It is now time for a "Soft" Military Draft

[Jarlaxle]

Uh-huh. And exactly how many times has that ever happened?

That is a strange Air Force Fantasy that started in WWII, and has never been true. The coalition bombed the crap out of Saddam for months, but it took the ground forces streaming into Kuwait to make him surrender.

They weren't the correct type of bombs.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Tell you what, let's run a test.

Right near them, let's put up an old Wild Weasel type of aircraft, blasting massive amounts of EM interference. Blocking out all communications with huge amounts of radio frequency hash.

What happens to those airplanes and cars then, hmmm?

I can tell you what, they crash, or shut down automatic operation and immediately demand a real human take over.

Funny how I can say this exact same thing over and over, and over and over you completely ignore it. And instead talk about the perfect world where there is no threat, in a controlled environment.

We already know that both Syria and Iran have systems that can block off all communications for drones, including GPS. Do you really think that China and Russia do not have similar systems? And HOW IN THE FRACK IS A DRONE GOING TO OPERATE WHEN IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO COMMUNICATION WITH THOSE THAT CONTROL IT BACK AT BASE!

Yes, I got it. You are a true believer, and will absolutely ignore every time when challenged with real world issues and instead just talk glowingly as if such challenges were never made. Oh, and most drones are still reconnaissance systems, and not attack systems.

That's an easy fix and has been around more than thirty years: launch a couple of AMRAAMs on their track-on-jam mode. Bye Bye!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Losing circular argument. So looks up losing circular argument.

It is funny, but dull watching you spin in circles over and over again, then throw out even more predictable insults. Are you capable of any kind of reasonable thought and logic, or is it all you can do to constantly insult others and spin in circles?

By your logic, therefore the people of ancient Greece and Rome were not "Europeans", as that term did not come to pass until Emperor Diocletian used that term (in "Europa") until the third century as a province of what is now Turkey. By your very logic, almost nobody living on the continent before then was a "European", therefore calling the Picts, Gauls, or Celts "European" is wrong.

You really do not think things through very well, do you? And try to follow the most silly things, obsessing on a single word, and completely missing the very subject of the post itself. I guess if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, you baffle them with coprolite.

The midshipman isn't very bright.

 

[Dayton3]

Then surely you know the dangers of a large standing army.

Our standing military is NOT that large.

 

[gipper]

Our standing military is NOT that large.

Yet it’s the largest in the world.

 

[Mushroom]

Yet it’s the largest in the world.

Actually, it is number 3. Until a few years ago it was number 4, but the Russians a few years ago cut their numbers so they slipped back to forth place, and we became number 2.

And for many years, we were ranked at around 6 or 7.

I don't think we have ever been the largest. We only slid in front of the Soviets finally once their empire broke up, and their satellite states were no longer counted in with their army. There were times that even the North Korean Army was larger than the US.

 

[Mushroom]

They weren't the correct type of bombs.

Actually, then Bomb A Day LeMay said that, he was talking conventional bombs. He said that he would be able to bomb Japan into submission, and that was in early 1944. All the Marines had to do was to get his bombers to within range and he would end the war himself with just bombers. And he said that Germany would surrender because of his bombers also.

And yeah, we all know how well that all worked out.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Actually, then Bomb A Day LeMay said that, he was talking conventional bombs. He said that he would be able to bomb Japan into submission, and that was in early 1944. All the Marines had to do was to get his bombers to within range and he would end the war himself with just bombers. And he said that Germany would surrender because of his bombers also.

And yeah, we all know how well that all worked out.

Couple billion cubic feet of nerve gas would work.

 

[Dayton3]

Yet it’s the largest in the world.

By what standard?

 

[gipper]

By what standard?

Dollars.

 

[Dayton3]

Dollars.

An utterly irrelevant standard by any means.

 

[gipper]

An utterly irrelevant standard by any means.

Lol. Really? We spend more than the next ten nations combined. If that’s irrelevant to you, you’re not thinking straight.

 

[Circe]

Plan to Fulfill Our Commitment to Military Families | Joe Biden

As parents of a service member who deployed to Iraq, the Bidens know that not just military members sign up to serve our nation, it's their families too.

joebiden.com

President Biden and his charming wife have embarked on a campaign to get American support - personal and taxpayer - for military families that may be struggling in one way or another. Fine.

But the American military is, in a sense, fucked up. The traditional makeup of a "battle ready" military force is led by officers and NCO's - career soldiers - with a large number of people who have crudely been described as "canon fodder." These unfortunates were either draftees or short-term enlistees, and although it sounds callous to say it, were considered sort of expendable in battle. These are the ones who "fought and died" for their country. The officers and NCO's occasionally got killed, but the canon fodder were put out front, in the greatest danger.

But the "all-volunteer" military has destroyed that paradigm. Everyone is presumably a long-term soldier, a long-term "investment," and NO ONE is now deemed expendable. This is why the casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan are a small fraction of what they were in Vietnam and other historical wars. NO ONE is expendable.

