Military US Military Is Scared Americans Won't Fight For Globalism

[Captain X]

The right to vote and the responsibility to serve should be one in the same.

That actually was the justification for introducing the draft and pretty much continued to be right up until 1920. Of course, I'm not one of the sexists on here suggesting women not be allowed to vote. I'd much rather women face the draft as well. And honestly the draft should be a last resort/facing down another world war thing anyway.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

That actually was the justification for introducing the draft and pretty much continued to be right up until 1920. Of course, I'm not one of the sexists on here suggesting women not be allowed to vote. I'd much rather women face the draft as well. And honestly the draft should be a last resort/facing down another world war thing anyway.

Thank God there are still people out there willing to encourage young women to cripple themselves to make our military weaker!

 

[King Arts]

Honestly, I've seen a lot of thoughtless statements, but this time, you really made a good point.

I would say more like ideological fanaticism mixed with amerocentrism. A thing typical of an American believing in an idea, at one time it is useful, at others it leads to disaster.
Although here he is not exaggerating so much, as @Marduk mentioned, the overwhelming majority of Polish firefighters are volunteers who voluntarily engage in firefighting in addition to their regular jobs, while the state deals with specialized cases. This system has actually been in place for more than two centuries, so it's as possible.. But let's emphasize, we have volunteer and state fire departments. No private Fire Department, it's just asking for trouble. Such things should either be organized by the government or created from the bottom up as non-profit organizations by ordinary people.

No privitizing some things is foolish. Volunteers is not. I want you to imagine what privatized fire fighting or police or even medicine is.

Example 1 I'm a private company fireman, you have a contract with me/my company to put out fires that happen on your house/property. Your next door neighbor does not. Someone commits arson on your neighbor because they hate him, I decide not to show up because he does not pay me. The fire spreads and now your house is on fire. I promptly come and put out the fire. If I came to save your neighbor's shit you would never have your shit get on fire.

Example 2. I'm a private cop/security I protect you and enforce the laws when people break them to hurt you. I do absolutely nothing to protect people from satanic pedo murder rapists killing or raping them in public if they don't have a protection plan with my company. This is not a society. This is the start of a war lord era with the warlords larping as corporations.

I didn't say privatize it. I said that would be the one way to have it and preserve the vote (to shorten the sentence "it should be privatized or lose the right to vote"). I purposely left a variety of options available.

You literally said privatize it.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

Umm, i think we have a lot of data for that specific question and you are straight out wrong. A slight majority of people votes. US election turnout usually is around 55-65%, and many other democracies are within +/-5% of that.

First, take out all the skeletons voting, the double voting, the illegals voting, then take out all the people who are just voting for whoever gives them welfare, and it wont actually be that far off.

So, the irony here would be that the "heineleinian system" would get you a crappy military with lots of poorly trained manpower with high incentives for corruption in form of Russia style "monetization" of the free labor superfluous conscripts can be.
Also in developed countries there wouldn't be all that much other dangerous labor, unless artificially made dangerous, or we go to purely commercial ventures like crab fishing, which would be ridiculous.

It wouldn't generate a crappy military so much as a two tiered military system, which is more or less what we have today.
In times when there were more applicants than sustainable slots in the military, the shorter-term soldiers would be handled more like the national guard, and be used for the construction and maintenance of public infrastructure, etc. These "veterans" probably would not be the world's greatest combatants, but they wouldn't need to be, they'd essentially be army reserves.

There's also an enormous amount of high injury, high labor work done in America, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

police

Unironically we don't need police. Locally elected sheriffs fine, but not uniformed mercenary armies answerable exclusively to the central government, which is exactly what police are.

 

[Zachowon]

See, women in non combat roles are fine.
See Nurses, medical staff, Admin, etc.

 

[ParadiseLost]

Thank God there are still people out there willing to encourage young women to cripple themselves to make our military weaker!

He didn't say that women should fight in frontline combatant roles. Obviously not.

See, women in non combat roles are fine.
See Nurses, medical staff, Admin, etc.

But quite frankly as Zachowon notes there are plenty of roles in the military that are suitable for women, and plenty of need for them.

 

[Batrix2070]

No privitizing some things is foolish. Volunteers is not. I want you to imagine what privatized fire fighting or police or even medicine is.

