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

I disagree that bloodlines are automatically important, maybe that's because I don't want kids myself. Anyway my bloodline couldn't be wiped out by my death as I have a sister and cousins who may carry it on, and if they don't then who cares that's their choice.

The human race and its diversity is in no danger just cos I don't want to reproduce. Having kids isn't everyones idea of happiness.

Originally posted by collietta
Jepic, Have you ever served?

I ask, because it doesn't seem like you have, at least not in the US armed forces. Plus, if you did, you'd understand why they don't typically want older recruits.

I'll address some points you made,

At age 27, people are more likely to have damaged bodies, or not be able to handle the physical rigors of military training. Even with a "desk job" I was still required to meet all physical fitness standards. If I would've stayed in, my knees probably would be damaged like those who were in for 10 + years. At 10 years, I would've been 27. At 17, I was much more flexible and stronger, than what I was at 27. Additionally, a 37 year old would have more physical problems after 10 years of serving, even more after 20 years. These problems the VA would have to pay for once they were out since it's service connected.
Additionally, a younger person will have the body to carry flak vest, helmet, belt, weapon, etc while traveling great distances in heat or bad weather while deployed. When you're deployed, even desk jobs have moments where we have to wear our gear. I know I did. And don't forget to add the weight of the gear when it rains. Soaking wet flak vest is awful.

At age 27, people's brains can not learn as quickly as when they were in their early 20's. The rigors of basic training and tech school would have to change due to the fact that 27 year olds have already developed their own ways of doing things and they may not be as willing to learn a new skill as a fresh out of high school person could.

At 27, people aren't willing to accept orders without question.

A family is a distraction that would require some people to have problems while deployed. Even though people with families join all the time, for honor or benefits, while deployed things change. A person who has a family at home may not want to leave their spouse and children or risk their lives for a cause they may not fully agree with, especially in theater. Having older recruits or people with families won't change politicians desires for global conquest of resources.
Risking your life knowing you could leave the people you love with all your heart fatherless/motherless, spouseless, is much different than risking your life knowing you'll only leave your parents childless.

While in the military, you are away from your family. It doesn't matter if you're deployed for years or not. While at your duty station, you won't see your spouse or children that much because you're always working late, odd hours, or the base is always exercising, which is performing drills. Because of lack of time together, a lot of military marriages fall apart. One of the main reasons I left the military is knowing I would miss the first two years of my daughter's life if I stayed in (I was pregnant). Sure when not deployed, I'd be home occasionally, but because the military believes your on duty 24/7 I could be stuck in base exercises or going TDY, or just working extended or odd hours because they could make me.

Sorry, I can't talk about my profession. I'll have to leave it at that.

I am involved in physical activities with people from their early 20s to their late 40s and most of the time it's the people in their 20s that can't keep up with the people in their 30s and 40s.

Mental capacity goes downhill at around 45, but neither does it go down significantly to affect the job for most people.

If they have to follow orders as said in the job description, that's what they will do. Whether he is 20 or 50. The military makes sure of that.

As I said before, if family is going to be a distraction, the military is not a place for you. Distraction has no place in it. They need focused people.

Your kid would have to be 14 years old plus before you can join the military.

Besides, the military can work in rotations to make sure you can be 2 months beside your wife and kids and the next 2 months deployed and so on, and so on.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Or Mom.

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
I'm going to have to say a big fat "NO" to your proposal based on several reasons that I will outline below.

First: West Point Military Academy doesn't let anyone in with dependents, if you happen to get one while attending the college, you are expelled. The majority of the cadets at this college are between 18 and 22 (college age). They would have to completely restructure the way this academy works if they implemented your proposal.

Second: 27 is far too old to be the minimum age for a soldier. Soldier pay is so miserable that unless you are a fresh high school grad or have no where else to turn to, enlisting should be the last thing on your mind. Not to mention, most people's peek physical fitness is reached at around 25. So you are suggesting that our military learn how to fight and then slowly lose their reaction time as they go to fight a war. Nonsense.

Third: Younger people are frankly easier to mold and make listen to directions and following directions is a way of life in the military. When under fire, you cannot be taking the time to ask your Sergeant "Why?" when he tells you to get your head down. You just obey the order.

Fourth: Do you just assume that no one has siblings these days? Why are you making the blanket statement that if someone doesn't have kids and dies, his bloodline stops there? What if he/she has a brother or sister? Wouldn't they reproducing continue the bloodline?