In order to bring the all-volunteer army to fruition, "we" have had to dramatically increase the compensation of the lowest rungs, enhance the benefits, make it feasible for the lowest rungs to GET MARRIED (which was not economically feasible under the old paradigm - the main income for married couples with a low-level enlisted man during Vietnam was the non-military spouse's income). And even at this much higher level of compensation, many married enlisted people are struggling financially.

But again, this is fucked up. The lowest level soldiers SHOULD BE single men, ages 18-24, who plan to get the hell out of the service in 2, 3, or 4 years. "Short timers," so to speak. And they should constitute a numerical MAJORITY of those in uniform. As a result of our perverse military paradigm today, we have an ungodly expensive military force that we hesitate to put in harm's way, because (a) we have invested a lot in training them, and (b) most of them HAVE FAMILIES! This is nuts! What we need is Canon Fodder.

So I propose a "soft" military draft. The "soft" draft will be implemented as follows:

Every American must register for the Draft at age 18. Every registrant must take a short battery of written tests to assess their intelligence, aptitudes, and suitability for military service. They will be asked if they have any specific plans for the short term future...jobs, college, trade school, etc. They will also be given a physical examination to determine whether they are healthy and could be brought into good physical condition in a reasonable period of time.

THEN, the military services would be given the ability to INVITE candidates who meet their criteria to enlist in their branch of the military service. The candidates will be REQUIRED to respond to the invitation, and an absolute rejection would be an acceptable response. But it would give the military services the opportunity to sell their package, indicate what training would be given, and what an enlistment would entail, including pay, benefits, work assignments, veterans' benefits, and so on. It would be made clear that MARRIAGE and CHILD-BEARING are not compatible with this enlistment, and either one would be grounds for discharge under the new Soft Draft guidelines.

These enlistees would be limited to grade levels E-1 through E4, and a re-up would be required for consideration for higher advancement.

The objective would be to purge married soldiers from the lower enlisted ranks. Those currently in that situation wouldn't be tossed out, but in five years the objective would be to have all single people in the E1-E4 ranks. At the same time, the frivolous objectives of "diversity" and inclusion could be implemented painlessly.

It's a good thing I'm not Emperor. I would do this immediately.

No draft. No conscription. Ever. It's just an invitation for presidents to use the Army for whatever losing forever war they decide would help their election chances, like Clinton did in Serbia when he was trying to distract us from Monica. Boy, that really worked! People of course remember war in the Balkans better than what Monica was doing to Bill in the Oval Office, right? Right??

Okay, that didn't really work.

 

[Dayton3]

Lol. Really? We spend more than the next ten nations combined. If that’s irrelevant to you, you’re not thinking straight.

For one it's not true. The "official" defense spending figures by most nations (including China and Russia) are way, way, way way, understated.

 

[Dayton3]

No draft. No conscription. Ever. It's just an invitation for presidents to use the Army for whatever losing forever war they decide would help their election chances, like Clinton did in Serbia when he was trying to distract us from Monica. Boy, that really worked! People of course remember war in the Balkans better than what Monica was doing to Bill in the Oval Office, right? Right??

Okay, that didn't really work.

I hate it when you people use the term "forever war".

 

[Circe]

I hate it when you people use the term "forever war".

Sorry you hate it, but wow, it sure is appropriate. They pretend they are fighting wars when they are really doing security colonization, and it goes on 20 years or more, lying all the time! Hopeless, like all colonization always was in hostile territory, however strong the colonizing power seems to be.

The Romans were in Britannica almost 400 years ------- but they left on the hop about 410 AD. That's the story with all formal colonization --- the Brits couldn't even keep hold of North America, and that was settled by other Britons!

Afghanistan and Iraq weren't really wars, but the pols pretended they were and lied and lied and lied, and so forever war is an appropriate term.

 

[gipper]

For one it's not true. The "official" defense spending figures by most nations (including China and Russia) are way, way, way way, understated.

I will agree with that, but you forgot to mention the US. I doubt very much we know how much our corrupt government spends the war machine.

Remember old Rummy saying they lost trillions.

 

[Dayton3]

Sorry you hate it, but wow, it sure is appropriate. They pretend they are fighting wars when they are really doing security colonization, and it goes on 20 years or more, lying all the time!

The U.S. didn't have anyone killed in Afghanistan in the last year and a half.

Some war...

 

[Dayton3]

I will agree with that, but you forgot to mention the US. I doubt very much we know how much our corrupt government spends the war machine.

Remember old Rummy saying they lost trillions.

It turned out that what Rumsfeld called "missing" was NOT "missing" at all.

 

[gipper]

I hate it when you people use the term "forever war".

Why would you hate something that’s true? Are you a warmonger? Do you believe the US military is defending the nation by invading other nations? Do you work for a war profiteering corporation?