161–170 of 608 posts
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Afaik, soldiers don't get to choose. The queens enemies is pretty much good description, because his guess is as good as yours.
I don't think they were literally looking for an answer for this specific question, but pointing out how unsettling, at the very least, the lack of concrete answers is. 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 wr…
Modern economic powers have militaries and alliances that make attacking them unattractive. They have sufficient teeth to dissuade conflict.
If you are fortunate enough to live in a Western democracy your safety and security is preserved by the actions of those who you call morally compromised.
Are people that use the word "explainer" just unaware of the word "explanation"? Also, what do those people call someone who explains? "Explainerer"?
>In 1797 the Kingdom of Great Britain feared an invasion by the French. You may think of the British as always having a large standing Army, but it was relatively small at the start of the Napoleonic era. To give a better chance of defending the nation against invasion, volunteer units of part-time soldiers were formed to serve only within Great Britain. Infantry were easy to form as they just needed weapons and other basic equipment, but cavalry posed a problem in that it needed trained horses. A way to get these was to borrow them from local farmers and country estates.
As an American I interpret this to mean that the British took to heart a lesson learned from their recent experience in the American Revolution. I am reminded of this particular amendment to the US Constitution which was ratified by the US states in late 1791, a few years before the establishment of the Yeomanry.
>Amendment II
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Codifying this amendment in the Bill of Rights is the cornerstone for guaranteeing that trained individuals could be available to the United States should an external threat to the security of the new country arise.
This amendment has obviously become a trigger and a political dividing line here in the US. It's a shame. It is the one amendment of all of them that guarantees that a random collection of individual citizens drawn from any random locality can be quickly made ready to serve their country as an effective fighting force if called upon to serve.
Perhaps it is seen as too outdated, too permissive, etc. though in fact it is short and sweet defining the important desired outcome - (A well regulated militia,) the reasoning behind the need for that outcome - (being necessary to the security of a free state,) the specific right granted - (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.)
It would have been awesome if they had laid out the responsibilities of the citizenry who exercise this right and the types of arms permissible for a citizen to keep and bear. I'm sure we can figure it all out in time. I'm not holding my breath though and you shouldn't either.
The American military is a lying, conniving, duplicitous, war mongering, murderous entity just like the whole American government has ever increasingly become. The institution and its diabolical leaders want your skills and your soul. Make that deal with the devil as you see fit.
There, I said my piece/peace. Make of it what you want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What can we do for those trapped in poverty whose only ticket out was enlistment? You just give them the fucking food, education, and healthcare. Look at the current US military budget and tell me that's impossible. The military is not offering "good" — it's offering the roll of a dice. Sure, one side says "good" but you've got a "death" side too. Wealthy people do not have to roll this dice at all. The majority of…
> You just give them the fucking food, education, and healthcare. Look at the current US military budget and tell me that's impossible. It’s impossible. Here is some analysis: https://hwfo.substack.com/p/peace-in-ukraine-and-universal-h...
Not to mention the bureaucratic, political, and productivity costs plus the costs to employers and what individuals pay out of pocket.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being subordinate didn't work for the Nuremberg "I was following orders" crowd, which makes me doubt your assertion. > if you don't trust your government to deploy military power, what do you trust them for? Do you have to trust them for anything? It's not like it's a viable option to decide that you don't want to designate any government as "yours". Good luck surviving in no man's land if you do. What makes governme…
Hard to tell if you're just trolling or being serious. * Nuremberg and "just following orders" was about actual orders to specific individuals to do things that were literal war crimes, and those individuals carrying those orders out. One country designating another country an enemy is not, in fact, a war crime. >> Do you have to trust them for anything? I mean, yes? Even when you live in a libertarian fantasy land i…
But an illegal war of aggression is a crime against humanity, right?
The most important thing to realize about military service is that you sign away all your citizenship rights (free speech, etc.) when you sign up for the service. Hopefully you won't be used in ridiculous debacles like the 2003 Iraq Invasion, based on lies about WMDs pushed by Washington (and see British role as well), but you'll have no say in the matter. The other thing to realize is that, at least in the USA, they…
In the experience of the people I know, the VA goes out of their way to give benefits as needed. One case, in particular, they were granted 100% disability for life with a packet submission and one phone call.
The DoD could certainly use some technical help, and the leadership from ex (or current reserve/national guard aka "R/NG") officers and NCOs in tech jobs benefits the tech industry. The issue is this - the American military Reserve/NG is not very truthful, in my experience, with the time commitments. The marketing slogan is "a weekend a month, two weeks a summer" of time commitment, or something to that effect. In re…
Here's the actual reality on the ground, from someone who's been in and around the military for ~ 20 years:
- A surprisingly high percentage of military personnel share views that would fit right in with the HN crowd. They are largely anti-war and anti-interventionists but continue to serve for a variety of other reasons. What you see on TV and TikTok is often a gross mischaracterization of who military people are and what they think.
- The military is an amazing escalator for the poor and lower middle-class. I know plenty of folks who started out as junior airmen making less than $25k a year in their early 20s who are solidly upper-middle class/rich millionaires in their 40s. Sure tech affords you the same opportunities these days, but that wasn't necessarily the case when the folks were getting started 20 years ago.
- As a rule, you generally have a lot of freedom when deciding which assignments to take as a reservist or guardsman, at least on the Air Force side. There are usually more volunteers for missions than their are slots available for people to go into. From my understanding, this is much less true on the Army side, where they will often deploy an entire unit on a mission. Anyone assigned to the unit most go, with few exceptions.
- The benefits are generally better than what the HN crowd are representing here. It's pretty easy to get a 4-year degree from a good (and occasionally great) school with little or no out-of-pocket expenses. You can also buy a house up to $650,000 in most areas (with adjustments for even higher cost-of-living areas) with $0 down and no PMI payment.
You've captured most of the downsides here. But for me, the biggest downside was that the military (at least during the time I served) has an extremely poor record of properly recognizing talent within its ranks. I worked with a lot of folks who could and often did land cushy jobs in SV. But back in their military jobs, they often were tasked with menial jobs that failed to take advantage of their talents. Yes, there are leaders that can and do recognize talent in their ranks. And the Air Force isn't nearly as hierarchical and directive as folks here would have you think. But rank still matters. I left when the delta between my "rank" in my civilian career and my military rank became to big to bear.
These are all valid points everything you said resonates with me. I was in the US Navy myself and have been out for 11 years during which time I've finished a Bachelors (thanks GI Bill), will be finishing a Masters here shortly (also in CS), and have been in tech the entire time. While the pay is great and intellectually fulfilling, a part of me certainly misses having contact with a broader cross-section of society…
As someone who's been in tech for a decade now, the biggest obstacle to me is the 1-2 years of training and how that would affect my career and family. It seems harder for mid-career adults to enlist/commission once you're already in a career and trying to advance...