and the latter having a domestic focus. Plenty
| of guardsmen ended up doing tours in Iraq, but more recently,
| guardsmen helped staff overwhelmed medical facilities during
| the height of the pandemic.
| hitekker wrote:
| It's fine to dismiss boring flamebait. The top-level
| comment is dressed up to sound curious but basically falls
| in the same category of questions that the GP and OP called
| out as thoughtless.
| giaour wrote:
| I think the top-level comment ("Might his squadron be
| called in to quash civil disturbance? Sent to the next
| Iraq? Is it reserved for defending the UK from
| invasion?") is exactly the kind of thing you should ask
| yourself when joining something like the Army Reserves.
| Everyone has some things they will not do, and it's
| important to figure out what those might be before
| finding yourself pushed to those limits.
|
| The thoughtless comments basically express the idea that
| _no one_ should be in _any_ military, whereas thoughtful
| questions acknowledge that not everyone has the same red
| lines.
| everforward wrote:
| > But his actions are morally considered whereas I think the
| question is morally thoughtless.
|
| I would disagree with this. Agreeing to fight an as-of-yet
| undefined enemy is abdicating any moral decisions based on
| who the enemy is, or how the war is fought. It is delegating
| personal moral decisions to the masses.
|
| > He therefore believes he can fight on its behalf based on
| what the democratic leadership determine.
|
| This is basically exactly my point. The soldier doesn't get
| to decide that it's immoral to carpet bomb El Salvador;
| they've already agreed to kill whoever their leadership tells
| them to.
|
| I find it unpalatable under my personal morals, because I
| believe there is no act with more gravitas than intentionally
| killing another human. No amount of societal cohesion or
| democracy can absolve a person of their personal
| responsibility for that death.
|
| The basis of the question is "How can you morally justify
| outsourcing your decision of whether it justifiable to kill a
| person or not?", because many of us simply can't imagine
| that. Democracies have done a lot of morally unbearable
| things, from slavery to the rise of Hitler, so they're
| clearly not infallible.
|
| This is basically just the Nuremburg defense with a veneer of
| democracy.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| _" The soldier doesn't get to decide that it's immoral to
| carpet bomb El Salvador; they've already agreed to kill
| whoever their leadership tells them to."_
|
| People _always_ have a choice. They can refuse.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| You are mostly right, except the democracy part: that does
| not mean anything. Greeks had democracy 25000 years ago and
| it did not go so well, a certain very famous dictator was
| elected to power and a present day Russian president as well.
| On paper they are all democracies, in practice there are
| degrees of bad or fake democracies all over.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >Greeks had democracy 25000 years ago and it did not go so
| well,
|
| Absolutely. Especially since they did so to _finally_ wipe
| out the scourge that were the Neanderthals.
|
| Sorry. I couldn't resist.
|
| I presume you meant 2,500 years rather than 25,000, yes?
| inopinatus wrote:
| "Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least
| the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In
| that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish,
| with the Germans against the French, with the French and
| Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the
| Germans and Italians."
|
| -- Sir Humphrey Appleby, _Yes, Minister_ , March 1980.
| sputknick wrote:
| I spent five years in the Air Force. Posts like this are really
| helpful, a lot of Americans are disconnected from members of the
| military, especially in the upper classes where people do not
| need to serve, or in fields (like tech) where people can often
| find less intrusive ways to pay for college. My favorite part of
| the article is dispelling the myth that in the military senior
| people bark orders, and don't ask for feedback, and subordinates
| dutifully carry out those orders. None of those is true. There is
| a time to "shut up and color" but that is by far the exception.
| For the young people on here, I can't tell you what to do, but I
| can tell you serving in the military was a positive experience
| for me.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > a lot of Americans are disconnected from members of the
| military, especially in the upper classes where people do not
| need to serve, or in fields (like tech) where people can often
| find less intrusive ways to pay for college.
