With that being said, I feel as if generation Y would most likely be draft dodgers/rebellious being that they grew up with
all this technology like social media, text-messaging, IPhones, instant entertainment (Youtube, Netflix), celebrity influences, all of which give them this rebellious mentality.
In other words, a lot of today's millennials from what I can gather from my own personal experiences have gone really soft, with a few sprinkles of stubbornness and self-entitlement.
An example of this would be towards the end of Vietnam in 1973, when a lot of drafted privates (who were probably draft dodgers from the start) began turning on their sergeants and superiors. Yet there were still some who were willing to honorably serve their country.
Fast forwards forty or so years and compare that generation to this one.
I think that sounds a great deal like the 'this generation is both worse than and has it easier than an older generation' shtick we've been hearing since...forever.
I don't think we would have that problem. Your assumption is that military enlistment is going to be a problem when/if WW3 happens and that a draft will be necessary. Sure enlistment has gone down but that's because we don't live in a time of megalomaniacal regimes like we had back in WWII. Vietnam was a mistake on part of our government and as such military training and selection has become more stringent.
We also have more technological advances that could aid us if such a thing were to occur.
However, the problem with your assessment is the mindset of millennials. What made many dodge the Vietnam draft was that the people knew there was nothing patriotic about going to war with a country experiencing its own civil war. Where as the patriotism was much higher during WWII because it was a global threat to the safety of America and their way of life.
If WW3 were to happen, and America was a target, rest assured many people would take arms, regardless of their ability to enlist. Even millennials. They have to protect their iPods afterall.
But in anycase, the closest threat we currently have to our national security is North Korea, and even their only ally, China, is telling them they're going too far.
A very large portion of the military right now are already millennials - that should tell you something. There have been multiple Medal of Honor recipients who are millennials. Most of the anti-millennial criticism is pure golden age fallacy.
Hordini wrote: A very large portion of the military right now are already millennials - that should tell you something. There have been multiple Medal of Honor recipients who are millennials. Most of the anti-millennial criticism is pure golden age fallacy.
Spinner wrote: I think that sounds a great deal like the 'this generation is both worse than and has it easier than an older generation' shtick we've been hearing since...forever.
Hordini wrote: A very large portion of the military right now are already millennials - that should tell you something. There have been multiple Medal of Honor recipients who are millennials. Most of the anti-millennial criticism is pure golden age fallacy.
Damm youth people, they always think they are entitled to everything!
Back in my day you worked in your farm with your own hands and a loyal mule! Now they come with those... tractors... urgh. That isn't real work! Real men do with pure ANIMAL force!
With that being said, I feel as if generation Y would most likely be draft dodgers/rebellious being that they grew up with
all this technology like social media, text-messaging, IPhones, instant entertainment (Youtube, Netflix), celebrity influences, all of which give them this rebellious mentality.
In other words, a lot of today's millennials from what I can gather from my own personal experiences have gone really soft, with a few sprinkles of stubbornness and self-entitlement.
And there it is. Right there. The bait.
An example of this would be towards the end of Vietnam in 1973, when a lot of drafted privates (who were probably draft dodgers from the start) began turning on their sergeants and superiors. Yet there were still some who were willing to honorably serve their country.
Fast forwards forty or so years and compare that generation to this one.
What do you guys think?
I think that you're a member of a political party here in the US who loves to complain about "snowflakes" and how young people are ruining this country, but voted for a draft dodging grifter who avoided service over a "bone spur" in his foot and is currently serving as a hand puppet for a foreign government.
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."
- Socrates (469–399 B.C.)
Galas wrote: Damm youth people, they always think they are entitled to everything!
Back in my day you worked in your farm with your own hands and a loyal mule! Now they come with those... tractors... urgh. That isn't real work! Real men do with pure ANIMAL force!
Back in my day, we didn't have boats yet, so we had to swim across the Atlantic to fight the Kaiser! With our fists!
how is being medically unfit a generation problem? a good portion of that percentage are probably those old guys who fought in viet nam, or dodged the draft. another good percentage are probably kids to young to serve. It's all speculation to the numbers til the source is cited and we can see the break down of numbers.
My friend couldn't join because he had asthma, a common problem in the US, damn that social media that didn't exist when I joined and he couldn't, Youtube gave him asthma before Youtube existed.
I wonder if it's connected, no universal health care option, and 71% of americans with medical problems?
sirlynchmob wrote: I wonder if it's connected, no universal health care option, and 71% of americans with medical problems?
At least it doesn't help. Add in how minimum wage jobs don't really allow you to buy healthy food or go to the gym all too often and we might have something to look at. But basic training is supposed to help those who aren't totally crippled get into some sort of shape.
Not that a draft would be necessary, ofc. There's plenty of armed rednecks in pickup trucks that call themself "militia", they should be able to handle things while you start mobilizing the wider populace. It'll probably all be over in a few days one way or other.
The reason a very large portion of the population can't meet military enrolment standards isn't due to the fitness of the population. Sure, plenty more people today are fat, but in the past you had mass malnutrition (and infant malnutrition causing limited development, which can't be fixed with a better diet now). But standards for military enrolment were much lower. You need millions of new draftees, you accept lower physical standards or you don't get to your total.
These days with a much bigger population and a much smaller standing army, relatively speaking, the US can enforce higher standards. Other countries around the world have even tighter enrollment standards, because we have even smaller armies.