Fifth: As a veteran of the U.S. Army that joined when I was 18 in 2003 and served in Iraq in 2005 I can say that you know nothing of military life. If it wasn't for the military I would be in some dead end job, not being able to go to college because I seriously slacked off in my last year of high school, and without many of the morals and virtues that I learned in the military that helped me mature faster than my peers of the same age. Thanks to the military I am able to now go to college free of charge and have a good job lined up when I graduate at the end of the month. I am currently 28, if we implemented your stupid law, I'd have to of waited til a year ago to join the armed forces and probably be too out of shape to even think about it anyways.

Edit to add:
Sixth: There are far more dangerous jobs then being in the military like underwater welding or Arctic fishing. Any of these professions can be pursued without a next of kin.

To be honest bloodlines aren't really all that important to protect these days anyways. There are close to 7 billion people on Earth. I'm sure the human race can afford to lose a few bloodlines. There is nothing in our biological makeup that says that we owe it to our ancestors to reproduce. In fact if everyone DID reproduce we would be facing overpopulation far greater than what we are facing today.

edit on 7-5-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

A restructuring would be needed.

Soldier pay shouldn't be miserable. Soldiers should be well paid. That should be changed. With experience in this field, changes in physical peak are nearly non existing up to age 50. From there the gap does begin to widen quite a lot over the years. Besides, the training and mental maturity make for far better servicemen than your teen or young adult. And as for reaction time, reaction time only increases significantly after 50 years of age. Before that it is not significant.

When the salary is good and there is an interest to protect the country from a real threat (not like Iraq or Afghanistan) people will do what their commanding officer tells them, especially when they become aware that following orders is a crucial part of their role as servicemen.

Well that's great. People with siblings should be able to join immediately.

The fact that wou slacked off is your fault not that of the military. You are lucky that you had that route, but that's it. It shouldn't be the job of the military to support people who slack off. You should be supporting the military, not the military supporting you. The same as ask not what the country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

I'm talking in the event of war. I'm pretty sure the casualties in all wars combined surpass the casualties from underwater welding and arctic fishing.

Afford to lose a few bloodlines? That's a disgusting remark to make. Go ahead, if we can afford to lose a few bloodlines be an example and start with yourself then huh... The fact that you are alive has everything to with your ancestors, don't ever forget that. Overpopulatin as I said is not the problem. It's the morals, health and decisions of the populace that causes the problems. Such as the decision not to invest that much in space exploration and colonisation. It's not the numbers. It's the decisions.

Originally posted by bg_socalif

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by bg_socalif

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by watchitburn
reply to post by Jepic

 

I never thought about it that way before, it is interesting.
And you're right, if I get smoked, that's it for my family. The buck stops here.

But then what would people like me do outside of the military?
I would most likely be dead or in prison by now, or dead in prison.

I think it should stay as it is. It's an understood voluntary risk, and shouldn't be arbitrarily taken away from us. Whatever will be, will be.

Glad to see that you agree with me if even somewhat.

For stuff that you could do prior to entering the force on your 27th birthday is basically what I said to a previous poster, make a family. Unless you have a type of reproductive impairment then you should be allowed to enter the military as soon as you wish.

Star for you btw.

Sometimes I forget...

edit on 7/5/13 by Jepic because: (no reason given)

Make a family while in the military, it's a lot cheaper that's for sure. My three kids cost me a total of $70 and change and that was to pay for the hospital "food". One was a breech/C section so mom had to stay a couple extra days.

It is true. But it's not a healthy reason to join the military. The healthiest reason for joining the military is a genuine interest to assist and protect your nation and people. Not to make life easier through a paycheck.

Why do you think most join? It's for the steady paycheck (very little chance of lay offs), learning a skill, and benefits. Sure some join out of a sense of patriotism, but most join for some sort of monetary reason.

And while you're in and if you're married, it makes good monetary sense to create your family while in the military.

It shouldn't be the reason to join. The military should change that to offer more pay but at the same time to make fields more specialised to request at least a degree any field of the military that you wish to join. That would bring back respect and honor to being a serviceman in the military.

It's no surprise that the military is seen as a third class job when the vast majority joining are slack offs who would be working in McDonalds if it werent for them.

Originally posted by Bisman
well that wont look very encouraging on the pamphlet. i mean.... expecting to die and all.