|
| I think that's a serious problem. Americans have little idea
| how the US military works and tend to form extreme opinions,
| either glorifying it or villifying it - the former especially
| in the last 20 years or so but neither is at all healthy. When
| people understood the military - when we had a draft and a wide
| spectrum was personally familiar with it - we had popular
| entertainment like Gomer Pyle and MASH, and expressions like
| FUBAR and SNAFU. The military was seen as an enormous, absurd,
| powerful bureaucracy; people understood its limits and
| capabilities, and could make decisions about using it. Warfare
| was not glorified so much, but seen as the scourge it is, the
| last option, because many actually had experience of it. They
| also had skin in the game during a war, risking being drafted
| and knowing people who were. Now we fight the 20 year GWOT,
| send people on one tour after another, and many outside don't
| even realize there's a war on or wonder how it's going - but
| they do say 'thank you for your service' endlessly (a young
| relative in ROTC (US undergrad trainee program) was thanked
| several times wearing their uniform around town!).
|
| Part of the problem is the narrow population from which the
| military recruits. In the US Army, 79% of recruits come from
| families which already have service members. [0] Consider that
| only a few percent of the population is in the military. Also,
| I read that the military does not recruit in - or puts very
| little effort into - major cities (though I can't find the cite
| now, and it was a few years ago). [EDIT: cite found: 1]
|
| [0] https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2022/03/about-face-army-
| ex...
|
| [1] From 2019: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/army-
| recruiting-tech-i...
| umvi wrote:
| Some reserve units in the US are highly technical too. I did a
| cyber education course at AFIT when I was in Air Force ROTC and
| there was a particular reserve unit somewhere in Maryland I
| want to say nearish NSA that had a lot of super smart security
| researchers that came to guest lecture us including Raphael
| Smudge (creator of https://github.com/rsmudge/armitage)
| routeerror40 wrote:
| I signed up for 4 years for the US Army in order to finish
| college. Ended up doing 5 years for being stop lossed due to a
| deployment that got extended. When I joined I had 72 hours
| college under my belt, went in as a PFC. The reality of service
| is it is both the good as portrayed here and the shit
| experiences I know we have all had in the service. Would I
| change anything, no. Was it all cake, hell no. But I wouldn't
| change anything. The single best thing about service, that I
| think most people actually need in life, is the forced mega
| dose of reality, and how the military deals with it, especially
| when as a person you've refused to, and made it the militaries
| problem. Everything about my time in has helped me in my
| civilian life, except how to explain to people that they are
| denying reality.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| I don't doubt your experiences, more generally the military
| is quite unreal - a world with very different cultures,
| rules, clothes, jobs; a world where you can exist without
| dealing with outsiders very often. There's almost nothing
| else that is quite so much a parallel reality. A lot of
| people leaving the military have trouble adjusting to real
| life.
| vlod wrote:
| >is the forced mega dose of reality
|
| >except how to explain to people that they are denying
| reality.
|
| It would be great if you could expand on this.
| scruple wrote:
| I spent 4 years in the USAF and echo the same sentiment.
| Military service isn't for everyone but I had a positive
| experience and my decision to join remains one of the best
| decisions I ever made in my life.
| oaxacaoaxaca wrote:
| >None of that is true.
|
| All of that is true about my Army experience lol. If I could go
| back and do it again, I'd definitely choose Air Force. I agree
| that the military can be a positive experience and it's a good
| idea for some people, but the caveat with my endorsement is
| that you gotta carefully choose the branch and the job.
|
| I almost chose linguistics, but for some silly reason chose
| mechanic and paratrooper, and wouldn't you know it I ended up
| with injuries causing me to walk with a cane in my 20s.
| master_crab wrote:
| Your biggest issue was choosing to be a light wheel mechanic
| in an airborne unit. If you think survival rates for combat
| dropping troopers are bad, I'd hate to show you the actual
| percentage of HMMWVs that drive away from a drop zone.
|
| YMMV, but I was Army too. And everyone I dealt with was an
| adult.
| pyinstallwoes wrote:
| So you're allowed to choose your job? I thought it wasn't
| guaranteed what interests you had vs what you are placed in.
| brynx97 wrote:
| > All of that is true about my Army experience lol. If I
| could go back and do it again, I'd definitely choose Air
| Force.
|
| Yes, it varies wildly based on branch, different units or
| battalions/brigades etc, and which MOS (job) you are. Or if
| you are enlisted or officer. I had a leadership change in my
| company over a period of like 6 months where all senior
| enlisted and officers changed, and it was like night and day
| different. Very micro-managed. It was like being back in
| Basic Training at Ft. Benning, insane. This ruined it for me,
| I chose not to re-enlist. I do really miss a lot of
| camaraderie, and every point in the "Why do I do it?" section
| of the article resonates very strongly with me.