I think Millennials are probably pretty fething tired of hearing how spoiled they are because they have smart phones by the generation that could afford college with part time jobs, had great union jobs and could own homes and raise families by their mid-twenties, who then torched the economy after they got theirs.
I think the crappiest generations should stop complaining about the kids that are cleaning up all their messes while enjoying so much less opportunity.
It's also worthwhile to remember that the Rangers of the 2nd Ranger Battalion in Saving Private Ryan, the paratroopers of the 101st Airborne Division in Band of Brothers, or the Sturmtruppen in Stalingrad were not indicative of the quality and training of the typical infantryman during WWII. The above examples would consist almost entirely of volunteer soldiers with training, motivation, and investment roughly equivalent to our volunteer soldiers today. As for how a modern day conscript from a modern and well-developed country that nonetheless full-scale war is a _distinct_ possibility results are a mixed bag. A soldier I spoke to who served alongside the ROKA and went on a liaison mission with the IDF noted that the typical improvements in training such as using human-shaped targets rather than the concentric circle of yore and use of computer simulations has dramatically increased the effectiveness of the bog-standard conscript, things like draft-dodging and hazing remain issues. He had even told me while he had very positive experiences with paratroopers, tankers, and Air Force pilots, he was less than impressed with IDF conscripts who were serving at checkpoints, whom in his words, behaved no better than eighteen-year-olds given guns, life-and-death authority, and little to no adult supervision* anywhere else in the world.
*This is owed to the fact that unlike the US or British Army only a small number of soldiers remain as careers NCOs, so the "squad leader" is typically about the age of the rest of his squad.
I'm gonna sidestep the youth bashing and also the obvious reasons why the concept of the draft is fundamentally flawed.
I'm almost 10 years beyond selective service's upper bounds. Were there a genuine assault on our territory, I would gladly volunteer to be on the frontline should there be something resembling convincing danger to my loved ones.
I'm about 40 lbs overweight. Roughly 80% of my calories are booze. .It's not healthy, but I can lose that in a month and dying doesn't exactly bother me. Now consider there's likely a nontrivial number of people like me.
I think Millennials are probably pretty fething tired of hearing how spoiled they are because they have smart phones by the generation that could afford college with part time jobs, had great union jobs and could own homes and raise families by their mid-twenties, who then torched the economy after they got theirs.
I think the crappiest generations should stop complaining about the kids that are cleaning up all their messes while enjoying so much less opportunity.
Whenever it tired me out, I just sit and think "Go on and say whatever you want boomers. Me and mine didn't produce and market the worst Star Trek film ever made. We were still toddlers in 89"
I think Millennials are probably pretty fething tired of hearing how spoiled they are because they have smart phones by the generation that could afford college with part time jobs, had great union jobs and could own homes and raise families by their mid-twenties, who then torched the economy after they got theirs.
I think the crappiest generations should stop complaining about the kids that are cleaning up all their messes while enjoying so much less opportunity.
Whenever it tired me out, I just sit and think "Go on and say whatever you want boomers. Me and mine didn't produce and market the worst Star Trek film ever made. We were still toddlers in 89"
I mean, all things considered, I thought that the concept of the generation wars was simply a smokescreen generated by Goldman Sachs analysts to create false barriers between people who should by any other estimation ultimately support the same political policies, but now as I read your post, I'm unprepared to refute it.
There might be a good amount of draft dodging. But it wouldn't be very successful since everybody has an online footprint. You'd probably have a lot of people getting found because they kept posting on facebook.
But it's highly unlike a draft would ever be necessary even if we got involved in a war with another major power(assuming it doesn't escalate to nukes everywhere). If we got in a world war with, say, China, you'd still probably see enough volunteers to keep the army supplied for a long time. Especially since the armed forces are no longer men only.
I do think the selective service should change to no longer be men only.
So I'm 33. I giggle basically constantly, because half my friends are borderline violent in their protestations that they're not millennials. The other half of them are borderline violent in their insistence that they're not like the first half because they believe whatever the opposite of the first half believe. I believe in in Bacchus, because he's covered by none of the above, and he's more real at this moment than the sky wizards that work for Gold-mansacks.
To be fair, I find there's a general conflation of the tail end of Gen X, and the Centennials (Gen Z) with Millennials. People just like bitching about people younger than them sometimes, and vice versa.
I do think the selective service should change to no longer be men only.
I don't. Not knowing what I know about the gak holes of the rest of the world. It's not cheery for a European descended male, but you're talking about delivering a trophy piece over to particular sections of the world.
If you want to continue making them noncombatants or something, that's fine. Don't ruin people's lives any more than the fundamental concept of war does on even terms, at least.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: To be fair, I find there's a general conflation of the tail end of Gen X, and the Centennials (Gen Z) with Millennials. People just like bitching about people younger than them sometimes, and vice versa.
And on that same vein, I get along with the dude that sits next to me at work who's in his 50s and the woman who sits behind me who's in her 40s far better than I do any of the people who I work with that're in their 30s or even younger.
Don't get me wrong, I'm literally just bitching about people younger than me.
But at the same time that doesn't make it any less true. We talk about work habits. Sometimes personal interests. Music we like. The fact that we actually cook our own food and exchanging recipes we have. It's not something the younglings do. And I talk to them. One of them is a Keyboard collector. I.. I'm going to not comment on that. The other one doesn't really talk about anything other than his divorce.
