The All-Volunteer Army and Its Implications

[johngaltshrugged]

What does NAMBLA have to do with the thread topic? I suggest you think really hard BEFORE answering.

Does the large red font mean you are super serious?
I simply asked someone that trolls the board defending groomers/peds/pervs if NAMBLA had an army.
Is that not allowed Big Brother?
Do you have a list of pre-approved responses or a blacklist of verboten ones?
Do you give your authoritarian warning to every post that veers off topic or are you just extra triggered over NAMLBA?

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

Does the large red font mean you are super serious?
I simply asked someone that trolls the board defending groomers/peds/pervs if NAMBLA had an army.
Is that not allowed Big Brother?
Do you have a list of pre-approved responses or a blacklist of verboten ones?
Do you give your authoritarian warning to every post that veers off topic or are you just extra triggered over NAMLBA?

None of what YOU just replied with is associated with the topic of THIS thread. Do YOU not understand that? I suggest you read the forum rules, particularly where it states something about replies must contain material relevant to the thread topic.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Nobody would volunteer? "Being thrust into a lethal battle" is what made the United States independent from England. "Being thrust into a lethal battle" is what kept the United States and our allies free of Nazi aggression.. A drag queen philosophy of recruitment in the Armed Forces diminishes all the sacrifices of all the military heroes in American history> Maybe that's the old dude's intent or he ain't got a clue of what his radical appointments are up to.

The US military had plenty of volunteers even at the height of Vietnam. There are plenty of late teens suffering from testosterone poisoning that see combat as a great adventure. Like all young men, they consider themselves immortal.

 

[Couchpotato]

In all of the wars fought by the U.S. in its history, part of the plan was to send soldiers to certain death, if warranted to achieve a clear objective.

Take D-Day as the most striking example in modern times. Our commanders knew that we were attacking positions that were nearly impregnable. They knew that a significant percentage of our soldiers and sailor were going to perish in the attempt, and yet the generals did not hesitate (other than for the weather). 25% casualties was the expectation.

We took that same mentality into Korea and even to Vietnam. If an objective was militarily important, the commander would send troops in, even knowing that some percentage of them were going to die in the attempt.

That philosophy ended with the invasion of Iraq and is now dead. Compare the casualties from Vietnam - 50,000 killed, more or less - with Afghanistan, a war that lasted for about the same length of time, overall: less than 2,500 in ten years. Medical advancements surely had something to do with the dramatic difference in casualties, but the main driver in the reduced number of battlefield deaths was the change in military philosophy. NO commander in Iraq or Afghanistan ordered his troops into battles where casualties were a virtual certainty.

I attribute this dramatic change in battlefield philosophy to the advent of the all-volunteer army. NOBODY would volunteer, knowing that he might be thrust into a lethal battle on purpose.

Now look at what's going on in Ukraine. Those commanders, on both sides, employ the "old" military philosophy that an objective can outweigh the cost of a few lives. They send their troops into the occasional battle when they know some won't come out of it alive. Obviously, this is much more the case with the Russians, but also Ukraine.

What's my point? We are unprepared for a war right now. We have the weapons, the ammo, the technology, but our philosophy of fighting is incompatible with "winning" any war.

It is not my opinion that the draft must come back; it is a fact. There are many justifications for it, but this is the primary driver: We cannot rely on volunteers when the chances of getting killed or maimed goes above, say, 10%. NO ONE will volunteer. And recruiting is difficult enough now, due to the Biden/Obama wokeness initiatives.

Opposing forces used to line up across an open field and charge each other with swords and other melee weapons

Then we lined up across open fields in tight formations and fired cannon balls and muskets at each other.

Trench warfare,

Tanks

Aircraft

Helos

"Smart Munitions"

All these things changed how we fought wars.

Warfare has and will always continue to evolve. If the Russians want to fight like it's 1965 let them. If they fight the US like that it will just be a slaughter. And it will only be Russians bleeding.

 

[Couchpotato]

Vietnam was the last war we fought with that strategy and the last war we had a Draft

Our strategy was that if we kill 8 of their soldiers for every 1 of ours….we win

The problem was that the American people were unwilling to tolerate even the one and the people revolted both in the streets and at the ballot box.

We also didnt understand what the war was about in Vietnam. You cant fight an insurgency in the boonies. The Viet Cong understood this which is why they drew us into the jungle away from the people we had to win over.