You don't go in expecting to die. You go in expecting to provide a quality and valuable service to your country aware of the possibilty that a round might catch you. Of course the cannon fodder mentality of the military would have to dissapear in order for the Institution to start building its reputation and respect.

For example the decision to fight insurgents with conventional ground Forces when the job can be done with precision bombing. However expensive it might be, it surely beats having your men getting blown up.

Originally posted by Jennyfrenzy
reply to post by Jepic

 

So because I am unable to have children I shouldn't be allowed in to the military!?!!

It's each individuals personal decision to enter the military. They know the risks when signing up. We are currently in a war and have been for some time.

Sorry but I don't agree with or like this idea at all.

No. If you are unable to have children you should be allowed to serve as soon as you wish.

You don't make the rules the same as I don't make the rules, the military does. I'm just pointing out the rules that I would implement if I were in charge of a military.

Originally posted by Arnie123
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

You hit it on the nail brother.
Jepic, your proposal flat out sucks. It yields no benefit to the US or the safety of our people.
We have established that fact with not only mothers, fathers an current/retired military service members.
BUT, you continue to insist "its my opinion, thats just what I'll do", Okay we get it, so whats your next point? You asked an a number of posters gave their opinions, but of the variety lot, you continue to spout your same two cents. So where is this thread going? I tell you what, no where.
No offense an I don't mean to be mean if thats the impression your getting, I respect your opinion, but its not realistic, its all negated do to the fact that its peoples choice that they want to join, they know that its in a time of war and people do LIVE, physically an enrichment wise, being in the army, I spend time with some of the most diverse people in all corners of the country, rich an poor, all walks of life, we get paid to workout, shoot weapons systems, drive cool vehicles an play OP4 an BLUE4. When I'm off I enjoy all the military discounts on various family oriented events. Yes, I know that wearing this uniform my life expectancy drops, I know that any moment I could be killed...an you know what? I'm at peace with myself. I love my family an they love me an they know what this career entails, I make no attempt to suger coat it.
So please, your nonsense proposal has no place in this country, your actions will get people killed. I am grateful tjat your just some random poster an not a person in charge...or a leader for that matter.
You continue to insist that "its not right", you don't worry about whats in the best interest of other people, you worry about your own. If you see a man drowning, save him, but don't tell him how to LIVE.

Obviously the US military doesn't give a blimp about you and would welcome you with open arms to the grinder. Whether you have a future at home or not. Every type of cannon fodder is welcome. Well I'm sorry but that doesn't cut it with me. If it was up to me, you don't join unless you made yourself a family or have siblings.

I'm sure my proposal will get less people killed than the current policy of the US. If I see a man drowning, I save him, and I sure would stop him from getting into the water again if I had the power. You know why? Because unlike you, I actually care about his fate as a person.

Originally posted by Vasteel
I disagree that bloodlines are automatically important, maybe that's because I don't want kids myself. Anyway my bloodline couldn't be wiped out by my death as I have a sister and cousins who may carry it on, and if they don't then who cares that's their choice.

The human race and its diversity is in no danger just cos I don't want to reproduce. Having kids isn't everyones idea of happiness.

Then you should be allowed to join immediately. No problem if you have siblings.

It's not about being in danger. It's about having a sensible and healthy military.
And the human race not being in danger is a point to argue. At any Moment we could all dissapear in the blink of an eye just like that. I bet many civlisations have been wiped out just like that when they thought that they are too big to fail.

reply to post by Jepic

But what do you think? Is my proposal a good idea?

I prefer having at least some soldiers that are still young and feel immortal, and without fear of dying and leaving a child behind, thanks. Any good army has a mix of young and foolishly brave, and older, wiser, and more cautious members.

The whole "bloodline" idea is a bit overrated. I am perfectly capable, but I have decided the world has enough people without me adding more children to the mix. Besides, the little buggers are expensive to keep.

I have plenty of cousins "carrying on the bloodline" for me...they do not require my assistance. My family has been here since 1608 and isn't in any danger of leaving anytime soon.

The OP reads as though if you join the military your life is over. That you should be allowed to "live" for a while before joining.

Obviously written by some one that has never been in the military.

I was in the US Navy for 10 years. I joined when I was 18. I got married at 19 and had 3 kids before I got out (plus 2 more after that).

When I joined, I was in no way treated like I was in prison (except maybe those first 2 months in boot camp, but then that's necessary).

