Poll: Would you join the army if there weren't guns?

[Rule Britannia]

Ok so in this hypothetical situation all modern technology is still with us (computers and what not) but weapon technology for whatever reason doesn't work and never did no nukes, no guns, no explosives just swords, shields, bows etc.

basically would you be more inclined to join the army if there weren't any massively long ranged weapons (ballistas ((ballisticas??) and stuff are pretty long range too)).

Bottom Line:
The question isn't WOULD you but do you see yourself more likely to join the army since guns don't exist?

Personally I wouldn't join but the idea of no advanced weaponry does help push me towards joining.

EDIT: To be clear NOBODY has adavanced weaponry you'll be fighting other guys with swords and shields and other such weaponry
Sorry the poll appears to have messed up (at least it has for me) :S

 

[The Virgo]

No way. Why would anyone want to join a weaponless army? A weaponless army is the prime target of a highly weaponized one. Never forget that. It's called "Natural Selection: Army Edition".

 

[Rule Britannia]

No way. Why would anyone want to join a weaponless army? A weaponless army is the prime target of a highly weaponized one. Never forget that. It's called "Natural Selection: Army Edition".

Nobody has advanced weaponry is what I meant I'll edit it and make that more clear. sorry.

 

[Lyiat]

Err... No. You'd be inanely more likely to die. As it is, the American and British armies are extremely sophisticated. Five of our soldiers could take down dozens or even hundreds of lesser equipped and trained soldiers. If you reduced it to the ancient days, our soldiers would die by the droves. Numbers would matter a lot more. China would swiftly become the scariest army PERIOD. And half of them would be using farm tools.

 

[werty10089]

The army is just a stupid thing to join anyways. Why fight for the ideals of your leaders (who most likely are assholes) when you should be fighting for the ideals of yourself.

 

[Alar]

Swords and shields does sound pretty badass. And more 'honorable' than gunning people down under a hail of precise and deadly ammunition.

 

[That_Sneaky_Camper]

Death is always going to be coming your way if you are fighting in some fashion. Reverting to swords and shields would actually make countries like Russia and China a much greater threat to us as they would be quite capable of utilizing human wave tactics that would quite easily overwhelm us in combat. If I were to join the U.S Military I would prefer to keep our top of the line Military equipment by my side so that I least have a fighting chance.

 

[GoldenFish]

Err... No. You'd be inanely more likely to die. As it is, the American and British armies are extremely sophisticated. Five of our soldiers could take down dozens or even hundreds of lesser equipped and trained soldiers. If you reduced it to the ancient days, our soldiers would die by the droves. Numbers would matter a lot more. China would swiftly become the scariest army PERIOD. And half of them would be using farm tools.

I do not agree with what you are saying. I'm pretty sure they had the same situations when there were only swords and such. I'm actually thinking a group of well trained well equipped soldiers with sword type weaponry could hold off an untrained or lightly trained much larger group of soldiers much better than with modern technology.

 

[WolfThomas]

Not particulary, but I would be inclined to learn how to fence with an epee and a buckler or main gauche. Perhaps learn some martial arts and a bit of archery. With the great equalizers out of the picture being able to defend yourself seems more relevant.

 

[Mr Whiskers]

Wouldn't join anyway.

 

[00Pyro]

What if there were no weapons at all? What is soldiers had to be skilled diplomats and fighting was done with words? That's a world I'd like to live in.

 

[Mavinchious Maximus]

sure but i better have either a badass saber and titanium roman-style shield or a huge pike to own my adversary with phalanx's.

 

[WolfThomas]

Err... No. You'd be inanely more likely to die. As it is, the American and British armies are extremely sophisticated. Five of our soldiers could take down dozens or even hundreds of lesser equipped and trained soldiers. If you reduced it to the ancient days, our soldiers would die by the droves. Numbers would matter a lot more. China would swiftly become the scariest army PERIOD. And half of them would be using farm tools.

Look up Crecy. A perfect example of a tiny army beating a bigger, better equipped and trained one on their own soil simply through superior tactics and an innovative weapon such as the longbow. Also if you look back further at many of the great battles in the Roman era, small armies of well discplined Roman soldiers managed to beat vast hordes of barbarians.

 

[Lyiat]

Err... No. You'd be inanely more likely to die. As it is, the American and British armies are extremely sophisticated. Five of our soldiers could take down dozens or even hundreds of lesser equipped and trained soldiers. If you reduced it to the ancient days, our soldiers would die by the droves. Numbers would matter a lot more. China would swiftly become the scariest army PERIOD. And half of them would be using farm tools.

I do not agree with what you are saying. I'm pretty sure they had the same situations when there were only swords and such. I'm actually thinking a group of well trained well equipped soldiers with sword type weaponry could hold off an untrained or lightly trained much larger group of soldiers much better than with modern technology.

Are you perhaps referring to the 300 Scenario? Yeah, that didn't bloody happen. Sure, three hundred spartans showed up to fight off something around ten thousand or more Persians... But they also had several THOUSAND prisoners they forced to fight with them.

Run a few Total War scenarios. You will never see a situation where five can defeat a hundred. You'll never see a situation where a hundred can defeat a thousand, or even five hundred (unless you have a castle and siege weaponry).

Ontop of that, you are talking about leveling the playing field. Almost everyone on the planet will have access to the same technology. Nearly everyone will be just as well armed as you unless they are a poorer nation.

 

[Dango]

Absolutely not. Being stabbed or bludgeoned to death seems much worse than being shot to death.

 

[Mavinchious Maximus]

Err... No. You'd be inanely more likely to die. As it is, the American and British armies are extremely sophisticated. Five of our soldiers could take down dozens or even hundreds of lesser equipped and trained soldiers. If you reduced it to the ancient days, our soldiers would die by the droves. Numbers would matter a lot more. China would swiftly become the scariest army PERIOD. And half of them would be using farm tools.

I do not agree with what you are saying. I'm pretty sure they had the same situations when there were only swords and such. I'm actually thinking a group of well trained well equipped soldiers with sword type weaponry could hold off an untrained or lightly trained much larger group of soldiers much better than with modern technology.

I agree take king Leonidas and his troops for instance, they would have kept massacring the Persians if they didn't find a pesky goat path.

 

[Rule Britannia]

Hmm. I was thinking more people would be more inclined to join not the other way around :S

I'm interested to here other people's opinions.

 

[J_Monsterface]

the important part of the first question isnt significantly different from that of the second

its really just a matter of whether or not you are willing to enter a kill-or-be-killed situation in exchange for college money/a career/ inclusion

if someone is willing to sell/rent that part of themselves it doesnt matter how bad the job is

it only matters how much it pays