As someone who intends to join the infantry in due course I'd go for the 6 months training and frontline duty.
Poll: What if you were forced into military?
- Thread starter Zacharine
- Start date
Recommended Videos
14 months of jail, mainly because I was drafted.
If we were in the middle of a genuine crises (real one, not vietnam, not iraq. I mean either we're being invaded or something like WW2 which would've eventually resulted in us being invaded), I'd enlist as long as i have a choice.
What about single fathers? You know they did make exceptions during the draft, I doubt no one to take care of a child wouldn't be a valid excuse to get out.
Also, I don't particularly care anymore if a girl fights than if a guy does, especially if it's with guns and not fists
If we were in the middle of a genuine crises (real one, not vietnam, not iraq. I mean either we're being invaded or something like WW2 which would've eventually resulted in us being invaded), I'd enlist as long as i have a choice.
I don't see it as anyone's duty to be forced into war. I don't take responsibility for killing someone attacking my country till they're dangerously close to my house.crypt-creature said:
What about single fathers? You know they did make exceptions during the draft, I doubt no one to take care of a child wouldn't be a valid excuse to get out.
Also, I don't particularly care anymore if a girl fights than if a guy does, especially if it's with guns and not fists
Yeah I know, but like I said in an earlier post, I can't think of absolutely everything. Real life has way too many variables to take easily into account.mike1921 said:
Of course they would have to be some kind of case-by-case review system for those more special cases, unless they simply degree all such children to be wards of the state. And that would lead to a revolt even before any war.
Its a good thing I always stalk your posts slowly...MaxTheReaper said:
POUNCE!
On topic, I would go for what Max did. 6 months, weapon skills, and you get some ammo in the process most likely
'Some' being the important word. I've met military men who do think it's a persons duty to join the military when there is a war or possibility of it. But, some of those people also had the mindset that if you didn't follow their beliefs you were a coward who didn't care for your country or anyone else but yourself. *shrug*.mike1921 said:
I think single fathers should have exceptions (I'd thought about bringing that point up. I did not *hangs head*), not that we'd have any idea how such things would actually be considered or responded to.
"I doubt no one to take care of a child wouldn't be a valid excuse to get out."
Sometimes it should be. What is the point of going to war to protect your country and citizens, if you're going to treat them like crap? Where would it end?
I'm amused at how many people have voted for long range combat. They probably think that long range is less dangerous. It is - at first. Long range can become close range very quickly, and if your opponent has a shotgun or a Kalashnikov... well, that big ol' sniper rifle suddenly looks pretty useless.
Give me civiilian service or consciencious objection in this situation. I pretty much am a consciencious objector to conscription and war by now, anyway.
Give me civiilian service or consciencious objection in this situation. I pretty much am a consciencious objector to conscription and war by now, anyway.
Yes, they would go into the Cannon Fodder Division, on the front lines of course.SakSak said:
Actually, I'm not quite sure where this idea that sniping was long-range combat in this scenario came about. I mean, It's not like you're too far away from the enemy right? 1,5 - 2 km (1-1,5 miles) isn't that far.
I disticnly remember describing the long range combat as artillery, aerial warfare etc. Long range combat (at least what I meant with it) wouldn't be closer than 10 miles to the enemy if you can have your way with the positiong. During WW2 Finnish soldiers were directing accurate artillery fire against the russians, using nothing but a 50 wire, hard markers driven to the ground every now and then (with the co-ordinates of the point engraved upon it, accurate to the meter), a compass, a map, a radio and those rare range-finders if they could get their hands on one. And the guns might have been as far a 40km (25 miles) away - remember: no GPS, no electronics attached to the gun, no video feeds and often no optical range-finders. Basic binoculars were somewhat of a luxury. Just co-ordinates and firing commands relayed with a radio. Just pencils, paper, math and training.
And they did it with accuracy.
With current day technology, it's no wonder that kind of stuff is commonplace. When computers make the guns reorient themselves just by typing the target co-ordinates, even possibly taking wind and temperature factors into account, firing artillery accurately from 30 miles away is a no brainer.
I disticnly remember describing the long range combat as artillery, aerial warfare etc. Long range combat (at least what I meant with it) wouldn't be closer than 10 miles to the enemy if you can have your way with the positiong. During WW2 Finnish soldiers were directing accurate artillery fire against the russians, using nothing but a 50 wire, hard markers driven to the ground every now and then (with the co-ordinates of the point engraved upon it, accurate to the meter), a compass, a map, a radio and those rare range-finders if they could get their hands on one. And the guns might have been as far a 40km (25 miles) away - remember: no GPS, no electronics attached to the gun, no video feeds and often no optical range-finders. Basic binoculars were somewhat of a luxury. Just co-ordinates and firing commands relayed with a radio. Just pencils, paper, math and training.
And they did it with accuracy.
With current day technology, it's no wonder that kind of stuff is commonplace. When computers make the guns reorient themselves just by typing the target co-ordinates, even possibly taking wind and temperature factors into account, firing artillery accurately from 30 miles away is a no brainer.
Exactly one just needs to look at history. 1945 in Berlin comes to mind the Volksstürm took anyone and everyone they could get their hands on. If my nation is that hard up and I wasn't already serving I would enlist instead of waiting to be called up might as well go down swinging better to have a bloodier fight and hopefully a more fair peace then a swift battle and a overbearing peace.SakSak said:
Either support, or long range combat. That way I can still contribute, but with an acceptably low chance of being killed.
As unsurprising as it is I was still dissapointed with people's knowledge and expectations of what military service entails.
I would go front lines and/or become a medic. From what I understand our soldiers do their basic trainig and then do specialised courses towards things like medic, engineer, driver etc.
My country has its flaws but if it ever needs me I'd be happy to serve.
I would go front lines and/or become a medic. From what I understand our soldiers do their basic trainig and then do specialised courses towards things like medic, engineer, driver etc.
My country has its flaws but if it ever needs me I'd be happy to serve.
My answer depends entirely upon the senario and time period of this fictional conflict.
In modern era my answer would be to join the long range combat support (I.E. the merchant navy. In modern warfarew very little civilian naval combat is performed (as in modern times we only fight small countries landlocked countries that America knows they can bully) If it was WWII I'd become a factory worker or home front military admin (military admin is good because I'll be in a bunker the whole time)
In a more honourable pre-airplane time (Crimean war, american civil war, Boer war, most of WW1) I'd be in combat support as a medic or somesuch.
Neoploeanic era or earlier I'd just leave the country
In modern era my answer would be to join the long range combat support (I.E. the merchant navy. In modern warfarew very little civilian naval combat is performed (as in modern times we only fight small countries landlocked countries that America knows they can bully) If it was WWII I'd become a factory worker or home front military admin (military admin is good because I'll be in a bunker the whole time)
In a more honourable pre-airplane time (Crimean war, american civil war, Boer war, most of WW1) I'd be in combat support as a medic or somesuch.
Neoploeanic era or earlier I'd just leave the country
Well im being forced in (if i cant find anything by the end of the year), but its not combat related. Jobs are at a low in Australia and the Defence Force is the ONLY place (so far) with both good pay and cant fire you in an instant. But to answer it, he shortest amount possible.(4yrs here)