There were many things I could go do and "live" as the OP put it: go out running around, date, have girlfriends, take leave (that's vacation) an go see places if I wanted to.

Better yet, I was in the Navy. I got to go see places while they were paying ME.

I could own a car, a motorcycle, rent a house if I wanted to (but would have been stupid since I was given a bed and 3 meals a day, and the food........Navy makes the best damn breakfast compared to anyone else, even when we're at sea).

There were certain things I was not allowed to do: commit crimes. use recreational drugs, or get so drunk that I had to be carried back to the ship. Had to keep my hair short, and was not allowed to grow a beard.

Oooooo. Big deal.

But at no point did the Navy tell me I couldn't have a girlfriend, or date, or get laid, or get married and not have kids.

Now let us change things: you have to be in your late 20's and already have at least one child before you can join.

Stupid. One of the most stupid things I've ever heard. And here is why:

"Hey little Joey. Sorry, I know I've been in your life since day 1, but now I have to go away and be deployed. Sorry you never had a chance to get used to that."

Or the fact that your wife/husband that is used to you being there always, is now having to deal with you being gone all the time.

It's ROUGH. I know, because I saw a lot of guys join up AFTER they had been married and had kids. They always ended up having problems at home, ending in divorce a lot of times, or their kids acting out.

Next: training. Much better to have an 18 year old to train than a 28 year old. The 28 year old has had 10 years to develop bad habits, ranging from lack of exercise, to drug use, to being their own person.

Now you're asking them to stop all that suddenly and be treated like a 18 year old again. They have to suddenly get used to military life.

The military branches have different age limits for when you can join and not be too old, ranging from 28 to 36. Guess who washes out of boot camp the most? It's not the young guys. It's the old guys.

That's because when you're young, you have pretty much lived your life so far being told what to do, when to do. At 28, you've pretty much moved out of that, and YOU do what you want to do, when you want to.

Technical training. People at age 18 learn better and faster than people at 28. The older you get, the harder it can be to learn, the more training it can take.

Cost of families on the US military. You get paid to have a family. Seriously you do. You get paid more if you're married and if you have kids. Those dependents receive medical care and housing (or extra money to afford housing) Taking care of dependents costs the military a large chunk of money as things are now.

Would hate to see the bill if everyone was required to have dependents that need to be taken care of.

What about gays? Are you going to help keep discriminating against them? Sure, gay couples can adopt (but then that's not a blood line), or go through something else to try and have a child. But now you are going to force them?

So to sum up:

You seem to think that when you join the military, your life is over, and are not to go out and "live"
That's completely and utterly false.

You're OP also reads like this: If you join the military, you're going to DIE and not have kids.
While you could get killed, it's not written in stone. They could just as easily get killed by walking in front of a bus.

That you should be forced to have a child, whether you wanted one or not before you can join the military. So in other words: force you to violate the very basic rights of freedom that they'll be swearing to defend when they join.....

If someone is that concerned over their blood line, then they should not be joining a profession that could cause said person to not have one. This includes other professions to:

Law Enforcement
Firefighting.
Search and Rescue
Explosive Ordinance Disposal
Mining (of ANY kind).
Going to sea for any reason (fishing, crabbing). hey, the ocean is a dangerous place.

And many other jobs that are hazardous.

Are you going to force them to have children too?

reply to post by Jepic


Okay, your not getting it are you? WHAT JOB DOES CARE ABOUT YOU? Does mcdonalds provide health benefits 6 months after you leave the military? Or give your spouse 400,000 plus non taxable pay if I go under? Or surgeries for my little infant who may need it?
You have never been military, if so, its a damn shame your not educated about it, sure the gov doesnt give two cents about you, but the military has a wide variety of programs to help military families along with single soldiers. Because of those programs, I laugh at your proposal. I can get a zero interest free loan to help pay for emergencies, my spouse can enroll in programs for military tuition aid, there are a number of things one can do in the military to get ahead in life after the military.
You worry about bloodlines? Bam, got a little girl, bloodline secure. Next? You say the military considers you cannon foldr? Sorry conventional warfare has gone the way of the dinosaurs and no, we are not cannon folder, you've been influence by too much tv. Next?....whats next?
If see your from the united kingdom, I'm not hating on anybody, but keep your nose in YOUR countries affairs, bring your ideas to them, you just let us do our thing.I get it, you like to help people, well instead of fighting pointless debates, go to a soup kitchen an help out there. Go to africa an feed kids. Bring your ideas to your army and that'll be all. Simple.