|
| I'd also chose Air Force or Navy instead of Army if I did it
| over again. Better training. More impactful missions I think
| for my MOS (Satcom). Not sure it would be available though,
| Navy and Air Force don't have as much "room" for folks then
| (2011) and especially now.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Space Force will be ramping up hiring as it takes over AF
| roles it's inherited.
| chaostheory wrote:
| Everyone wants to get into the Air Force, so if you are
| applying to say subsidize your medical education, you'll find
| that there aren't many openings; so most people tend to opt
| for the Navy. The Army is the last choice for most people.
| pixodaros wrote:
| This goes back to assignment of conscripts in WW II. Since
| the end of the Cold War, spoilsports have noticed that one
| reason the old German army did so well was that they got a
| higher proportion of high-quality recruits than their UK or
| US counterparts. The US and UK needed navies to fight the
| war, and they also gave their air forces a higher priority
| for recruits relative to their armies.
| freedomben wrote:
| > _you gotta carefully choose the branch and the job_
|
| yes absolutely. I'd even say "the job" is the most important
| part. There are Army jobs that are pretty good, and there are
| Air Force jobs that are pretty bad.
| iostream24 wrote:
| Yes, MOS is key...
| gadders wrote:
| >> My favorite part of the article is dispelling the myth that
| in the military senior people bark orders
|
| I heard Petraeus (I think) on a podcast and he said the biggest
| misconception by civilians about the military is you can just
| order people to do things, and the biggest misconception by the
| military about the private sector is you can just sack people.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "My favorite part of the article is dispelling the myth that in
| the military senior people bark orders, and don't ask for
| feedback, and subordinates dutifully carry out those orders.
| None of those is true. There is a time to "shut up and color"
| but that is by far the exception."
|
| Based on my limited knowledge, I think it's highly dependent on
| the leaders in the unit. I have a friend who always dreamed of
| being an naval aviator, went to the academy, and served for
| several years as a pilot. They are leaving due to the political
| BS of the organization and poor leadership by those in command.
| My relatives' experience back up similar experiences - up to
| and including the extreme example that an XO overrode a
| maintenance officer in order to bark orders that work needed to
| be done in a way that was contrary to documented procedures and
| resulted in loss of life (in training no less). Basically 9/10
| leaders range from decent to excellent. That other 1 is the one
| that can make your life hell or get you killed with little to
| nothing you can do about it.
| baud147258 wrote:
| > an XO overrode a maintenance officer in order to bark
| orders that work needed to be done in a way that was contrary
| to documented procedures and resulted in loss of life (in
| training no less)
|
| did the XO suffer any consequences from this?
| giantg2 wrote:
| It seemed like a sore point so I didn't ask questions about
| it (form things I pieced together it sounded like they were
| injuried and their copilot, maybe others, died; in sounded
| like the XO probably didn't have any serious consequence or
| I think they would have mentioned it). Generally, I would
| only ask questions about the good stories they shared but
| let them just share what they wanted when they were not
| happy stories.
| jcurbo wrote:
| High five. 6 yrs in the USAF here.
| tempnow987 wrote:
| One issue with reserves, especially army. Through the
| iraq/afghanistan deployments BOG time was way up (ie, your
| service commit is not just that weekend a month). BOG = Boots
| on ground time.
|
| In afghanistan Army deployments (both active and reserve) were
| far higher than other service branches.
|
| My quick understanding is that normally they would like to
| target 1/4 BOG/Dwell time. So if you are thinking of reserves,
| particularly army, be asking, could I be gone 12 months out of
| 48, with potential for more?
| blobbers wrote:
| Is there data on how much _real_ service one might be doing?
| As in incoming mortars, bullets flying over your head, in a
| place with IEDs or mines etc.
|
| I feel like if I wanted to be put in that specific situation,
| I'd want a whole lot more training than a reservist.
| fredophile wrote:
| I can't speak for other people's experiences but I did
| deploy to Afghanistan as a combat arms reservist in the
| Canadian army. Typically, you're expected to be overseas
| for 6 months but anything from 5-8 isn't that uncommon.
