Poll: Manditory Service in the US

[Rolling Thunder]

Being surrouded by all those half-naked, sweaty potential partners and not being able to have them. Damn, I'm glad I'm not gay. Or conscriptable for that matter.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

I'm in favor of manditory homeland service myself, stuff like Disaster Relief, Rescue etc. it's a good thing and IMO increases public responsiblity.

 

[TomNook]

Slavery isn't very fun in my mind.

 

[TheGreatGonzo26]

Hmm. This is a hard topic to reply to.

In some countries, like Israel, when a child reaches 18, they serve in the Israeli army for two years I think. Taking into account Israel's location, its a good idea for them to have a large standing army in case any thing happens like the 7 days war.

For other countries, like the U.S. or the U.K., it might be a good idea it might not. In the U.S, it used to be that if you were sent before a judge for a minor infraction, you were given two options: Jail Time or Military Service. This has long since been done away with, but with the amount of people in jails today, the U.S might want to look into offering that again.

 

[mokes310]

Mokes, I don't mean to be rude, so I hope I don't come accross as such, but you realise that the military aspect of your plans is completely contrary to the current ethos of modern warfare. As far as I can tell, you are advocating that the military, instead of spending it's money on advanced weaponery, instead spends it on maintaining a large, conscript army. This is a highly flawed solution to military matters.

Firstly, a large army of unwilling conscripts is notoriously inefficent. Even with propaganda and good supplies, the simple fact was that proffessional, mercenary armies are always going to be superior to conscript armys in terms of morale, in terms of logistics and in terms of their ability to take the initiative.

Secondly- as Germany demonstrated against Poland, and would have against the Allies unless it hadn't been for the air force- it is far better to have advanced tech than numbers.

Consider that one Tiger could knock out I believe it was ten to twelve Shermans. A Panther achieved much the same ratio. Now, consider that in terms of resources, it only required four times the resources to produce a Panther/Tiger as it did a 34/Sherman?
We're damn lucky.

Fondant, no worries, you didn't seem rude at all.

If you were to read my post again, I wasn't suggesting that we cut those programs just to support a larger conscript military, but to use funds from bogus projects like those to support the entire conscription service, i.e. Military, Civil Service & Peace Corps.

At no point was I suggesting that we just inflate our military to exponential levels, but rather, give people an option on whether to serve in the military, or another option such as civil service or peace corps.

And again, if anyone thinks that this is just too expensive, ask yourself; how much have we spent fighting in Iraq? Now ask yourself if that money could have been spent just a little better?

 

[mokes310]

Mokes, I don't mean to be rude, so I hope I don't come accross as such, but you realise that the military aspect of your plans is completely contrary to the current ethos of modern warfare. As far as I can tell, you are advocating that the military, instead of spending it's money on advanced weaponery, instead spends it on maintaining a large, conscript army. This is a highly flawed solution to military matters.

Firstly, a large army of unwilling conscripts is notoriously inefficent. Even with propaganda and good supplies, the simple fact was that proffessional, mercenary armies are always going to be superior to conscript armys in terms of morale, in terms of logistics and in terms of their ability to take the initiative.

Secondly- as Germany demonstrated against Poland, and would have against the Allies unless it hadn't been for the air force- it is far better to have advanced tech than numbers.

Consider that one Tiger could knock out I believe it was ten to twelve Shermans. A Panther achieved much the same ratio. Now, consider that in terms of resources, it only required four times the resources to produce a Panther/Tiger as it did a 34/Sherman?
We're damn lucky.

Fondant, no worries, you didn't seem rude at all.

If you were to read my post again, I wasn't suggesting that we cut those programs just to support a larger conscript military, but to use funds from bogus projects like those to support the entire conscription service, i.e. Military, Civil Service & Peace Corps.

At no point was I suggesting that we just inflate our military to exponential levels, but rather, give people an option on whether to serve in the military, or another option such as civil service or peace corps.

And again, if anyone thinks that this is just too expensive, ask yourself; how much have we spent fighting in Iraq? Now ask yourself if that money could have been spent just a little better?

 

[mokes310]

Forums are jacked up, forgive the double posts...

 

[sirdanrhodes]

I think those boffins should be brought in to service for the escapist. The site never freaking works as it is!

 

[TheDean]

Nothing should be Manditory, ever.

 

[Balios]

Byzantinum vs. the Turks (professional army vs muslim hoards) Turks win.

The Turks were *so* not just hordes. There was nothing horde-like about the Janissaries, for example.

As for numbers? Ask that Alexander the Great guy what numbers mean when they meet a sufficiently well-disciplined army with great leadership.

As for good discipline+advanced weaponry and tactics? How about Rorke's Drift, where 139 British Regulars and 160 African colonials defeated four to five THOUSAND Zulu? And the Zulu were great warriors themselves.

Although I do have to stick up for American tanks--the advantage was that they could be much more easily repaired. The whole front end comes right off, doesn't it? While if you want to get a German tank's engine or power plant out, you've got to ship it back to the factory and hoist it out of the chassis, I think.

Well first off the Turks didnt have Janissaries till after they basically defeated the Byzantium army in Asia Minor. Second off the Janissaries were captured Balkan Serfs force to fight for the Turks.

And with ALexander the great like I said Leaders win battles numbers and tactics win wars. Persians did not possess the tactics to defeat Alexander and his calvary.

The Zulu did not possess tactics to defeat the british. They had the numbers but not the tactics.

Look at the Napoleonic wars, Napoleon won battles but numbers and tactics defeated one of the great military minds in history.

You cant just walk into a war with a few professional soldiers you have to bring an army of anytype of soldiers you can get.

 

[Balios]

Nothing should be Manditory, ever.

Especially breathing...

 

[SerialSade]

I think it's not a bad idea, but I wouldn't say I want to enlist or do community service. I think it's almost already necessary now.
Getting into college is hard, and a lot of people really do HAVE to do community service to add to their college applications, or enlist to get the funds.
I think the job is already done, and we shouldn't force anyone into anything, it's against the general morals of the country after all.
Plus the bill would never pass, they would have to include everyone.
Would Obama send his young daughters to war? I think not.

 

[TheDean]

Nothing should be Manditory, ever.

Especially breathing...

of course.

 

[Talisker]

I say no. If you start making things mandatory you get people who don't want to be there. If someone dosen't want to be there they do things half-assed and things go wrong. Not good, especially in the military where half-assed equals dead.

 

[Balios]

Look at the Napoleonic wars, Napoleon won battles but numbers and tactics defeated one of the great military minds in history.

Not really--the numbers and tactics needed the Russian winter and attrition to defeat Napoleon, after 17 years of Napoleon winning.

http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/229-vital-statistics-of-a-deadly-campaign-the-minard-map/

I was talking about the final battles with the Prussians and the British. (basically the Allied forces)

 

[Balios]

Look at the Napoleonic wars, Napoleon won battles but numbers and tactics defeated one of the great military minds in history.

Not really--the numbers and tactics needed the Russian winter and attrition to defeat Napoleon, after 17 years of Napoleon winning.

http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/229-vital-statistics-of-a-deadly-campaign-the-minard-map/

I was talking about the final battles with the Prussians and the British. (basically the Allied forces)

Right--one set of battles at the end of his career when he really wasn't the commander he had been vs. near constant victory from 1793 to 1812, the only exception being the Egyptian campaign which, again, had to do with in large part with attrition.

Hence Attrition = numbers and tactics. Point is he was outnumbered and the Allies adopted new tactics that lead to his defeat.