Make it a requirement to have offspring/s to enter the armed forces

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
I've always wondered why the military lets people with no children in. It's a terrible thing because apart from risking his bloodline it is also a loss to the genetic diversity of the country.

You are basically losing population for good. Basically you are losing a bloodline that has existed since milennia and milennia ago. In a single moment. That in my eyes is an outrage.

But what do you think? Is my proposal a good idea?
edit on 7/5/13 by Jepic because: grammar




posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   
The only bloodlines the government cares about are the ones already in power.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Preservation of some mythical bloodline versus growing up without dad.....hmmmmmm..... tough one.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
The only bloodlines the government cares about are the ones already in power.


It's true. But what do you think about my proposal?



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Erm, I'm a little confused here. Do you mean the enlistment requirements? If so, I'm not entirely clear on why they do not allow people with kids already to enlist. Otherwise, bloodlines are going plenty strong. I know 2 Army families, one with 4 kids, and one that just had their sixth(!!) Service isn't hampering their ability to have offspring at all.
edit on 5/7/2013 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Preservation of some mythical bloodline versus growing up without dad.....hmmmmmm..... tough one.


I wouldn't say it's mythical. Each person alive comes from a bloodline. Correct me if I'm wrong and you know for sure.

Just to add. What it comes down to is what is better. If there is a war and someone has to make the sacrifice I would prefer that the sacrifice be made by people who have left behind a future back home. I would not want to send people with no future to die.
edit on 7/5/13 by Jepic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nyiah
Erm, I'm a little confused here. Do you mean the enlistment requirements? If so, I'm not entirely clear on why they do not allow people with kids already to enlist. Otherwise, bloodlines are going plenty strong. I know 2 Army families, one with 4 kids, and one that just had their sixth(!!) Service isn't hampering their ability to have offspring at all.
edit on 5/7/2013 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)


Enlistment requirements is indeed what I mean. Basically only people who have offsprings should be allowed to join the military. That's what I'm getting at.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


The military will let people in who have families.
While you are in, you can have as many children as you want.

There is a limit when a recruit has a large family already. It has to do with supporting the family with a low rank.

A recruiter can explain this way better than I can. .



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

Enlistment requirements is indeed what I mean. Basically only people who have offsprings should be allowed to join the military. That's what I'm getting at.


Most who have families are not 17 and 18 year olds. This age group is the easiest to mold into a good servicemember. Additionally, those with families may not be interested in the risk involved with the military. The government would also have to pay much more money for dependents if they recruited only family members.
From a government standpoint, it's smarter to recruit people out of highschool and haven't started a life yet.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by collietta
reply to post by Jepic
 


The military will let people in who have families.
While you are in, you can have as many children as you want.

There is a limit when a recruit has a large family already. It has to do with supporting the family with a low rank.

A recruiter can explain this way better than I can. .



What I'm saying is only let people in who have have at least one child. And don't let in people who have no children.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


Im sure it exists as some sort of genetic string but why preserve it? Humans arent exactly endangered and who my great-great-great-great-great-great parents were is of no consequence to me or my kids or anyone else.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


I got a better idea.
Like the Kings of old used to do.
They would be the generals in the field and lead their troops into combat.

Let's see how good their leadership skills really are.

And let's see if their warface is as good as Mel Gibsons.



He's definitely crazy.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


in a lot of ways i like it, or if nothing else a "sperm bank" type thing so that family could have the bloodline continue.

i have read that in ww2 a lot of widows were grateful that they had an offspring to remember their dearly departed, while others wished they had have had kids to remember them by. i know in my family they were grateful that service members returned to start families, and wish others that did not return had left families behind.

this has actually been an issue i would guess as long as there have been wars. i wonder at the sheer number of family lines that have been wiped out through time.

the only real problems i see is would you force a child on an unwilling female if the would be soldier had no wife or even girlfriend, or they didn't want a child? would these be a cause for avoiding selective service (the draft), (i could see that being majorly abused)? would the government then be required to support the family if the service member were killed due to it being a "mandatory" thing?

i do like the idea but i'm afraid that in reality it would be rather impractical.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by collietta

Originally posted by Jepic

Enlistment requirements is indeed what I mean. Basically only people who have offsprings should be allowed to join the military. That's what I'm getting at.


Most who have families are not 17 and 18 year olds. This age group is the easiest to mold into a good servicemember. Additionally, those with families may not be interested in the risk involved with the military. The government would also have to pay much more money for dependents if they recruited only family members.
From a government standpoint, it's smarter to recruit people out of highschool and haven't started a life yet.


To me that's not justice. Sending people to die in general is not justice but it's more just to send people with children than to send people with no children.

17-18 year olds have no place in the battlefield. The battlefield should be for mature 28 year plus adults.
Make for a much stronger fighting force to I think.

I'm sure there should be plenty of families with children that are willing to sign up to join a righteous cause if the time came.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
17 year old: I want to enlist.

Recruiter: Go and have a sprog first to preserve your bloodline, and come back to me.

Not the best recruitment statergy is it?

edit on 7-5-2013 by skitzspiricy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by collietta
reply to post by Jepic
 


The military will let people in who have families.
While you are in, you can have as many children as you want.

There is a limit when a recruit has a large family already. It has to do with supporting the family with a low rank.

A recruiter can explain this way better than I can. .



What I'm saying is only let people in who have have at least one child. And don't let in people who have no children.


No, you can't do that. That's pretty much BS. You're deliberately excluding the child-free people who do not want children whatsoever at any point in their lives ever. And also deliberately excluding people on the fence about ever having kids or not, and deliberately excluding people who don't want kids until their 30's or later. Had my younger brother had it his way, he'd be AF right now. From what I understand, his BP flunked him out of passing the entry physical despite a rigorous fitness regime & BP meds (he couldn't get it under control enough) He's 25 & without kids. I'd be more pissed if they'd told him no because he didn't have kids.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Jepic
 


Im sure it exists as some sort of genetic string but why preserve it? Humans arent exactly endangered and who my great-great-great-great-great-great parents were is of no consequence to me or my kids or anyone else.


Why preserve it!? How dishonourable that is to your past. You should preserve it for the fact that they made so many sacrifices throughout the thousands of years going way back to the evolutionary chain. It is those sacrifices that allow you to be here. Would you be comfortable to throw away what you were and are just like that?

I wouldn't.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by Jepic
 


I got a better idea.
Like the Kings of old used to do.
They would be the generals in the field and lead their troops into combat.

Let's see how good their leadership skills really are.

And let's see if their warface is as good as Mel Gibsons.




He's definitely crazy.


Absolutely agree.

And he is crazy enough to be someone I'd like to have by my side in battle.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by skitzspiricy
17 year old: I want to enlist.

Recruiter: Go and have a sprog first to preserve your bloodline, and come back to me.

Not the best recruitment statergy is it?

edit on 7-5-2013 by skitzspiricy because: (no reason given)


Raise the Minimum Age to 27 plus.

And only if you have a kid or kids of course.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
-This is not a very good idea...At all.

There are still people who make careers in the Military, you know? That is their aspirations? They join ROTC in High School and prepare for a career. My Sons best friend is one of these people who always wanted a M ilitary career and began preparing in High School.

So... People like this should have to knock some chick up to join? Just what we need, more unwanted Children.

And whose CHOICE is it to (possibly) sever their "Bloodline"? Its the person swearing not- Not YOU. And if it doesnt matter to them, why should it to you?






top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join