Not so long ago, if you had a chip on your shoulder, you were gladly welcome in the army, where you could take it out on enemies and get fulfillment and maybe even respect and skills/knowledge in the process. But now, even that poor soldier who decided for a little field day and shot up a few Afghan peasants some time ago was court marshalled. How is this fair? Isn't war supposed to be war? And then, we keep our citizens who are not only ready but also happy to kill people in prison, whilst we suffer terrible shortfalls at our army recruitment centers. How stupid is this? Shouldn't it be that if you are or want to be a killer then we should not stigmatize you, but simply evaluate if you take well enough to a discipline for missions, and if you do, then you have a job. The modern army situation is like wanting to run a library, but we find it unacceptable to hire librarians that are actually literate. What's your take?
I am absolutely against statism and totalitarian democracy too, exactly the same way that our founding fathers were against these things when they signed the Declaration of Independence and established the Electoral College. This may be utopistic at this time, but I also think, that like in the revolutionary war, it should not be a state that has a monopoly on running armies, but each region/city of like minded residents should run their own community armies, and the bigger military organizations would be various alliances of these community armies. Today, military technology is cheap enough to make this possible, and this is the way we won the revolutionary war too. The centralized national armies are bound to lose, for many reasons, one of which is outlined in the OP.
I forget the origins but it has been said that having a large military means you will eventually use it and I believe that is what is happening.
Nope, just stupid. If you did that you wouldn't hold the opinions you do.. This means that each part Except it's not, military equipment is expensive as all get out and the only reason the US can field it in the numbers it can is because of economies of scale. Take a look at the European Union: On paper they surpass the US in GDP, now compare the combined EU Navy to the USN. The EU has six short-deck aircraft carriers (Italy's Giuseppe Garibaldi and Cavour, Spain's Principe de Asturias and Juan Carlos I, and the UK's HMS Illustrious) and one capable of launching CTOL (France's Charles de Gaulle); conversely the USN has nine short deck carriers (the USS Peleliu and the eight Wasp-class ships) and eleven nuclear-power CTOL carriers (the USS Enterprise and the ten Nimitz-class). We can do this only because we pool our resources together No the way we won the Revolutionary War was a popular insurgency in at home and the French stirring up trouble for the British in the Indian subcontinent and if you actually knew jack all about the war you'd know the militias weren't the ones winning the battles, they overwhelmingly lost to the British regulars who were far better drilled than they were. The nascent US didn't start winning battles until the creation of the Continental Army and General von Steuben's drilling was finished. All the militias did was create an atmosphere where the British needed to occupy every town to stop insurrection which stretched them thin and vulnerable for the Continental Army units under the commands of General Washington and Arnold to fight them on even terms. The militias played a part, but their importance on the battlefield is wholly exaggerated. Only if you're historically illiterate. In 1812 New England was cut up piecemeal by the British Regulars because individual states wouldn't fight on behalf of other states, would supply other state militias, and many times denied other state militias the right to move through their territory to provide aid against the British. The same thing happened in the Civil War, except with the Union Army cutting up the Confederacy for the same reasons. We finally abolished the militia system and created the State National Guards after the Spanish-American War because it was found that the States couldn't be trusted to maintain their troops with sufficient training, wouldn't provide their troops necessary equipment, and because of the lack of standardized equipment many people were left weaponless become logistics could keep up with the vast disparity in weapons calibers and replacement parts which resulted in countless unnecessary deaths. You'd have to be (*)(*)(*)(*)ing insane to want the militias back. Explain China and Russia then.
You have a very poor understanding of what it takes to be a professional soldier. Murderers in prison share almost nothing with soldiers; Soldiers need discipline and the ability to work with others, traits rarely found in prison. You'll find there's a massive difference between a cold blooded murderer and a soldier trained to kill in combat. The later does so as part of an efficient, goal oriented team. It sounds like you're young and watch too many movies. I do agree with you a bit about society being too sensitive. Too many Americans don't understand that war is controlled chaos and violence. They expect soldiers to perform their jobs to the same standards of corporate America. They don't understand that soldiers live in a plain of existence that is completely outside of the fake little suburban paradise that most Americans have built around themselves. When people are getting blown into gory chunks of flesh and people are trying to kill you everyday, posing with a severed limb doesn't seem like a big deal. Unfortunately, Americans, courtesy of the self-appointed Pulitzer prize seeking moral compass that is the U.S. media, aren't able to put anything into context.
Yes, war isn't hell. It's a great fun shooting others but getting oneself or one's family members shot is certainly no fun. The founding fathers had a lot of fun shooting the natives in the New World. Now with very few natives left in the US, a few bored descendants of the founding fathers try to get some fun once a while by shooting everybody on sight in the schools. Nowadays a peaceful way of getting fun out of war is, of course, engaging battles with another player or a computer-controlled enemy using virtual armies in computer games.
War is a fundemental part of society, if its hell then its because somepeople make it hell, thats why we have geneva rights.
Contrary to popular notions of history that would have been frowned upon even in ancient armies. Sure, if you were ordered to do it back then it was all fine, but it was usually part of some strategy. War has pretty much always had rules and wanton killing and destruction has been frowned upon for thousands of years.
You've seen "Taps" one too many times. "Fun," is not an accurate description of the realities of warfare; nor would I want a miliary to attract sociopaths. [video=youtube;ppMQ2Jvekfg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppMQ2Jvekfg[/video] Also it's court MARTIAL, not Marshall...but far be it from me to harp on anyone's spelling. I suppose to a few snake eaters, war is "fun," at least the adrenaline side of things; but for the majority of those in the service, war is anything but fun.
I'm not too sure how long the Hague Conventions will last, though. If ballistic plate technologies continue to proliferate the only way for firearms to remain effective on the battlefield would be to start reissuing battle rifles again with AP rounds or start using explosive tips in AR rounds.
I think he has a far better understanding than you . The days of State sponsored killers --- soldiers --are coming to an end . Drones and Cyber Warfare increasingly make the role of the foot soldier redundant . As soon as we have the fruits of Black Technology , this role will be reduced even further . Old ideas about valour , loyalty , obedience and discipline are irrelevant . Soldiers are basically stupid and inefficient forms of embryonic robot killers .
Stop with the Science Fiction, it sounds like you just watched terminator. Robots/Drones are at least decades away from replacing boots on the ground, and may very well never. It's funny because in the military drones/robots are considered "stupid" while actual people/foot soldiers are the "intelligence" needed to back up any determinations made by drones. Any battlefield commander will take actual human eyes over robots/drones/sensors. Humans can think independently and make determinations that computers can't. Also, every drone/robot currently in the military is operated by a human. Drones/robots are an enhancement to soldiers on the ground, they are not even remotely close to replacing them. When a robot can conduct a cordon search, talk candidly with tribal leaders, and use its intuition to track down and differentiate an insurgent from a civilian I'll start to agree with you.
Yeah, drones controlled from the other side of the planet controlled by signals bounced off of satellites are obviously the way of the future. Except for the part where ASAT missile technologies and cheap blinding lasers are getting easier and easier for enemy nations to procure, which means that drones will have to be controlled from easily targeted preset bases. Either that or given a basic AI code and slaved to local command vehicles. The dream of an all drone military that can just hurl smart munitions while it's operator sits in a climate-controlled room in a base in the US sipping a latte is just that, a pipe dream.