| Other roles had other expected deployment lengths. To prep
| for a 6 month tour involved full time training for about 8
| months. This is the same training time the regular forces
| got and was done with them.
|
| I think you may also underestimate the amount of training
| reservists do. To get fully qualified in my trade took over
| 3 months of full time training split up over a couple
| years. During my time in the reserves you'd do 1-2 evenings
| a week from September to May/June. You'd also have 1
| weekend a month training for most of those months and 1
| week long training exercise per year. During the summer,
| people who had the time could do full time work taking or
| teaching on courses.
| snerbles wrote:
| > None of that is true.
|
| Really depends on your AFSC (job code), unit and era. I was in
| one of the more infamous career fields (Security Forces), and
| the running joke was that we were "real military" compared to
| the rest of the "Corporate Air Force". A lot of maintainers I
| knew had similar sentiments towards other office-based career
| fields.
|
| And that was only at a stateside base - the dynamic got really
| weird when we deployed on in-lieu-of taskings to relieve
| understaffed Army units in Iraq. Their Military Police had a
| similar level of intensity as us, but most of their rank-and-
| file in the role were augmentees pulled from other career
| fields without a law enforcement background.
| YATA1 wrote:
| >especially in the upper classes where people do not need to
| serve
|
| This is a often repeated myth. The upper class serves more per
| capita than the lower class.
| throwaway0x7E6 wrote:
| sure, but not in combat roles
|
| and while sure, those 6 or 8 or whatever out of 10 army
| people per 1 grunt do contribute a lot, they don't get shot
| at. no risk, all reward
| YATA1 wrote:
| >sure, but not in combat roles
|
| That is false. Middle and upper class are more likely to
| serve in combat roles than lower class.
| notch656a wrote:
| Yeah because no one in a logistics or support role was ever
| awarded a purple heart /s.
| throwaway0x7E6 wrote:
| sure, and if you go back in time far enough, you can say
| that generals get killed in combat too
|
| how many logistics and support personnel casualties did
| the US have in any war during this century?
| notch656a wrote:
| Not sure if this is sarcasm, but quite a few on here from
| 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'
|
| https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/oifnames-
| of-fa...
| throwaway0x7E6 wrote:
| well alright, I stand corrected
|
| still tho, senators' and millionaires' sons aren't the
| E-rank grunts driving the trucks
| chrisseaton wrote:
| No they're the young platoon leaders putting themselves
| in harm's way.
| agapon wrote:
| why go back in time, just be a russian general...
| losvedir wrote:
| Do you have a source for that? The nearest I could find was
| this[0] and it doesn't support your assertion.
|
| [0] https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/demographics-us-military
| YATA1 wrote:
| "Enlisted recruits in 2006 and 2007 came primarily from
| middle-class and upper-middle-class backgrounds. Low-income
| neighborhoods were underrepresented among enlisted troops,
| while middle-class and high-income neighborhoods were
| overrepresented." [0]
|
| "Military recruits mirror the U.S. population and are
| solidly middle class.
|
| A recent report shows that more recruits come from middle-
| income families, with far fewer drawn from poorer families.
| Youth from upper-income families are represented at almost
| exactly their fair share."
|
| Your source is inaccurate because it's for enlisted only.
| Upper class are far more likely to be officers or warrant
| officers.
|
| My point stands: upper class serve more than lower class.
|
| [0] https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/who-serves-the-
| us-mi...
|
| [1] https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/whos-
| joining-mili...
| dagw wrote:
| _My point stands: upper class serve more than lower
| class._
|
| While that may very well be true, it i worth highlighting
| that the reports you are citing as evidence is looking at
| the years 2003 and 2006-2007, and a lot has changed,
| economically and politically, since then.
|
| Also their cut off for "high-income" seems to be
| significantly lower than what most people would consider
| "upper class".
| relaxing wrote:
| "Upper class starts at $65k/yr" is peak Heritage
| Foundation.
| monocasa wrote:
| Jeeze, not just 65k, but 65k household as your
| neighborhood's median.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Thanks for providing some citations. The military.com
| link is to a military recruiting ad, and Heritage's
| business is generating talking points and 'research' for
| conservative/Republican policy (look at their front
| page).
