Support NeoGAF

[Aon]

This obsession with the contingency to fight a significant land war with China/Russia perplexes me. We are living in the nuclear age. The idea that, much to humanity's detriment, any nuclear power would not deploy at least tactical nuclear weapons in attempt to remove the kind of armies you'd need conscription to counter from their soil is absurd.

While the USA might require a draft at some point to bolster troop numbers in another Cold War situation, where the country has to maintain numerous large standing garrisons across the world while prosecuting protracted wars in the world's poorer countries, I sincerely do not believe America will ever have to implement a draft to fight off a Chinese invasion of the west coast.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

That poster actually isn't a Trump supporter anymore if I remember correctly.

... This does not change their tag.

 

[danm999]

If you can figure out how to get all the fast food workers who are fighting for $15 / hour to graduate college, we can talk.

How much is the military going to pay them?

 

[shem935]

... This does not change their tag.

I mean if you don't actually want to have a discussion with someone that's fine but trying to snipe from the side and take pot shots seems silly.

 

[HariKari]

This obsession with the contingency to fight a significant land war with China/Russia perplexes me. We are living in the nuclear age. The idea that, much to humanity's detriment, any nuclear power would not deploy at least tactical nuclear weapons in attempt to remove the kind of armies you'd need conscription to counter from their soil is absurd.

Exactly right, which is why this is largely just about appearances. May as well make things equal.

 

[Two Words]

If you can figure out how to get all the fast food workers who are fighting for $15 / hour to graduate college, we can talk.

Do you think there won't be people having to find work in fast food places if we have a mandatory military service?

 

[kess]

The point is that if most of your young males die there is an imbalance in population. Less males lead to fewer families leads to problems if a significant portion of them die.

The Paraguayan War resulted in one of the greatest gender imbalances of all time (an estimated loss of 70% of the male population), but the population recovered fairly quickly nonetheless.

 

[AnathemicOne]

If you can figure out how to get all the fast food workers who are fighting for $15 / hour to graduate college, we can talk.

Instead of suggesting how mandatory military service will solve our economic woes out of position of ignorance, how about taking an Economics 101 class?

 

[cpp_is_king]

Do you think there won't be people having to find work in fast food places if we have a mandatory military service?

Of course there will still be some. But I think some -- perhaps even many -- of those that go through will be able to apply the skills to getting a better job. And that applies to all unskilled labor.

Instead of suggesting how mandatory military service will solved our economic woes out of position of ignorance, how about taking an Economics 101 class?

Didn't say everything would be magically solved. I said I think it would be an improvement. Hopefully you understand the difference.

 

[Two Words]

We're now comparing mandatory military service in Finland, South Korea, Taiwan, Norway, and Singapore to sodomy in countries with islamic law?

Thumbs up.

Population:
Finland- 5.439 million
Norway- 5.048 million
Singapore- 5.399 million
South Korea- 50.22 million
USA- 318.9 million

 

[TAJ]

Does this mean that entire countries who have implemented this also don't know what they are doing? You disagreeing with someone does not mean you can stifle discussion by saying "bro you're just stupid and wrong, lol"



It's not all STEM. And while it may cost money to feed and house them, the idea is that they are more prepared to give something back after getting out. Like having better jobs (which means paying more tax), for example

Better jobs, lol. If everyone has been in the military then it's not an advantage for anyone.

 

[Two Words]

Of course there will still be some. But I think some -- perhaps even many -- of those that go through will be able to apply the skills to getting a better job. And that applies to all unskilled labor.

How about we put that money into improving our public education system to encourage more students to go into college. If you want to improve education, put the money into education.

 

[AnathemicOne]

Of course there will still be some. But I think some -- perhaps even many -- of those that go through will be able to apply the skills to getting a better job. And that applies to all unskilled labor.



Didn't say everything would be magically solved. I said I think it would be an improvement. Hopefully you understand the difference.

Except you haven't provided any data/evidence other than "Well I know some buddies who like being in the military!" which I (and many others) have easily retorted within this thread. Again as a military brat I know how the military works and operates via familial relation and actually living overseas on their bases. It's not a life for everyone.