LordofHats wrote: To be fair, I find there's a general conflation of the tail end of Gen X, and the Centennials (Gen Z) with Millennials. People just like bitching about people younger than them sometimes, and vice versa.
Yeah, and there's nothing wrong with bitching about young people because holy crap they are annoying. It's just that we shouldn't trick ourselves that other generations were any less annoying when they were young.
You'd get lots of conscientious objectors, certainly, a good thing, but it's worth noting that the millennials of, for instance, Israel, Denmark, and Finland cope just fine.
Not that I want treat the OP with any seriousness when it's just 'kids have got it so easy! Wah wah wah! When I was young all I had was a wooden train and three hand-me-down books! And the ability to buy property and support myself through university without loans! But these pampered kids have it all!'.
I think this is being looked at the wrong way. If we assume approximately 25million 18-24 year olds that means 29% are in a physical condition to join the army immediately. That's 7.25 million people they could draft instantly.
I think what about 400,000 were drafted in WWII? So in terms of physical numbers they would be fine. I think the logistics of arming/feeding/clothing that number of people might be more problematic.
Also people are likely to be more aware of the realities of war because of the media and there may be more resistance to a general call up.
And finally WWIII won't be won by the number of soldiers but by the number of nukes. An army of 10,000 is worthless when you drop a nuclear bomb on it. Things will likely escalate too fast for a drafts to be worthwhile.
With that being said, I feel as if generation Y would most likely be draft dodgers/rebellious being that they grew up with
all this technology like social media, text-messaging, IPhones, instant entertainment (Youtube, Netflix), celebrity influences, all of which give them this rebellious mentality.
In other words, a lot of today's millennials from what I can gather from my own personal experiences have gone really soft, with a few sprinkles of stubbornness and self-entitlement.
An example of this would be towards the end of Vietnam in 1973, when a lot of drafted privates (who were probably draft dodgers from the start) began turning on their sergeants and superiors. Yet there were still some who were willing to honorably serve their country.
Fast forwards forty or so years and compare that generation to this one.
What do you guys think?
I think it's more I really don't want to be told to pick up a rifle and kill someone, whilst risking injury or death in return.
Oh, and seeing the shameful way previous soldiers - drafted or volunteers are treated after they've done their 'service'.
So it's not being soft. It's not being entitled. It's the sure and certain knowledge you'd only be deployed for economic reasons, and then cast off once the horrors of war have done their work.
As for entitled?
I was born in 1980. By the time I was 18, University was no longer free. By the time I was 25, houses were already out of reach, I could whistle for a decent pension, and the majority of jobs paid a piddling minimum wage.
All because Baby Boomers enjoyed the largesse of the rightfully named Greatest Generation, but didn't much fancy paying into that system. That is entitlement. All I ask is the same perks my parents and their contemporaries took for granted then pulled out from under us. Not much to ask now, is it?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I think it's more I really don't want to be told to pick up a rifle and kill someone, whilst risking injury or death in return.
Oh, and seeing the shameful way previous soldiers - drafted or volunteers are treated after they've done their 'service'.
So it's not being soft. It's not being entitled. It's the sure and certain knowledge you'd only be deployed for economic reasons, and then cast off once the horrors of war have done their work.
As for entitled?
I was born in 1980. By the time I was 18, University was no longer free. By the time I was 25, houses were already out of reach, I could whistle for a decent pension, and the majority of jobs paid a piddling minimum wage.
All because Baby Boomers enjoyed the largesse of the rightfully named Greatest Generation, but didn't much fancy paying into that system. That is entitlement. All I ask is the same perks my parents and their contemporaries took for granted then pulled out from under us. Not much to ask now, is it?
This exactly. I'm not dying for the Boomers who have demonised me my entire life, nor the rotting husk that is our "society" they now govern.
Sticking to the chronical lettering of Gen X, Y, and Z; the boomers are Gen W. The Worst Gen. And I say that deservedly too, for it is them who now complain about the wests uncertain future after having pissed it all away in their turn in power.
I think we would be ok if the new generation would have to fight if ww3 broke out, labeling millions of millennial young men and women as wimps just isn't true.. same could be said of any generation I know plenty of my generation x that wouldn't last 1 minute in the job I did in the army... of course your going to have your anti war protest people but also millions who will step up to fight for their country.
LordofHats wrote: To be fair, I find there's a general conflation of the tail end of Gen X, and the Centennials (Gen Z) with Millennials. People just like bitching about people younger than them sometimes, and vice versa.
Yeah, and there's nothing wrong with bitching about young people because holy crap they are annoying. It's just that we shouldn't trick ourselves that other generations were any less annoying when they were young.
Tell me about it. Saw these young whipper snappers trolling through the store the other day, so loud that you could hear them a football field away, and they just decided "oh hey the bike section lets ride them and then not buy a damn thing, or even have the courtesy to put them back when we're done!"
I think Millennials are probably pretty fething tired of hearing how spoiled they are because they have smart phones by the generation that could afford college with part time jobs, had great union jobs and could own homes and raise families by their mid-twenties, who then torched the economy after they got theirs.
I think the crappiest generations should stop complaining about the kids that are cleaning up all their messes while enjoying so much less opportunity.