|
| Here's a report saying that 79% of US Army recruits come
| from families with service members. [0] IIRC, the
| military is overwhelmingly rural and does not recruit in
| major urban areas - which matches my experiece in major
| urban areas. [EDIT: 1] Also, the officer corps is
| overwhelmingly white people, afaik, in a country that is
| only about half white people in that age group. However,
| I realize I've only provided one [edit: 2!] good cite[s]
| myself!
|
| [0] https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2022/03/about-face-
| army-ex...
|
| [1] From 2019:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/army-recruiting-
| tech-i...
| relaxing wrote:
| And the military is far more likely to be enlisted, so
| the effect is going to be minor.
|
| Also that report seems to only consider ROTC and West
| Point Cadets, and I'd bet both are wealthier on average
| than the officer corps as a whole.
| YATA1 wrote:
| >And the military is far more likely to be enlisted, so
| the effect is going to be minor.
|
| Immaterial. You're announcing to the world that you don't
| understand what "per capita" and "underrepresented"
| means.
|
| >Also that report seems to only consider ROTC and West
| Point Cadets, and I'd bet both are wealthier on average
| than the officer corps as a whole.
|
| No it doesn't. It specifically talks about enlistment. Of
| course officers are going to be from upper classes, a
| four year degree is a requirement.
| relaxing wrote:
| No need to be rude. It sounded like you were suggesting
| that if the two populations were merged, the
| underrepresented-rich effect would rise above the minimal
| level for enlisted alone (0.1%). And I'm saying it's not
| going up by much.
|
| The section of the report on officers starts at page 9,
| I'm looking at the graphs on pages 9, 10, and 11. If you
| see the data elsewhere, please share.
| aksss wrote:
| Yes, and that data stops the grouping of household income
| at $87k and higher, which isn't really that high of a
| floor, and is telling in itself. There are no further
| breakouts, such as 87-100, 100-200, 200+ because it would
| presumably be insignificant.
| [deleted]
| coldtea wrote:
| Yeah, just not in any combat duty, except the rare ocassion.
| Combat is for the lower classes, preferably rural poor
| remarkEon wrote:
| >Combat is for the lower classes, preferably rural poor
|
| (Former 11A here)
|
| This kind of glosses over a lot of cultural reasons for why
| you find "rural poor" in combat branches. For a lot of the
| folks in my platoon, it was a family affair. Many were from
| e.g. Texas or Georgia, and had a
| brother/cousin/uncle/whatever who were also an 11B/13B etc.
| There isn't really a "preference" that the Army or Marine
| Corps has for poor people, but there is a cultural reason
| why people who like combat tend to be rural poor. This is
| of course my experience, and precise demographic data is
| hard to come by without a FOIA request.
|
| Just wanted to throw my two cents out there. The guys in my
| platoon weren't the "dumb hicks" a lot of people seem to
| think populate the infantry.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| The parent poster is talking about "rural poor", i.e.,
| socioeconomic class, not "dumb hicks", i.e. perceived
| intelligence/education level. I think this is an
| important distinction.
|
| Yes, this is anecdata, and yes, there are many reasons
| why people serve, but I know some smart people (from
| college and in my career) who've served (in infantry)
| because they saw it as their only way to get money for
| college. I think that says less about military recruiting
| tactics than the government overall, because there really
| should be more options presented to someone looking to
| get an education to move up the socioeconomic ladder.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| I recently read an article where Army Chief of Staff,
| Gen. McConville, said that 79% of recruits come from
| families with service members, and how they need to
| expand the pool.
|
| https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2022/03/about-face-
| army-ex...
|
| As far as the rural, the military focuses their
| recruiting in rural areas and barely touches major cities
| - an odd choice given where the population centers are
| and the efficiency of sales in high-density population.
| In a quick search, I found this from 2019:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/army-recruiting-
| tech-i...
|
| > The guys in my platoon weren't the "dumb hicks" a lot
| of people seem to think populate the infantry.
|
| Where have you heard that? I've never heard someone say
| that. People deify the military (in an unhealthy way)
| these days, IME.
| YATA1 wrote:
| >Yeah, just not in any combat duty
|
| That is false. Middle and upper class are more likely to
| serve in combat roles than lower class.