Spoiler

Btw I'm using "real data"

 

[neogaffer1]

Just so we get this straight, here's some straight numbers on mandatory 2 year service. It supposedly costs between $60k and $100k to train a single soldier--let's just say it's $75k for simplicity. Likewise, in 2010 there were 8.8M 18-19 year olds in the US

8.8M * 75k = $660B.

That's just to train those soldiers, much less pay them, transport them to a post where they are needed, increasing infrastructure for the soldiers, gettting new equipment, etc. Keep in mind, the largest army in the world is China's, at 2.3M, and we currently have 1.4M troops.

1.4M + 8.8M = 10.2M troops. We'd be more than four times the size of what's currently the largest army in the world. For a country that has no hostile neighbors (China has India, Vietnam to an extent, and the whole NK/SK mess)...

mandatory military service is a terrible idea.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Except you haven't provided any data/evidence other than "Well I know some buddies who like being in the military!" which I (and many others) have easily retorted within this thread. Again as a military brat I know how the military works and operates via familial relation and actually living overseas on their bases. It's not a life for everyone.

I don't think you have provided any data either. We're just expressing our opinions, right? Mine is that it would be an improvement, yours is that it wouldn't. Last time I checked two people were allowed to have differing opinions -- and it's even possible for people to ahve different opinions while neither one is ignorant, if you can believe that.

Just so we get this straight, here's some straight numbers on mandatory 2 year service. It supposedly costs between $60k and $100k to train a single soldier--let's just say it's $75k for simplicity. Likewise, in 2010 there were 8.8M 18-19 year olds in the US

8.8M * 75k = $660B.

That's just to train those soldiers, much less pay them, transport them to a post where they are needed, increasing infrastructure for the soldiers, gettting new equipment, etc. Keep in mind, the largest army in the world is China's, at 2.3M, and we currently have 1.4M troops.

1.4M + 8.8M = 10.2M troops. We'd be more than four times the size of what's currently the largest army in the world. For a country that has no hostile neighbors (China has India, Vietnam to an extent, and the whole NK/SK mess)...

mandatory military service is a terrible idea.

So... make it 1 year. Make it "national service" instead of military service. Make it 6 months. It's always easier to latch onto the details than the general concept though, I suppose.

 

[neogaffer1]

I don't think you have provided any data either. We're just expressing our opinions, right? Mine is that it would be an improvement, yours is that it wouldn't. Last time I checked two people were allowed to have differing opinions -- and it's even possible for people to ahve different opinions while neither one is ignorant, if you can believe that.



So... make it 1 year. Make it "national service" instead of military service. Make it 6 months. It's always easier to latch onto the details than the general concept though, I suppose.

we'd still have a 10M person army. why the hell would we need an army that big? how would even support an army that big?

 

[Two Words]

I don't think you have provided any data either. We're just expressing our opinions, right? Mine is that it would be an improvement, yours is that it wouldn't. Last time I checked two people were allowed to have differing opinions -- and it's even possible for people to ahve different opinions while neither one is ignorant, if you can believe that.



So... make it 1 year. Make it "national service" instead of military service. Make it 6 months. It's always easier to latch onto the details than the general concept though, I suppose.

What is "national service"? What is this amazing experience somebody will get in 6 months in "national service" that will make them better? Why not just use that money to improve public education?

 

[AnathemicOne]

I don't think you have provided any data either. We're just expressing our opinions, right? Mine is that it would be an improvement, yours is that it wouldn't. Last time I checked two people were allowed to have differing opinions -- and it's even possible for people to ahve different opinions while neither one is ignorant, if you can believe that.

You're entitled to your opinion but it doesn't make you immune to people calling you out on your bullshit.

Spoiler

Opinions can be wrong, shocking right?

 

[Dishwalla]

What good would one year of national service do? For many it'd just be a vacation, a temporary stop gap until they could get out of there and get on with their lives.

 

[danm999]

So... make it 1 year. Make it "national service" instead of military service. Make it 6 months. It's always easier to latch onto the details than the general concept though, I suppose.

When you need to drastically alter your own plan because someone asks a question as basic as "how will this be paid for", it should be an indication you haven't thought your plan out very well.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

If the selective service isn't going away, then making women sign up is a no brainer. And it better be tied to government assistance like college financial aid, etc., too.

 

[cpp_is_king]

You're entitled to your opinion but it doesn't make you immune to people calling you out on your bullshit.

Spoiler

Opinions can be wrong, shocking right?