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
snip

A restructuring would be needed.

Soldier pay shouldn't be miserable. Soldiers should be well paid. That should be changed. With experience in this field, changes in physical peak are nearly non existing up to age 50. From there the gap does begin to widen quite a lot over the years. Besides, the training and mental maturity make for far better servicemen than your teen or young adult. And as for reaction time, reaction time only increases significantly after 50 years of age. Before that it is not significant.

Impossible, our military budget is already over inflated with all sorts of nonsense, the last thing on the politicians' minds is to pay the soldiers more. Besides, in a job where your secondary job description no matter what your primary one is to basically be a bullet sponge, you don't really need to rely on much training. And frankly amount of training usually correlates to pay. Just about any idiot can join the military and at the minimum be in the infantry. Not to mention, you don't join the military for the pay, everyone knows that.

When the salary is good and there is an interest to protect the country from a real threat (not like Iraq or Afghanistan) people will do what their commanding officer tells them, especially when they become aware that following orders is a crucial part of their role as servicemen.

The fact still remains that younger people are easier to mold and make listen to your orders than an older, wiser person. Younger people have the invincibility syndrome. Older people are more cautious. Being overly cautious can be the difference between life and death on the battle field.

Well that's great. People with siblings should be able to join immediately.

You never mentioned this in your OP, so now you are changing your original stance.

The fact that wou slacked off is your fault not that of the military. You are lucky that you had that route, but that's it. It shouldn't be the job of the military to support people who slack off. You should be supporting the military, not the military supporting you. The same as ask not what the country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

No I'm not lucky, kids younger than I have been entering their nation's armies since we started banding together and creating countries. It's not luck, its just a fact of life that a young person can join the military. You would be right if most countries followed your model, but that is not true.

Also the military is a great tool to help a problem child/adolescent clean up their act and mature, which is exactly what I used it for. I'm glad I was provided the moral direction in the military that I did, it made me a better person. I'm sure there are also many like me that without the military would be rotting away in our prison system or dead in a gutter somewhere because they couldn't get their life on track.

I'm talking in the event of war. I'm pretty sure the casualties in all wars combined surpass the casualties from underwater welding and arctic fishing.

Well even the Iraq and Afghanistan wars don't reach the amount of American causalities as previous wars, so unless one breaks out then you may have a point. O wait, in a war like that, since there are more causalities, the military naturally needs more bodies. By setting a higher age minimum and a next of kin prerequisite you are cutting off a large portion of the population from joining. I'm sure the country that we are fighting against would love to fight against a country with your morals, they'd have superiority of numbers.

Afford to lose a few bloodlines? That's a disgusting remark to make. Go ahead, if we can afford to lose a few bloodlines be an example and start with yourself then huh... The fact that you are alive has everything to with your ancestors, don't ever forget that. Overpopulatin as I said is not the problem. It's the morals, health and decisions of the populace that causes the problems. Such as the decision not to invest that much in space exploration and colonisation. It's not the numbers. It's the decisions.

First off, dying for your country or in a war is completely different than suicide. Do not even mix the two up. I do not condone suicide in the least. You nor I have no say in the decisions and the decisions that have been made so far suggest that we are overpopulated and will get steadily worse. So while my remark is kind of horrific, it is true, we need to reduce the population. Personally, I am content, if I were learn that I was going to die soon (by the way I do not have a wife or children) I'd be fine with it.

double post

reply to post by eriktheawful


I've already gone through the differences between different age groups so I'm only going to go over new things pointed out.

The Military should be paying the servicemen more than they do now. They should also do some changes to become a more qualification specialised Institution. This means that even to be an average soldier you should have at least a university degree depending on what field you want to join in. For example a degree in a field having to do with ballistics. This way the job of an average soldier would not only be to use an artillery system but also as a scientist in a military research facility. Now you say "Who will be using the artillery system then?" For that we can have rotations. While one serviceman is on a combat Rotation the other could be in a facility doing research. If we make this part of the contract the military will attract more educated and specialised People who will significantly increase the reputation of having a job in the military.

As for military life having a toll on personal relationships we could also implement rotations. 2 months the serviceman can be at work and the next 2 months he can be with his family and so forth.

But it's crucial that the military change its image from a last resort place for slack offs to a friendly workplace akin to a university where the main purpose is not war but technology/medical research and humanitarian assistance.