|
| >Combat is for the lower classes, preferably rural poor
|
| Complete opposite actually.
| cafard wrote:
| There did seem to be a rule that the Ivy League turned out
| for Armageddon. Elliot Richardson, who as about as upper
| crust as you can get, landed in Normandy on D-Day, as did
| Theodore Roosevelt, Jr.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| The man who did my job back in the 80s was a literal
| billionaire, putting on the same uniform as me for the same
| pay.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Are you claiming that billionaires serve at the same rate
| as others? Or that there are many billionaires in the
| military?
| VictorPath wrote:
| > a lot of Americans are disconnected from members of the
| military, especially in the upper classes where people do not
| need to serve
|
| It's kind of the point, a larger empire is possible with cannon
| fodder mercenaries from the lower classes. Trying to conscript
| upper middle class college students in the French to American
| colonial war in Vietnam led to a withdrawal from there.
| somethoughts wrote:
| It's interesting if there could be something similar to the
| Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) but for emergency
| preparedness. In there Western portion of North America, it seems
| such things will be more needed going forward - whether it be
| prescribed burns or actual fire fighting.
|
| From an individual participant perspective - it'd seem like it'd
| scratch a similar itch - slightly dangerous, wilderness training,
| heroic and camaraderie building.
|
| From a societal perspective - there will always be natural
| disasters. Also some of the skills could be useful for national
| defense but not having to maintain an organization that's sole
| purpose is national defense seems like it'd be a huge benefit.
| Why not train the team and build camaraderie by fighting fires
| that need fighting versus expensive simulated war games.
|
| A Season with the Hotshots
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6CP5SKQjzg
| h2odragon wrote:
| > we emphasise explaining the context two levels up. I may tell
| my soldiers to raid a compound, but I would also tell them that
| the reason for this is to create a distraction so that the
| Colonel can divert the enemy away from a bridge, and that the
| reason the Brigadier wants the Colonel to divert the enemy is so
| that the bridge is easier to cross.
|
| many organizations could benefit from more of that.
| matwood wrote:
| The term is communicating the "Commanders Intent". It's exactly
| I how work with my teams. Giving the people doing the work as
| much information as possible, lets them make better decisions
| as all the little decisions pop up.
|
| I wasn't in the military, and have always led this way because
| it seemed more effective and tbh, less work for me. Ideally I
| don't need to micro-manage anyone when they have all the same
| information that I do. If a big issue comes up, I trust my team
| to surface it me.
|
| I've watched other managers deal in information (only sharing
| bits and pieces to certain people), and it just never made
| sense to me IMO. Everyone was always a little confused and
| things were never done quite right.
| belfalas wrote:
| _> The term is communicating the "Commanders Intent"._
|
| There is a classic presentation from Mary Poppendieck on
| this, highly recommend:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypEMdjslEOI
| salawat wrote:
| That's how I do things with my group. How do you expect people
| to learn to see the bigger picture if you never admit or make
| them aware there is one in the first place?
| kfrzcode wrote:
| > It's sacrosanct that I tell the people in my Squadron what I
| want them to achieve, and not how to achieve it. They take a goal
| from me and then use their own initiative to make it happen. This
| is 'mission command' and violating it and micromanaging my Yeomen
| is a real taboo. If you try to tell a Yeoman how to cross a piece
| of ground in their vehicle rather than telling them where to get
| to they'll certainly let you know what their job is and what your
| job is. I feel like tech could really learn something from this.
|
| This is huge. "Commander's Intent" is something all team leads
| should set; trust your team to make decisions on the ground,
| because they all know the mission and understand they 'why.'
|
| This is pure Extreme Ownership in action - allow ownership over
| decisions by informing and providing direction.
| jasonladuke0311 wrote:
| > It's sacrosanct that I tell the people in my Squadron what I
| want them to achieve, and not how to achieve it. They take a goal
| from me and then use their own initiative to make it happen.
|
| This is one of the qualities the military me with, and it has
| been so important to me that I constantly challenge my kids to do
| the same.
| basisword wrote:
| >> I originally joined the British Army full-time after finishing
| my masters in computer science at Bristol in 2007. At the time,
| the campaign in Afghanistan was in full-swing, and the campaign
| in Iraq was still running. All my peers were going into office
| jobs in London but I still wanted more fresh air at that point in
| my life.