Only in the presence of facts. My dictionary defines an opinion as "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty."

I'm interested to see how you intend to produce complete certainty on a hypothetical scenario.

When you need to drastically alter your own plan because someone asks a question as basic as "how will this be paid for", it should be an indication you haven't thought your plan out very well.

Altering details such as duration and scope is not "drastically altering a plan". Drastically altering a plan is changing it to something fundamentally different

 

[danm999]

Population:
Finland- 5.439 million
Norway- 5.048 million
Singapore- 5.399 million
South Korea- 50.22 million
USA- 318.9 million

Another thing to point out is that all the listed countries (and some others like Israel) have universal health care, and vastly more generous social programs than the United States for things like welfare, education and job assistance. These things all lessen the load of forcing their young citizens to attend mandatory military training.

Things are already a nightmare for the youth of America in terms of student loan repayment, medical costs, a glut in labour supply leading to high unemployment, adding mandatory military service on top is just fucked up.

Altering details such as duration and scope is not "drastically altering a plan". Drastically altering a plan is changing it to something fundamentally different

You've just halved the duration and extended the nature of the program from boot camp to this nebulous "national service" (something you haven't defined).

I'm not sure how much more dramatically you could alter that plan without abolishing it.

 

[GloriousBagel]

Hooray for equality!!!

I don't think I'm prepared for the POW stories to come out of this though. Women will have it extremely rough.

 

[neogaffer1]

Hooray for equality!!!

I don't think I'm prepared for the POW stories to come out of this though. Women will have it extremely rough.

well, i mean, the good thing is that the threats the modern american military would just as well wipe their asses with the geneva convention as follow it, so it's much more likely they'd just be killed on site rather than be captured.

Spoiler

that or tortured for information and then executed on video in the name of the islamic state or some shit

And the "half" number I gave is also just an arbitrary number. In case it's not clear by this point: The number is irrelevant, it's a detail. Make it 43.6 days if it suits you.

I think the high level idea is good, regardless of how badly you want to poke holes in arbitrarily chosen details.

when you haven't defined anything specific everything that is mentioned is integral to the idea that's put forward.

 

[cpp_is_king]

You've just halved the duration and extended the nature of the program from boot camp to this nebulous "national service" (something you haven't defined).

I'm not sure how much more dramatically you could alter that plan without abolishing it.

And the "half" number I gave is also just an arbitrary number. In case it's not clear by this point: The number is irrelevant, it's a detail. Make it 43.6 days if it suits you.

I think the high level idea is good, regardless of how badly you want to poke holes in arbitrarily chosen details.

Sorry I'm not a politician with a 300 page bill that I'm going to present to congress that lays out every single facet in excruciating detail that you wouldn't even read.

 

[danm999]

And the "half" number I gave is also just an arbitrary number. In case it's not clear by this point: The number is irrelevant, it's a detail. Make it 43.6 days if it suits you.

I think the high level idea is good, regardless of how badly you want to poke holes in arbitrarily chosen details.

In what world is "how will this be paid for" not a high level detail?

 

[AnathemicOne]

Only in the presence of facts. My dictionary defines an opinion as "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty."

I'm interested to see how you intend to produce complete certainty on a hypothetical scenario.

Except we are arguing your certainty not mine, I'm specifically calling out BS such as this:

bottom line: talk to anyone who has been through this in their own country. ALL of them came out the better for it, and they will admit it to you straight up

and clarifying statements like this:

There is more to the military than boot camp. After that part is over you have to, like, do stuff. Be a mechanic, a cryptographer, and intelligence analyst, a medic, something. There are actual jobs in the military. And they train you for them.

You haven't provided anything concrete to support mandatory military service beyond "well it can do this" and misguided nationalism. I'm simply providing my own anecdotes to counter your's which you claimed certainty on.

 

[Dishwalla]

Boot camp these days isn't even all that bad, hell after a certain week in Navy boot camp you are given tablets with wifi. It's not at all like it was portrayed in Full Metal Jacket or whatever, not anymore. I really don't think everyone will be broken in boot camp, or taught respect. It would definitely be possible for one to coast through it.

 

[Two Words]

And the "half" number I gave is also just an arbitrary number. In case it's not clear by this point: The number is irrelevant, it's a detail. Make it 43.6 days if it suits you.