Example 1 I'm a private company fireman, you have a contract with me/my company to put out fires that happen on your house/property. Your next door neighbor does not. Someone commits arson on your neighbor because they hate him, I decide not to show up because he does not pay me. The fire spreads and now your house is on fire. I promptly come and put out the fire. If I came to save your neighbor's shit you would never have your shit get on fire.

Example 2. I'm a private cop/security I protect you and enforce the laws when people break them to hurt you. I do absolutely nothing to protect people from satanic pedo murder rapists killing or raping them in public if they don't have a protection plan with my company. This is not a society. This is the start of a war lord era with the warlords larping as corporations.

I was speaking sarcastically, I always find the idea of privatizing services slightly detached from reality. This is just asking for trouble, big trouble. Especially when society is in decline as it is these days.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

He didn't say that women should fight in frontline combatant roles. Obviously not.

See, women in non combat roles are fine.
See Nurses, medical staff, Admin, etc.

I wasnt talking about damage accrued from enemy action. I will quote myself because I guess you missed it the first time.

Women do not have a place in the military. Arm them fine. Show them how to shoot and hike and survive, teach them whatever skills you want so that they might preserve their life and their home in a time of extreme need, but do not send them to war.

Women and men are not equivalent, not even at the same mass. Women suffer exponentially more non combat injuries in the military. Their joints take more damage, leading to exponentially higher rates of life long debilitating injuries. Their reflexes are slower, their hips in particular are less suited to infantry activities, their metabolisms are not adapted to these stresses. They have exponentially higher rates of psychological difficulties. Double digit percentages of female personnel intentionally become pregnant during their service. It all contributes to soldiers who fight poorer, march slower, march for less time, get sick more, get injured more, get crippled more, and quit more. Best case scenario you are throwing the fittest, bravest, most civic minded women of your generation into a situation that minimizes their contribution to society and maximizes their likelihood for permanent injury. You cannot expect women to be soldiers, nor should you encourage, or even allow it.

These ARE the conditions of non "front line combatant" women. It is a toxic, insane idea that has produced nothing but a weaker military. it is anti patriotic, anti socially minded, anti natalist, and anti humane, to encourage women along these lines.

But quite frankly as Zachowon notes there are plenty of roles in the military that are suitable for women, and plenty of need for them.

Every single woman who serves in the military is there in the place of a man, to meet a quota. If we didnt have that woman, there'd be a man there, we literally passed over a man to take a weaker soldier much, much more likely to be injured from basic activity.

 

[Zachowon]

Except of we look at historically since the damn near foundation of your nation females have played a heavy roll in medical assistance for the military

 

[Marduk]

First, take out all the skeletons voting, the double voting, the illegals voting, then take out all the people who are just voting for whoever gives them welfare, and it wont actually be that far off.

Some of these would reduce the count of eligible voters too if taken out, so percentage turnout would not necessarily change to be lower at all.

It wouldn't generate a crappy military so much as a two tiered military system, which is more or less what we have today.

Except with massively changed proportion of the tiers.

In times when there were more applicants than sustainable slots in the military, the shorter-term soldiers would be handled more like the national guard, and be used for the construction and maintenance of public infrastructure, etc. These "veterans" probably would not be the world's greatest combatants, but they wouldn't need to be, they'd essentially be army reserves.

That's not what National Guard in USA does. That's what third world armies do, like, say, North Korea.

There's also an enormous amount of high injury, high labor work done in America, but that's neither here nor there.

Yes, and it would be ridiculous to count is as equal to military service considering what it is.
Imagine morale after telling National Guard to do public groundskeeping, mining, woodcutting or learn to farm.

 

[Agent23]

Except of we look at historically since the damn near foundation of your nation females have played a heavy roll in medical assistance for the military

Medical assistance yes, since women go disproportionately into medicine.

But from some stats I have seen addi g them to a combat unit reduces the overall efficiency by 1/3.
And Arch had some stories about Norway's female special forces units, too...

 

[Marduk]

Medical assistance yes, since women go disproportionately into medicine.

But from some stats I have seen addi g them to a combat unit reduces the overall efficiency by 1/3.
And Arch had some stories about Norway's female special forces units, too...