|
| I just cannot understand this mindset. "I wanted to see the world
| so instead of taking a gap year I thought I'd go to the middle-
| east and do a bit of invading".
| [deleted]
| AllegedAlec wrote:
| You're exactly the kind of tech person he felt like needing to
| explain this to.
| basisword wrote:
| I don't see what 'tech person' has to do with it. Personal
| opinions on the military are pretty basic ethical decisions.
| AllegedAlec wrote:
| Because you start out from the standard tech person
| position of arrogance. You didn't try to argue why you
| think his decision was ethically wrong. You went for a smug
| soundbite that sounds glib and clever.
| basisword wrote:
| 1. He chose to join in 2007 - during the Afghanistan and
| Iraq wars. Those are both wars that, in my opinion and
| the opinion of many others (evident by the massive
| protests at the time) the British should not have been
| involved in.
|
| 2. In my opinion, anybody that joins the army when they
| aren't defending against an invasion (i.e. someone who
| travels thousands of miles to fight another country
| nowhere near their own) has a screw loose. There are
| times when fighting is necessary (e.g. WW2,
| Ukraine/Russia). There have been few of those times
| recently.
|
| 3. I have friends who have friends + relatives in the
| military. I've met those people at social events. I can't
| obviously say they represent all people in the military
| but the ones I've met have all been racist, homophobic
| and worse. Again, I believe you have to have a certain
| mentality to join the military when your country isn't
| actually at risk and this has been bore out by the people
| I've met.
|
| 4. The British military has committed countless crimes
| and atrocities over the last 50 years. I can't respect
| anyone who would decide to be part of that institution
| when it is not necessary to be.
| notch656a wrote:
| mardifoufs wrote:
| In my case it's more me being a muslim that who saw first
| hand the effects of what is being "handwaved" in this very
| thread. I dont think that has anything to do with me being in
| tech.
| lisper wrote:
| To say nothing of the fact that the air quality in war zones is
| not particularly good.
| adewinter wrote:
| I think that's a pretty disengenous take on the author's
| thought process. If you read the entire article it's clear that
| he believes in the concept of defending his country _and_
| trusting his leaders to correctly decide how that defense is
| carried out. If that decision is to send him to the middle east
| then so be it. It very clearly is not about him wanting to "do
| a bit of invading."
|
| Maybe you think the middle east invasion was the wrong call.
| Totally fair. But you should blame the correct actor for that
| call, and it certainly is not the individual soldier.
| basisword wrote:
| >> But you should blame the correct actor for that call, and
| it certainly is not the individual soldier.
|
| He joined while that war was ongoing (2007). I think it's
| perfectly fair to judge him in that case when the choice to
| take part was 100% his.
| adewinter wrote:
| Sure, if you're operating under the assumption that a) he
| understands geo-politics and global defense better than the
| leadership of his country and b) he has better and more
| real-time information (than the leadership) about the
| situation on the ground in Iraq/Afghanistan at the time.
|
| If he thought what they were doing over there in 2007 was
| morally/ethically indefensible and decided to join up
| anyway then, yes, judge away.
|
| Probably more straightforward to lay the blame squarely
| where it's due, at those who made the high level decisions
| to engage in the war in the first place, especially in the
| context of the outcomes of said war.
| georgeecollins wrote:
| >> so instead of taking a gap year I thought I'd go to the
| middle-east and do a bit of invading".
|
| The fault of bad wars is partly in military leadership but much
| more with politicians and voters. To blame anyone who serves
| for the choice occupy Afghanistan is misplaced. And who do you
| want to have in the military of a democracy? Only people from a
| particular class or culture? I'm glad that someone from the
| Hacker News crowd is doing this.
| howmayiannoyyou wrote:
| > bad wars
|
| All wars are bad, but if you meant unsuccessful then until
| the Taliban again starts harboring terrorist intent on
| attacking the United States its a bit early to label it a
| 'bad war'. Similarly, Iraq is no longer a threat in the
| region and is instead a sink hole into which Iran must expend
| blood and treasure to maintain influence. Perhaps in time one
| or both can be clearly viewed as unsuccessful, but its not
| yet clear that is the case.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| You can literally always justify a war lol. The "stability"
| argument is so insane considering the iraq war plunged the
| region into it's most unstable period of the past century
| but okay. You also dont consider the enormous collateral
| damage and loss of life that it caused.