And assuming there was a spike in millennial service, I'm sure it wouldn't quite be enough.
I mean, yeah, the past generation already killed the economy. housing market and so many of our opportunities, now we are being blamed for now killing enough people.
And I love how you try to wrap this bashing in just wanting a discussion. I mean this will all sincerity, but you need to do something better with your life than find a way to bash on people who are not you.
I had to do quite a bit of study to learn how to deal and manage with the millennial generation. Yes, they do think and behave differently. However, I would find no difference in the dedication to the US should a significant and bonafide crisis hit this country.
I spent over 20 years active and reserve in the military and really cannot fault them for much of their philosophies. The only real annoying issue I find is they are definitely the "LOOK AT ME" generation - everything has to be on social media for everyone to see. I find that a bit annoying, but would never hesitate for a second to serve next to one in battle.
MDSW wrote: The only real annoying issue I find is they are definitely the "LOOK AT ME" generation - everything has to be on social media for everyone to see. I find that a bit annoying, but would never hesitate for a second to serve next to one in battle.
Not all of us, but you'd never know that except for me drawing attention to myself.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I'd think in battle the first person you'd want to have next to you is the person who can't help but draw attention to themselves.
MDSW wrote: The only real annoying issue I find is they are definitely the "LOOK AT ME" generation - everything has to be on social media for everyone to see. I find that a bit annoying, but would never hesitate for a second to serve next to one in battle.
Not all of us, but you'd never know that except for me drawing attention to myself.
I don't think Millenials are really worse than us Gen Xers when it comes to social media addiction. I know plenty of people my age and older who cannot go very long without posting to or checking up on their social media sites.
Well as Marine Vet, I can tell you that the majority of Marines are 19 year old kids. Not only are they young millennials though they are better trained, better equipped, and an overall superior fighting force to the Marine Corps of WWII. This despite the near mythical status the Pacific campaign and it's war fighters holds in our beloved Corps. The real question is can we expect to do traditional maneuvers in this heavy ass gear and have sapi plates cost more lives than they have saved due to the decreased mobility. Mobility on the battlefield being the crux of how we fight after all.
Hordini wrote: A very large portion of the military right now are already millennials - that should tell you something. There have been multiple Medal of Honor recipients who are millennials. Most of the anti-millennial criticism is pure golden age fallacy.
]
People seem to forget that millennials aren't just teenagers, but people in their 20's to mid 30's as well.
The very idea of a draft is essentially obsolete. Any conflict that would require it would go nuclear in very short order and render the whole thing moot. Even if it didnt, the structural changes required to society, the government, and the military would take quite some time. More to the point, if attrition rates were high enough to require a draft, equipment would probably be a bigger issue. If the US outright lost 1000 tanks and IFV's, unrecoverably, there is no replacing those. No new US Abrams tank hull has been made in over two decades, those facilities no longer exist, all new tanks have been rebuilt old ones, and they cant be produced at any pace that would match battlefield losses. If the US lost fifty F22's, it would take many years and cost more than the GDP of most nations to replace them as those production facilities would have to be rebuilt almost from scratch and production time is tremendous. The weapons and vehicles of WW2 were dramatically more primitive than what we have today, but were orders of magnitude simpler and cheaper, you could produce three P51 fighters for the modern equivalent of $3 million, which is about 1-2% of the cost of a single F22, and they could produce dozens of P51's every day as opposed to a handful of F22's per year (assuming a new plant was built, or that such is even possible). If you're taking human losses that would require a draft, there is no way we could afford or produce in a timely manner any the equipment of the modern military that would replace such losses.
This makes the question rather moot.
To say nothing of the fact that almost everyone in a combat role today would be considered a "millenial", basically anyone younger than their very late 30's.
I think Millennials are probably pretty fething tired of hearing how spoiled they are because they have smart phones by the generation that could afford college with part time jobs, had great union jobs and could own homes and raise families by their mid-twenties, who then torched the economy after they got theirs.
I think the crappiest generations should stop complaining about the kids that are cleaning up all their messes while enjoying so much less opportunity.
Yeah I'm so glad I'll never get to own a house or have a stable job because higher education is insanely over priced and most of it is worthless (and I can't survive going to collage and working).
Though I value the western way of life, I would have no desire to fight for the status quo of this.
What am I fighting for?
It's only getting worse and they want it worse.
But hey I have a stupid Iphone so life must be amazing!
They're cheaper, far more mobile and don't complain.
It takes on average 10 people to operate a single drone.
Please, keep telling us more.
You don't have to give them Purple Hearts, so that might be some cost savings
Most soldiers that receive Purple Hearts are no longer alive to accept them. As far as that goes, I would gladly pay the cost to make that Purple Heart to give to that soldier's family.
I am not seeing things getting easier for the next generation - instead I am hearing folks from my generation or earlier complaining about how they are not going to foot the bill to make the next generation great.
My generation is no longer paying forward - we are wrapped in what is there for us.
Yeah, this reads of more of the same....
The Auld Grump - but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now....
Daemonhost Cherubael wrote: Really loving these amazing comments! Especially when nobody has even answered the question
No, you just don't like "this is a stupid question that is based on stereotypes and doesn't even have anything to do with reality" as an answer. You might as well talk about how qualified "today's millennials" are at fighting the magical unicorns from space, it's about as relevant to the real world as a hypothetical draft.