I think the high level idea is good, regardless of how badly you want to poke holes in arbitrarily chosen details.

Sorry I'm not a politician with a 300 page bill that I'm going to present to congress that lays out every single facet in excruciating detail that you wouldn't even read.

You've just given a handwavey argument why it is a good idea and people are pointing out flaws. You've yet to give any concrete evidence why it is a good idea. At this point, it is nothing more than "because I think so."

 

[GloriousBagel]

well, i mean, the good thing is that the threats the modern american military would just as well wipe their asses with the geneva convention as follow it, so it's much more likely they'd just be killed on site rather than be captured.

Spoiler

that or tortured for information and then executed on video in the name of the islamic state or some shit

when you haven't defined anything specific everything that is mentioned is integral to the idea that's put forward.

Well if we do end up in another armed conflict in some foreign country, there is that possibility. Women will be more susceptible to harsher tortured and raped, not that Men don't of course. Women are already raped in the name of God in ISIS controlled territories, watched a short report on it. I teared up.

Call me sexist or whatever, but I think it's morally wrong to send Women off to war. Not that they won't be able to perform the same tasks, but they might end up being more at risk.

 

[cpp_is_king]

You've just given a handwavey argument why it is a good idea and people are pointing out flaws. You've yet to give any concrete evidence why it is a good idea. At this point, it is nothing more than "because I think so."

Yes, you're exactly right. It is nothing more than "because I think so.". Did you think otherwise? We're discussing a hypothetical scenario, that's literally the only thing anyone has. I mean I have my anecdotal evidence which contributes to my belief, and you have yours. But neither one of has have unquestionable certainty, so it's because I think so, and because you think so.

 

[AnathemicOne]

Yes, you're exactly right. It is nothing more than "because I think so.". Did you think otherwise? We're discussing a hypothetical scenario, that's literally the only thing anyone has. I mean I have my anecdotal evidence which contributes to my certainty, and you have yours. But neither one of has have unquestionable certainty, so it's because I think so, and because you think so.

Well you've the burden of proof on your shoulders since you explicitly stated you had it ie "real data". We are all waiting.

 

[Dishwalla]

Yes, you're exactly right. It is nothing more than "because I think so.". Did you think otherwise? We're discussing a hypothetical scenario, that's literally the only thing anyone has.

But you aren't basing your "because I think so" in any realistic realm. You are refusing to see beyond your own strange fantasy. When you say something like every 18 year old in America should do mandatory military service you have to realize what that would take financially and logistically.

In all honesty I'm pretty sure people in much higher pay grades than you have thought of your idea before, and they realized it wasn't a good idea for this country to implement.

 

[neogaffer1]

Well if we do end up in another armed conflict in some foreign country, there is that possibility. Women will be more susceptible to harsher tortured and raped, not that Men don't of course. Women are already raped in the name of God in ISIS controlled territories, watched a short report on it. I teared up.

Call me sexist or whatever, but I think it's morally wrong to send Women off to war. Not that they won't be able to perform the same tasks, but they might end up being more at risk.

we already have female members of the military "on the ground." they may not be in ground combat positions but there are still pilots and other roles filled by women. putting them in positions that were until now limited to men isn't likely to change much.

 

[cpp_is_king]

In all honesty I'm pretty sure people in much higher pay grades than you have thought of your idea before, and they realized it wasn't a good idea for this country to implement.

is that really a useful metric? I'm pretty sure that if you stick George Soros and The Koch Brothers into a room, they are going to find very little common ground with each other, and they are both in the highest possible pay grades that exist.

So I really dont' see how one's pay grade correlates to the validity of their political ideas.

 

[makingmusic476]

Why do I feel like a lot of the people that make a big deal about women not being eligible for the selective service ("It's so unfair only men have to do it! Equality, amirite.") will now complain about women not being fit for service.

I think this is a good move, though I'd prefer the selective service be done away with entirely.

 

[GloriousBagel]

we already have female members of the military "on the ground." they may not be in ground combat positions but there are still pilots and other roles filled by women. putting them in positions that were until now limited to men isn't likely to change much.

I'm pretty sure the Pentagon just opened up all combat roles to Women this week though :0

Here we go, http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/politics/u-s-military-women-combat-positions/index.html

 

[Dishwalla]

Good argument, way to miss the point, congrats on stifling conversation yet again, etc.