|
| At that point you might as well believe what russia is
| doing is okay because in the very long run it's probably
| going to mean it will lead to less neo-nazis in ukraine? If
| we ignore the destruction and death caused by the russian
| invasion and focus on a very comparatively tiny upside to
| the war.
| howmayiannoyyou wrote:
| > The "stability" argument is so insane
|
| Geopolitics is a fluid system. Stability is always in
| play.
|
| > the iraq war plunged the region into it's most unstable
| period
|
| Really depends on whose instability we're talking about.
| Its been 'good' for some and 'bad' for others; all
| depends on what side of the thousand year conflict you
| find yourself on.
|
| > If we ignore the destruction and death caused by the
| russian invasion
|
| If you think Russia invaded Ukraine all on its own
| without being coaxed into doing so after years of US/UK
| intervention in Ukraine then you're poorly informed.
| Russia's arrogance, inhumanity and long-standing fears
| were used against it to great effect. If the risk of
| escalation can be managed Europe (and Ukraine) may
| eventually be free of Russia's stranglehold on energy.
|
| > If we ignore the destruction and death
|
| Strategic narcissism to think our generation can be free
| of war, have bloodless wars or find ourselves
| substantially more evolved than prior generations. Until
| we figure out how to prevent sociopaths from becoming
| leaders we are doomed to repeat history many times over.
| freedomben wrote:
| Your privilege is showing. Most people can't afford to take a
| month off, let alone a year. Paying for world travel is out of
| the question.
| basisword wrote:
| In the UK lots of people max out their overdraft and spend
| some time travelling after uni. They then pay this back when
| they get good grad jobs - e.g. like the OP.
|
| Regardless - if you cannot afford to do some travelling after
| uni, spending time in a war zone is hardly a sound
| alternative.
| notch656a wrote:
| >Regardless - if you cannot afford to do some travelling
| after uni, spending time in a war zone is hardly a sound
| alternative.
|
| Depends on the person.
|
| "There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who
| have hunted armed men long enough, and liked it, never
| really care for anything else."
| uxp100 wrote:
| That makes no sense in context on the author's statement,
| which was essentially saying, I did this because I wanted to,
| NOT because I had no choice.
| howmayiannoyyou wrote:
| > a bit of invading.
|
| The world doesn't work the way you wish it did. Atrocities are
| prevented and security is maintained through action and
| _credible_ deterrence. This requires men and women willing or
| conscripted into service. Would be great if none of this were
| necessary, but it 's simply not how the world works and there
| is ample historical evidence of what happens when a country
| lowers its guard. As I type this Germany is coming to grips
| with its own wishful thinking regarding Russia and its energy
| and food supplies.
| Tepix wrote:
| There is ample historical evidence that having an army to
| send into war makes the world less safe, not more.
|
| If the US army in particular had a clear conscience, why
| would the US oppose the International Criminal Court in The
| Hague? Telling your soldies that their war crimes will go
| unpunished is a great way to invite them.
| howmayiannoyyou wrote:
| I don't know what you mean by 'safe' but I'd rather be
| unsafe than Tibet or Hong Kong who had no defense forces to
| resist Chinese annexation.
|
| The ICJ is a political entity for political convenience.
| Its not the neutral arbiter of truth you wish it were.
| notch656a wrote:
| I was against the war in Iraq and still am, but IMO the
| jury is still out whether the war in Iraq made the world
| less safe. Saddam was a brutal dictator including gassing
| and genociding the Kurds. The Kurds now have a fairly
| stable government in Northern Iraq thanks to the invasion
| and are a center of prosperity in the region. ISIS has been
| largely suppressed, and there's been no repeat of the Iran
| or Kuwait wars of Iraq since the US takoever.
| alexanderballou wrote:
| Voluntary participation in the military can be a great way to
| learn leadership skills that can translate to other occupations.
| No one should be forced to serve but it is possible that with the
| right motivation it can be beneficial to individuals and society.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-04 23:01 UTC)