Hordini wrote: A very large portion of the military right now are already millennials - that should tell you something. There have been multiple Medal of Honor recipients who are millennials. Most of the anti-millennial criticism is pure golden age fallacy.
Chute82 wrote: I think we would be ok if the new generation would have to fight if ww3 broke out, labeling millions of millennial young men and women as wimps just isn't true.. same could be said of any generation I know plenty of my generation x that wouldn't last 1 minute in the job I did in the army... of course your going to have your anti war protest people but also millions who will step up to fight for their country.
I'll also chime in. Yes, enough would step up if called and do what needs to be done. The vast majority of active duty is made of these 'kids'. 'Kids' who signed up during time of war, and re-enlisted in time of war. 'Kids' who have deployed and done more time in country than my Dad did in Vietnam (he was in country just over a year). There are some tough guys and gals in this generation.
They need different training mechanisms (they learn differently than I do) and they need leaders who 'get' them and know how to motivate them and bring them home.
But yes, they could handle a draft if it came to it.
I'm sure we would have Code Pink types on steroids protesting a draft, and there ARE a lot of kids in this generation who would fall prey to those types. Enough would serve though, and serve well.
Spinner wrote: I think a more relevant question might be 'can today's Boomers handle not starting WWIII', honestly.
This is a good question. Why are the Boomers so obsessed with starting pointless foreign wars? Especially after living through Vietnam, the height of pointless foreign war.
My generation either started in 1977 or 1982 depending on who you ask. Either way by the time the War on Terror began Millennials were already a sizeable chunk of the Armed Forces. We're the ones who've done most of the dying the last 15 years, and this question still gets asked by the generation that seems incapable of not sending us to die.
So as a serious answer? feth no. If WWIII is some pointless foreign conflict that's just going to get lots of young Americans killed when the country they're dying for has taken more than its given, then the country can just go feth off But then that's kind of a moot point isn't it? I'm dead in the middle of Generation Y, and I'm already too old for Selective Service. More than half my generation is. In five to eleven more years (date range for the end of Gen Y is 1996-2004), we all will be too old for the draft. So not only is the question pointlessly demeaning and already answered by the last decade, but it's the completely wrong question!
Will the Centennials be able to handle a draft if WW3 were to happen?
teknoskan wrote: Most soldiers that receive Purple Hearts are no longer alive to accept them. As far as that goes, I would gladly pay the cost to make that Purple Heart to give to that soldier's family.
That's incorrect. In WWII almost 1m purple hearts were given out, with 300k for deaths. The Korean war had 137k Purple Hearts, with 34k for deaths. Vietnam had another 200k Purple Hearts, 47k for deaths. So something around a quarter of purple hearts are for deaths, which is not the 'most' that you claimed.
Daemonhost Cherubael wrote:Really loving these amazing comments! Especially when nobody has even answered the question
Plenty of people answered the question;
Spoiler:
teknoskan wrote:I don't think we would have that problem. Your assumption is that military enlistment is going to be a problem when/if WW3 happens and that a draft will be necessary. Sure enlistment has gone down but that's because we don't live in a time of megalomaniacal regimes like we had back in WWII. Vietnam was a mistake on part of our government and as such military training and selection has become more stringent.
We also have more technological advances that could aid us if such a thing were to occur.
However, the problem with your assessment is the mindset of millennials. What made many dodge the Vietnam draft was that the people knew there was nothing patriotic about going to war with a country experiencing its own civil war. Where as the patriotism was much higher during WWII because it was a global threat to the safety of America and their way of life.
If WW3 were to happen, and America was a target, rest assured many people would take arms, regardless of their ability to enlist. Even millennials. They have to protect their iPods afterall.
But in anycase, the closest threat we currently have to our national security is North Korea, and even their only ally, China, is telling them they're going too far.
Hordini wrote:A very large portion of the military right now are already millennials - that should tell you something. There have been multiple Medal of Honor recipients who are millennials. Most of the anti-millennial criticism is pure golden age fallacy.
Grey Templar wrote:There might be a good amount of draft dodging. But it wouldn't be very successful since everybody has an online footprint. You'd probably have a lot of people getting found because they kept posting on facebook.
But it's highly unlike a draft would ever be necessary even if we got involved in a war with another major power(assuming it doesn't escalate to nukes everywhere). If we got in a world war with, say, China, you'd still probably see enough volunteers to keep the army supplied for a long time. Especially since the armed forces are no longer men only.
I do think the selective service should change to no longer be men only.
nfe wrote:You'd get lots of conscientious objectors, certainly, a good thing, but it's worth noting that the millennials of, for instance, Israel, Denmark, and Finland cope just fine.
Not that I want treat the OP with any seriousness when it's just 'kids have got it so easy! Wah wah wah! When I was young all I had was a wooden train and three hand-me-down books! And the ability to buy property and support myself through university without loans! But these pampered kids have it all!'.
Nonsense.
Whirlwind wrote:I think this is being looked at the wrong way. If we assume approximately 25million 18-24 year olds that means 29% are in a physical condition to join the army immediately. That's 7.25 million people they could draft instantly.
I think what about 400,000 were drafted in WWII? So in terms of physical numbers they would be fine. I think the logistics of arming/feeding/clothing that number of people might be more problematic.
Also people are likely to be more aware of the realities of war because of the media and there may be more resistance to a general call up.