 

[neogaffer1]

I'm pretty sure the Pentagon just opened up all combat roles to Women this week though :0

http://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-j...penToWomen=N&selectCategory=allJobCat#results

these are all the jobs open to women in the past before this week's announcement. many of this are on the ground in afghanistan/iraq/whereever the next conflict will be, even if they're not on the frontline itself.

this includes stuff ranging from artillery and piloting to explosive specalists.

 

[Valhelm]

Uhh, what? People who are in a relationship with somebody in the military don't just vow to never be with anybody else if their significant other is killed. Well, at least not most.

It's not about widowhood, but math. Because generally, one man will only have children with one woman, if a lot of men die there are less men left to have children. Thus, the population shrinks.

 

[cpp_is_king]

It's not about widowhood, but math. Because generally, one man will only have children with one woman, if a lot of men die there are less men left to have children. Thus, the population shrinks.

Assuming an equal population, if one man disappears, wouldn't that have roughly the same effect as one man and one woman disappearing? You remove the dead as well as their future partner.

If this is the case, I dont' see how we could really have a war on a big enough scale to have a noticeable impact. Even if 100,000 men die, you've essentially reduced the breeding population by 200,000. Out of a population of about 200 million. Given the exponential nature of population growth, I don't see how this is such a big setback.

 

[neogaffer1]

Assuming an equal population, if one man disappears, wouldn't that have roughly the same effect as one man and one woman disappearing? You remove the dead as well as their future partner.

If this is the case, I dont' see how we could really have a war on a big enough scale to have a noticeable impact. Even if 100,000 men die, you've essentially reduced the breeding population by 200,000. Out of a population of about 200 million. Given the exponential nature of population growth, I don't see how this is such a big setback.

with only men, you remove two men, that's two women without partners. you remove one man, one woman, that's one more couple than if only men were drafted. and while it's true the us has a much larger population than most countries how much that population changes over the next few generation depends almost entirely on young people, and the less young people there are to procreate the smaller the next generation would be.

that's why after wwi the "lost generation" was such a big deal. an entire generation of young men in places like france and britian were gone and that hurt the population.

 

[Beerman462]

Do it. If we ever need to enact a draft then we need all the bodies we can get.

 

[pigeon]

The draft isn't a thing right now. You better believe it will come back if we face another existential crisis like a world war and no amount of getting rid of it now will stop that.

I mean, sure, if we face a threat where America is itself in danger and what we actually need is more soldiers for some reason.

So basically if Command and Conquer happens, expect the draft to come back.

 

[213372bu]

I'm on team "let's get rid of the draft."

As it is, we have an overkill amount of people holding jobs in military positions, no need to have another Vietnam.

 

[Two Words]

Yes, you're exactly right. It is nothing more than "because I think so.". Did you think otherwise? We're discussing a hypothetical scenario, that's literally the only thing anyone has. I mean I have my anecdotal evidence which contributes to my belief, and you have yours. But neither one of has have unquestionable certainty, so it's because I think so, and because you think so.

I people here have pointed out actual statistics that have at least caused you to significantly ha he the terms of your idea. The idea is muddy and expensive. Why should anybody be persuaded to feel the same as you?

 

[Freyjadour]

I don't think you have provided any data either. We're just expressing our opinions, right? Mine is that it would be an improvement, yours is that it wouldn't. Last time I checked two people were allowed to have differing opinions -- and it's even possible for people to ahve different opinions while neither one is ignorant, if you can believe that.



So... make it 1 year. Make it "national service" instead of military service. Make it 6 months. It's always easier to latch onto the details than the general concept though, I suppose.

Or quit fucking around with patriotic bullshit pipedreams and put that money into assisting / eliminating the cost of higher education.

 

[Milksheikhs]

Eh fuck that. I'm sorry but I don't think it should be okay to force anyone to fight in a war that they don't believe in.

Also, would there be exceptions to some women? For example would you force pregnant women to serve?

 

[Two Words]

Eh fuck that. I'm sorry but I don't think it should be okay to force anyone to fight in a war that they don't believe in.

Also, would there be exceptions to some women? For example would you force pregnant women to serve?

A draft doesn't force men not fit to serve to go.