Using weapon platforms should not be the main job of a serviceman.

Originally posted by Arnie123
reply to post by Jepic

 

Okay, your not getting it are you? WHAT JOB DOES CARE ABOUT YOU? Does mcdonalds provide health benefits 6 months after you leave the military? Or give your spouse 400,000 plus non taxable pay if I go under? Or surgeries for my little infant who may need it?
You have never been military, if so, its a damn shame your not educated about it, sure the gov doesnt give two cents about you, but the military has a wide variety of programs to help military families along with single soldiers. Because of those programs, I laugh at your proposal. I can get a zero interest free loan to help pay for emergencies, my spouse can enroll in programs for military tuition aid, there are a number of things one can do in the military to get ahead in life after the military.
You worry about bloodlines? Bam, got a little girl, bloodline secure. Next? You say the military considers you cannon foldr? Sorry conventional warfare has gone the way of the dinosaurs and no, we are not cannon folder, you've been influence by too much tv. Next?....whats next?
If see your from the united kingdom, I'm not hating on anybody, but keep your nose in YOUR countries affairs, bring your ideas to them, you just let us do our thing.I get it, you like to help people, well instead of fighting pointless debates, go to a soup kitchen an help out there. Go to africa an feed kids. Bring your ideas to your army and that'll be all. Simple.

It shouldn't be the job of the military to pay for your mistakes. The military should be for people who have a genuine interest to serve and that can only be guaranteed when you have people in it that have no financial problems. We can make special cost free programs to help out people that are stuck in life. The military is not the place for that. You know why a job in the military is not generally seen in a good light? It's because it's full of people that had no other alternative but to join in order to have some money. In other words it's a welfare program. It shouldn't be a welfare program. GET REAL.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


And that's the problem. The military nowadays is seen as a place where you are a bullet sponge. We should give higher standards to people who wish to enter. You don't need a million bodies to fight ground warfare anymore. You just need a handful of platoons who are specialised, well trained and are in the right place at the right time. You can achieve that with good intel. The USA has that. They have good Intel most of the time. They just ignore it many times too.

Modern warfare is fast. You don't have the time to drive your tank up to Berlin anymore.
Entire divisions can be taken out by a few well placed bombs.

I'd rather be part of a special ops company prepared for any eventuality than be part of an infantry division with limited capabilites. The same that I would want experienced, wise and combat hardened men by my side than fresh out of puberty teenagers.

Originally posted by Jepic
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

I've already gone through the differences between different age groups so I'm only going to go over new things pointed out.

The Military should be paying the servicemen more than they do now. They should also do some changes to become a more qualification specialised Institution. This means that even to be an average soldier you should have at least a university degree depending on what field you want to join in. For example a degree in a field having to do with ballistics. This way the job of an average soldier would not only be to use an artillery system but also as a scientist in a military research facility. Now you say "Who will be using the artillery system then?" For that we can have rotations. While one serviceman is on a combat Rotation the other could be in a facility doing research. If we make this part of the contract the military will attract more educated and specialised People who will significantly increase the reputation of having a job in the military.

As for military life having a toll on personal relationships we could also implement rotations. 2 months the serviceman can be at work and the next 2 months he can be with his family and so forth.

But it's crucial that the military change its image from a last resort place for slack offs to a friendly workplace akin to a university where the main purpose is not war but technology/medical research and humanitarian assistance.

Using weapon platforms should not be the main job of a serviceman.

I am completely baffled by this post. You want the military to become a friendly workforce? I'm sorry but is that a joke? I mean the military no matter what the technology level is a mechanism used to fight a war. People die in wars, it is a fact of life. You cannot just change the rules of warfare because of your views on the preciousness of human life. At some point you HAVE to put the people's lives in danger and they will HAVE to follow orders to the letter. If we were to implement the changes to our military that you propose, our military would become the laughing stock of the world. It would be largely ineffectual due to low participation rates, the soldiers would be cowards priding intelligence over placing themselves in danger, and they'd also be weak due to trying to maintain peak physical condition while they are over the hill and approaching or in their 30's. Look up the army PT test, there is a reason that the test gets easier after you reach the age of 25.

You are trying to turn a structure created to fight war into something peaceful and friendly. Might as well just disband the military and just create more government jobs. You should really just stop this argument. Might as well be making a pitch for everyone in the world to lay down their arms and live harmoniously together to improve the quality of our life. Sure its a great idea, but in reality is likely to never happen and can be considered as fanciful as the lord of the rings series.