And finally WWIII won't be won by the number of soldiers but by the number of nukes. An army of 10,000 is worthless when you drop a nuclear bomb on it. Things will likely escalate too fast for a drafts to be worthwhile.
Vaktathi wrote:The very idea of a draft is essentially obsolete. Any conflict that would require it would go nuclear in very short order and render the whole thing moot. Even if it didnt, the structural changes required to society, the government, and the military would take quite some time. More to the point, if attrition rates were high enough to require a draft, equipment would probably be a bigger issue. If the US outright lost 1000 tanks and IFV's, unrecoverably, there is no replacing those. No new US Abrams tank hull has been made in over two decades, those facilities no longer exist, all new tanks have been rebuilt old ones, and they cant be produced at any pace that would match battlefield losses. If the US lost fifty F22's, it would take many years and cost more than the GDP of most nations to replace them as those production facilities would have to be rebuilt almost from scratch and production time is tremendous. The weapons and vehicles of WW2 were dramatically more primitive than what we have today, but were orders of magnitude simpler and cheaper, you could produce three P51 fighters for the modern equivalent of $3 million, which is about 1-2% of the cost of a single F22, and they could produce dozens of P51's every day as opposed to a handful of F22's per year (assuming a new plant was built, or that such is even possible). If you're taking human losses that would require a draft, there is no way we could afford or produce in a timely manner any the equipment of the modern military that would replace such losses.
This makes the question rather moot.
To say nothing of the fact that almost everyone in a combat role today would be considered a "millenial", basically anyone younger than their very late 30's.
since you responded to none of them it's pretty evident you only posted this to stir a gakpot. I'm sorry that you've miserably failed at that.
Daemonhost Cherubael wrote: Really loving these amazing comments! Especially when nobody has even answered the question
Have you tried reading the thread? Is that too hard for you? Pretty funny that you can't even put in the effort to read a couple short pages of text while bawling,
Daemonhost Cherubael wrote: 'Kids these days are so weak and spoiled~! They're so terrible, unlike the awesome hard working people who came before and were totally different! (btw, reading is hard and I can't do it, somebody help me, waaaaaah!"
jhe90 wrote: Modern warfare and tech has changed alot.
They going to be fought with hyper sonic missiles and such not WW2 mass infirinaty and such.
Very fee nations have industry to supply a meat grinder war like that.
They could pull a Tau and have rooms full of millennial nerds on drones.
it probably suits them.
but for actual war.... probably not. not enough safe spaces.
Gamers already sit for hours, drink gallons of caffine and don t shower for days at a time on weekend long gaming marathons.
They do drone duty easy lol
And serious point. Modern tech is such, any battle is a high tech ballet of support and assets. Strikes are careful, planned and multi layer supported.
It's very different to WW2, like do you expend your few sunburns early on, close, hold in reserve.
You only have so many of the high end assets, using them at right times becomes everything.
As a (barely) millennial that spent 11 years in the military, I would say there are, but todays youth want a explanation for everything they do instead of just doing what their asked.
While it can be a good thing in certain situations, where input can help complete a task, or create a process which enhances efficiency, but in combat where you have to react quickly and listen to orders, it can get you killed.
Supertony51 wrote: As a (barely) millennial that spent 11 years in the military, I would say there are, but todays youth want a explanation for everything they do instead of just doing what their asked.
While it can be a good thing in certain situations, where input can help complete a task, or create a process which enhances efficiency, but in combat where you have to react quickly and listen to orders, it can get you killed.
Generally its the being in combat part that gets you killed
Supertony51 wrote: As a (barely) millennial that spent 11 years in the military, I would say there are, but todays youth want a explanation for everything they do instead of just doing what their asked.
While it can be a good thing in certain situations, where input can help complete a task, or create a process which enhances efficiency, but in combat where you have to react quickly and listen to orders, it can get you killed.
Generally its the being in combat part that gets you killed
Generally. But I've have been to several final role calls for troopers lost in training accidents, some of them being close friends of my wife and I.
Actually, to answer the question, I think they would. After all, the main purpose of having huge conscriptions for a new world war is to quickly have numbers on your side.
Infantry is mainly the cannon fodder. So, quality...sure, it helps. But that's not really the point. If you have huge numbers on your side, eventually the other will run out. That's what happened with Germany in WWII against Soviet Union, after all.
And besides...those who plan are already qualified, are they not?
Gamers already sit for hours, drink gallons of caffine and don t shower for days at a time on weekend long gaming marathons.
They do drone duty easy lol
And serious point.
I read a few articles about drone pilots. There's nothing easy about it (once you get past the idea of "pew, pew, it's just like a video game"), Mostly it's a lot of questioning themselves, targets (did I just kill civilians?), and orders. Then a lot monotony with drinking and depression after "work".
Supertony51 wrote: As a (barely) millennial that spent 11 years in the military, I would say there are, but todays youth want a explanation for everything they do instead of just doing what their asked.
While it can be a good thing in certain situations, where input can help complete a task, or create a process which enhances efficiency, but in combat where you have to react quickly and listen to orders, it can get you killed.
Generally its the being in combat part that gets you killed
It most certainly can.
You know what mitigates that risk? Being able to follow orders quickly and without question, spend time over analyzing a situation and you could end up with a few extra holes.
Supertony51 wrote: but in combat where you have to react quickly and listen to orders, it can get you killed.