Infantry and similarly physical jobs are the absolutely worst roles to have military women, no question about that. Policing maybe, if you need women to search civilian ones, otherwise there are no practical reasons for it outside of total war that already made all the young fit men unavailable, only virtue signalling. There are few women who could pass a reasonable standard there, but those are the same women who have a chance at national level sport championships, so probably not worth depleting that tiny pool for it.

But then there are admin jobs, medicine, and a lot of stuff that boils down to sitting in front of screens, that's where the more complicated arguments arise.

 

[Abhorsen]

You literally said privatize it.

You literally didn't read my whole quote. I listed that as one of 3 options.

Infantry and similarly physical jobs are the absolutely worst roles to have military women, no question about that. Policing maybe, if you need women to search civilian ones, otherwise there are no practical reasons for it outside of total war that already made all the young fit men unavailable, only virtue signalling. There are few women who could pass a reasonable standard there, but those are the same women who have a chance at national level sport championships, so probably not worth depleting that tiny pool for it.

But then there are admin jobs, medicine, and a lot of stuff that boils down to sitting in front of screens, that's where the more complicated arguments arise.

Eh, the best argument I've seen for women soldiers is in Israel, where there were notable instances of them saving lives in the Hamas conflict. Basically, Israel is in that situation of all adults serve necessarily, so it sorta needs the ability to kinda double it's manpower.

As for who to allow, just set the test you would use for guys, and use that for females. I've seen, for an example, that they are likely going to be slightly better on average as fighter pilots, as what they may lose in quick reaction time they make up in with lack of height, a huge advantage when it comes to G forces. Strength is a significantly smaller issue that it used to be, given fly by wire. Though given the modern day fighters mostly using beyond the horizon missiles, there's a lot more like a weapons platform/mission management than actual dogfighting, so it'd go to the best multitasker.

Ultimately, I don't care as long as the person is competent and willing to do the job.

 

[Agent23]

Infantry and similarly physical jobs are the absolutely worst roles to have military women, no question about that. Policing maybe, if you need women to search civilian ones, otherwise there are no practical reasons for it outside of total war that already made all the young fit men unavailable, only virtue signalling. There are few women who could pass a reasonable standard there, but those are the same women who have a chance at national level sport championships, so probably not worth depleting that tiny pool for it.

But then there are admin jobs, medicine, and a lot of stuff that boils down to sitting in front of screens, that's where the more complicated arguments arise.

In Arch's case a major reason for waminz special forces units to exist was thst they basically needed interrogators for female csptives in Afghanistan or some such shit.

And they had to dull down physical requirements repeatedly.

 

[Bacle]

I’m Willing to Abandon My Anti-War Views In Exchange for a Gundam

I have staunch anti-war views, sure. I don’t think that’s unique among young people in America. In many ways I’m just an average, too-old-to-be-drafted kind…

hard-drive.net

This is how to boost recruiting numbers.

Make people realize war will never be absent from the human race, or the US strategic picture, and that having the best toys and most kick ass equipment is the way to go.

 

[DarthOne]

I’m Willing to Abandon My Anti-War Views In Exchange for a Gundam

I have staunch anti-war views, sure. I don’t think that’s unique among young people in America. In many ways I’m just an average, too-old-to-be-drafted kind…

hard-drive.net

This is how to boost recruiting numbers.

Make people realize war will never be absent from the human race, or the US strategic picture, and that having the best toys and most kick ass equipment is the way to go.

…you do realize that mechs like Gundums are hilariously impractical and overcomplicated, right?

 

[Bacle]

…you do realize that mechs like Gundums are hilariously impractical and overcomplicated, right?

...it's about drone warfare becoming the norm and how the US used to let soldiers buy their aircraft with their salaries so they could take it home after combat.

The Gundam bit is just a cheeky way to frame it.

 

[Zachowon]

War will always change, but the need for troops on the ground never will

 

[DarthOne]

...it's about drone warfare becoming the norm and how the US used to let soldiers buy their aircraft with their salaries so they could take it home after combat.

The Gundam bit is just a cheeky way to frame it.

Still no way in hell they’ll go for it. It would be giving the Uneducated Masses Weapons of War and no one in the US political establishment is going to go for that.