Originally posted by Jepic
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

And that's the problem. The military nowadays is seen as a place where you are a bullet sponge. We should give higher standards to people who wish to enter. You don't need a million bodies to fight ground warfare anymore. You just need a handful of platoons who are specialised, well trained and are in the right place at the right time. You can achieve that with good intel. The USA has that. They have good Intel most of the time. They just ignore it many times too.

Modern warfare is fast. You don't have the time to drive your tank up to Berlin anymore.
Entire divisions can be taken out by a few well placed bombs.

I'd rather be part of a special ops company prepared for any eventuality than be part of an infantry division with limited capabilites. The same that I would want experienced, wise and combat hardened men by my side than fresh out of puberty teenagers.

Yes you in fact do. Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, heck even Vietnam. We were superior in every way technologically and yet rag tag groups of rebels and insurgents managed to frustrate us for many years. No amount of technology reduced or curbed this fact either. We needed bodies on the ground to fight back and during the course of this fighting, people died.

Do you have any idea the amount of hardship that one has to go through to join a special ops team? The training is some of the most physically demanding things you can do. Most of the trainees who join special forces wash out because they just can't hack it. There is a reason they are the elite. If special forces were our backbone, our military could be rolled over in no time because they'd just get overwhelmed in a real war.

What do you know about fighting side by side with someone fresh out of puberty? Have you done it before? I have, I actually had someone in my unit who turned 18 just in time for our unit to be shipped off to Iraq. He was a very reliable soldier and I'd fight side by side with him before many people 10 years older than him. He and others around his age (myself included) reacted and handled a very dangerous situation with no casualties to our platoon. By the way the entry age for special forces is 20 and the cutoff age is 30. link So even if you did happen to be in special forces, chances are you would side by side with a young adult straight out of puberty. Also what makes someone battle hardened? Experience, everyone starts out as a rookie. No one just joins a profession with experience. So even if we implemented your rules, you'd still end up fighting besides someone who may never have seen combat in his life.

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by Arnie123
reply to post by Jepic

 

Okay, your not getting it are you? WHAT JOB DOES CARE ABOUT YOU? Does mcdonalds provide health benefits 6 months after you leave the military? Or give your spouse 400,000 plus non taxable pay if I go under? Or surgeries for my little infant who may need it?
You have never been military, if so, its a damn shame your not educated about it, sure the gov doesnt give two cents about you, but the military has a wide variety of programs to help military families along with single soldiers. Because of those programs, I laugh at your proposal. I can get a zero interest free loan to help pay for emergencies, my spouse can enroll in programs for military tuition aid, there are a number of things one can do in the military to get ahead in life after the military.
You worry about bloodlines? Bam, got a little girl, bloodline secure. Next? You say the military considers you cannon foldr? Sorry conventional warfare has gone the way of the dinosaurs and no, we are not cannon folder, you've been influence by too much tv. Next?....whats next?
If see your from the united kingdom, I'm not hating on anybody, but keep your nose in YOUR countries affairs, bring your ideas to them, you just let us do our thing.I get it, you like to help people, well instead of fighting pointless debates, go to a soup kitchen an help out there. Go to africa an feed kids. Bring your ideas to your army and that'll be all. Simple.

It shouldn't be the job of the military to pay for your mistakes. The military should be for people who have a genuine interest to serve and that can only be guaranteed when you have people in it that have no financial problems. We can make special cost free programs to help out people that are stuck in life. The military is not the place for that. You know why a job in the military is not generally seen in a good light? It's because it's full of people that had no other alternative but to join in order to have some money. In other words it's a welfare program. It shouldn't be a welfare program. GET REAL.

Wow, the only person who needs to get real is YOU. You so set in your ways now your just ignoring poster response, your not providing any reals means of any kind of response, your simply just changing your wording now. You disgust me. Your blood line theory disgust me. There is nothing in this thread that shows your going to change your stance, the only people you actuallu agree with are the ones who hate the military.
This thread is done an over with. Whatever "Profession" it is you do must be pretty low for you to attack the military, or somthing happened, what you lost family? Welcome to life, reality check.
Moderators, if your reading these post, then please, close this thread as it is going nowhere but the dumpster as it will eventually violate some T&C rules they way the OP responses are, repetitive. Utter garbage.