It was just before dawn
One miserable morning in black '44
When the forward commander
Was told to sit tight
When he asked that his men be withdrawn
And the generals gave thanks
As the other ranks
Held back the enemy tanks for a while
And the Anzio bridghead was held for the price
Of a few hundred ordinary lives
And kind old King George sent mother a note
When he heard that father was gone
It was, I recall, in the form of a scroll
With gold leaf and all
And I found it one day
In a drawer of old photographs, hidden away
And my eyes still grow damp
To remember
That his majesty signed
With his own rubber stamp
It was dark all around
There was frost in the ground
When the tigers broke free
And no one survived from the Royal Fusiliers, Company C
They were all left behind
Most of them dead
The rest of them dying
And that's how the high command
Took my daddy from me
The night was filled with dark and cold,
When Sergeant Talbert the story’s told,
Pulled out his poncho and headed out,
To check the lines dressed like a Kraut.
Upon a trooper our hero came,
Fast asleep; he called his name.
“Smith, oh Smith, get up, it’s time
To take your turn out on the line.”
Private Smith, so very weary,
Cracked an eye, all red and bleary,
Grabbed his rifle and did not tarry,
Hearing Floyd, but seeing Gerry.
“It’s me!” cried Tab. “Don’t do it!” and yet,
Smith charged toute de suite with bayonet.
He lunged, he thrust, both high and low,
And skeweth the boy from Kokomo.
And as they carried him away,
Our punctured hero was heard to say,
“When in this war you venture out,
best never do it dressed as a Kraut!”
Supertony51 wrote: As a (barely) millennial that spent 11 years in the military, I would say there are, but todays youth want a explanation for everything they do instead of just doing what their asked.
While it can be a good thing in certain situations, where input can help complete a task, or create a process which enhances efficiency, but in combat where you have to react quickly and listen to orders, it can get you killed.
Generally its the being in combat part that gets you killed
It most certainly can.
You know what mitigates that risk? Being able to follow orders quickly and without question, spend time over analyzing a situation and you could end up with a few extra holes.
I seriously doubt that anybody that has go througt military training and is actually in a combat zone is gonna want "over explanation of everything".
"Johnson, cover us from the yihadists in that building!"
"But, Sargeant, what building? Really, in fact, why should I be the one to give cover and not Stevenson? I think my capabilities will be of better use elsewhere."
"Johnson cover us damm you!"
"Just let me write this on tumbrl, you are offending me Sargeant"
"JOHNSON!"
"STOP REPRESING ME!"
And they all died.
Spoiler:
Dramatization for comical intents. No intention of offending any actuall soldier thats has live something like this situation
Supertony51 wrote: As a (barely) millennial that spent 11 years in the military, I would say there are, but todays youth want a explanation for everything they do instead of just doing what their asked.
While it can be a good thing in certain situations, where input can help complete a task, or create a process which enhances efficiency, but in combat where you have to react quickly and listen to orders, it can get you killed.
Generally its the being in combat part that gets you killed
It most certainly can.
You know what mitigates that risk? Being able to follow orders quickly and without question, spend time over analyzing a situation and you could end up with a few extra holes.
I seriously doubt that anybody that has go througt military training and is actually in a combat zone is gonna want "over explanation of everything".
"Johnson, cover us from the yihadists in that building!"
"But, Sargeant, what building? Really, in fact, why should I be the one to give cover and not Stevenson? I think my capabilities will be of better use elsewhere."
"Johnson cover us damm you!"
"Just let me write this on tumbrl, you are offending me Sargeant"
"JOHNSON!"
"STOP REPRESING ME!"
And they all died.
Spoiler:
Dramatization for comical intents. No intention of offending any actuall soldier thats has live something like this situation
Not that quite dramatic, but youd be surprised.
See my profile pic? Im speaking from personal experience.
CptJake wrote: Well, the topic is about a draft, where folks don't get the choice...
But a draft is never going to happen. So in the real world we're talking about a military where people do get the choice, which is far more interesting than the OP's thinly-veiled millennial bashing.
CptJake wrote: Well, the topic is about a draft, where folks don't get the choice...
But a draft is never going to happen. So in the real world we're talking about a military where people do get the choice, which is far more interesting than the OP's thinly-veiled millennial bashing.
And in that world, the real world, EVERY single volunteer who has enlisted recently is a millennial who knows we are at war.
My original point stands. These kids learn a bit differently, but there are plenty of tough ones out there.
For feths sake, Son1, a millennial was an enlisted infantryman in time of war. Son2 is a millennial and an infantry platoon leader right now, and every trooper in his platoon is a volunteer millennial. .
Thinking about this more, I can not genuinely help but wonder if ANY generation or set of generations would be prepared to handle something to the level of magnitude of something like WW3, as we would expect it to play out, were it to happen.
The next world war is not exactly going to be fought at the scale of boats full of little men in cloth uniforms charging at beachheads after all.
Supertony51 wrote: As a (barely) millennial that spent 11 years in the military, I would say there are, but todays youth want a explanation for everything they do instead of just doing what their asked.
While it can be a good thing in certain situations, where input can help complete a task, or create a process which enhances efficiency, but in combat where you have to react quickly and listen to orders, it can get you killed.
Generally its the being in combat part that gets you killed
It most certainly can.
