21–30 of 608 posts
A fair number of people in the US, probably in other countries with similar programs, use the military as a means of funding their education at the uni or post-uni level. The govt pays for them, and in return there is a multi-year commitment in some form of the military. It's a good deal for both sides, although the risks were pointed out big-time back when Desert Shield became Desert Storm and a whole lot of EMT...M…
A fair number of people in the US, probably in other countries with similar programs, use the military as a means of funding their education at the uni or post-uni level. The govt pays for them, and in return there is a multi-year commitment in some form of the military. It's a good deal for both sides, although the risks were pointed out big-time back when Desert Shield became Desert Storm and a whole lot of EMT...M…
The American military is a social welfare program in many parts yes.
I wouldn't really recommend it while warhawks are in charge, but generally it's a nice route to take.
So one of the things I like about Tiktok is you get exposed to something you normally wouldn't and it can be fascinating. One example of this I had an Air Force recruiter pop up on my fyp. This is obviously US-centric (as opposed to the article, which is the UK) but here are some things I've learned: 1. The difference between Reserve and Guard? Reserve is Federal, Guard is State (this was news to me); 2. Signing up f…
The only people I want in an army are those who have freely and independently chosen to join the army and who have been psychologically and physically checked to be fit for service. The motivation of a soldier should exclusively be to serve their country, not financial or status (e.g. citizenship) gain.
People who have "chosen" because they have no other perspective to rise in life later-on should they survive their service or because they were pressured to do so by their family or friends have no place in the armed forces.
An army should strive for excellence - Putin's troops are the current showcase for entire generations to see what happens otherwise.
The author glosses over my biggest question "Who might you have to fight?" with a informative "Queen’s enemies." Might his squadron be called in to quash civil disturbance? Sent to the next Iraq? Is it reserved for defending the UK from invasion?
To some extent your question is in the same category as the above. It decontextualizes the situation entirely. He lives in a democracy. He obviously believes that society is less worse than some visible alternatives. He therefore believes he can fight on its behalf based on what the democratic leadership determine. It's obviously possible for him to morally re-evaluate that at a later point: it might even cost him his life to do so. But his actions are morally considered whereas I think the question is morally thoughtless.
So one of the things I like about Tiktok is you get exposed to something you normally wouldn't and it can be fascinating. One example of this I had an Air Force recruiter pop up on my fyp. This is obviously US-centric (as opposed to the article, which is the UK) but here are some things I've learned: 1. The difference between Reserve and Guard? Reserve is Federal, Guard is State (this was news to me); 2. Signing up f…
The author glosses over my biggest question "Who might you have to fight?" with a informative "Queen’s enemies." Might his squadron be called in to quash civil disturbance? Sent to the next Iraq? Is it reserved for defending the UK from invasion?
Afaik, soldiers don't get to choose. The queens enemies is pretty much good description, because his guess is as good as yours.
Anyway if they won't say it I will: signing up to fight without knowing who or why you'll be fighting is morally compromised at the extreme very best.
Modern economic powers like the UK do not use their militaries for self-defense. Someone able to write with his sophistication about the military knows what they use them for. In serving, and even in writing this piece of pro-military propaganda, he's supporting imperial violence.
> First of all, nobody ever shouts ‘sir yes sir’. Yeah, that myth comes from Hollywood's portrayal of US Marines-- I dont know if actual US Marines are like that, but that's certainly how Hollywood (and most fiction) portrays them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the UK you typically go to college (university in our terminology) before you join the Army, rather than after, but we do have bursaries to support some technical specialities if they commit to joining after they graduate. You can also do in-service degrees, up to PhD I believe.
In the US, all officers must be university grads. The enlisted ranks do not need a university degree to join. I would assume the same is true of enlisted ranks in the UK.
P.s. as a famous example, I believe Prince Harry went to Sandhurst without going to university first.
I spent five years in the Air Force. Posts like this are really helpful, a lot of Americans are disconnected from members of the military, especially in the upper classes where people do not need to serve, or in fields (like tech) where people can often find less intrusive ways to pay for college. My favorite part of the article is dispelling the myth that in the military senior people bark orders, and don't ask for…
The author glosses over my biggest question "Who might you have to fight?" with a informative "Queen’s enemies." Might his squadron be called in to quash civil disturbance? Sent to the next Iraq? Is it reserved for defending the UK from invasion?
Does he get to choose whether he fights or not? Does he get reasonably and transparently informed about the issues leading to him being deployed?
Having to fight or kill is not something one should consider lightly. It's a responsibility that very few should have to bear and hopefully you should be as informed as possible about why you're doing it when making the decision to bear that responsibility.