You know what mitigates that risk? Being able to follow orders quickly and without question, spend time over analyzing a situation and you could end up with a few extra holes.
Sorry but what you assert is situational rather than universal, and has been proven time and time again in history that young men have been ordered to their deaths..
I think you are misquoting a variation of the belief that hesitation gets you killed and conflating it with CoC...
And what makes this most irrelevant to this discussion is that the military structure generally weeds out people who cannot follow orders, and tends to keep them away from front line action, lest they get their comrades killed..
Supertony51 wrote: As a (barely) millennial that spent 11 years in the military, I would say there are, but todays youth want a explanation for everything they do instead of just doing what their asked.
While it can be a good thing in certain situations, where input can help complete a task, or create a process which enhances efficiency, but in combat where you have to react quickly and listen to orders, it can get you killed.
Generally its the being in combat part that gets you killed
It most certainly can.
You know what mitigates that risk? Being able to follow orders quickly and without question, spend time over analyzing a situation and you could end up with a few extra holes.
Sorry but what you assert is situational rather than universal, and has been proven time and time again in history that young men have been ordered to their deaths..
I think you are misquoting a variation of the belief that hesitation gets you killed and conflating it with CoC...
And what makes this most irrelevant to this discussion is that the military structure generally weeds out people who cannot follow orders, and tends to keep them away from front line action, lest they get their comrades killed..
I'm speaking about situations at a tactical level, not so much strategic. Long story short, millennial want reasoning on why every decision is made.
This can be a good thing on a strategic level, not so much on a tactical level. Hell im only speaking from my own observations, the majority of millennial soldiers are just fine, I just notice a trend in the line of thinking that some seem to use, that all decisions must be explained.
Supertony51 wrote: As a (barely) millennial that spent 11 years in the military, I would say there are, but todays youth want a explanation for everything they do instead of just doing what their asked.
While it can be a good thing in certain situations, where input can help complete a task, or create a process which enhances efficiency, but in combat where you have to react quickly and listen to orders, it can get you killed.
Generally its the being in combat part that gets you killed
It most certainly can.
You know what mitigates that risk? Being able to follow orders quickly and without question, spend time over analyzing a situation and you could end up with a few extra holes.
Sorry but what you assert is situational rather than universal, and has been proven time and time again in history that young men have been ordered to their deaths..
I think you are misquoting a variation of the belief that hesitation gets you killed and conflating it with CoC...
And what makes this most irrelevant to this discussion is that the military structure generally weeds out people who cannot follow orders, and tends to keep them away from front line action, lest they get their comrades killed..
I'm speaking about situations at a tactical level, not so much strategic. Long story short, millennial want reasoning on why every decision is made.
This can be a good thing on a strategic level, not so much on a tactical level. Hell im only speaking from my own observations, the majority of millennial soldiers are just fine, I just notice a trend in the line of thinking that some seem to use, that all decisions must be explained.
This isn't a case of it being strictly "millenials".
Lots of people want reasoning on why every decision is made. You might not notice it from "non-millenial soldiers" because oh, I don't know...they've been in the service longer?
Supertony51 wrote: As a (barely) millennial that spent 11 years in the military, I would say there are, but todays youth want a explanation for everything they do instead of just doing what their asked.
While it can be a good thing in certain situations, where input can help complete a task, or create a process which enhances efficiency, but in combat where you have to react quickly and listen to orders, it can get you killed.
Generally its the being in combat part that gets you killed
It most certainly can.
You know what mitigates that risk? Being able to follow orders quickly and without question, spend time over analyzing a situation and you could end up with a few extra holes.
Sorry but what you assert is situational rather than universal, and has been proven time and time again in history that young men have been ordered to their deaths..
I think you are misquoting a variation of the belief that hesitation gets you killed and conflating it with CoC...
And what makes this most irrelevant to this discussion is that the military structure generally weeds out people who cannot follow orders, and tends to keep them away from front line action, lest they get their comrades killed..
I'm speaking about situations at a tactical level, not so much strategic. Long story short, millennial want reasoning on why every decision is made.
This can be a good thing on a strategic level, not so much on a tactical level. Hell im only speaking from my own observations, the majority of millennial soldiers are just fine, I just notice a trend in the line of thinking that some seem to use, that all decisions must be explained.
This isn't a case of it being strictly "millenials".
Lots of people want reasoning on why every decision is made. You might not notice it from "non-millenial soldiers" because oh, I don't know...they've been in the service longer?
I've worked with new soldiers who are both older and younger. The difference in how they respond to orders is typically very different.
Now, as I mentioned, it isn't universal, just a observation ive made.
Every generation thinks the next one is useless and soft. I think if we were at war and a draft was needed, people would step up to the challenge, they wouldn't all throw in the towel and refuse to get dirty because they'd rather look at their phones. Most people are fundamentally decent and would come together to fight when under threat.
When there have been recent terror attacks, normal members of the public have risked themselves to warn others, to help people to safety, deliver first aid or in some cases take attackers on directly. The so called 'blitz spirit' is still there.
These questions and the discussions following them are never really constructive. I believe it is because the question itself is worded to put millenials in a bad light before the discussion even begins.
My answer, they absolutely can. Far better than baby boomers could, because we are the generation that is going to have to pick up their checks, solve their problems, and fix their messes.
The right question to ask is, could millenials live up to or exceed the Greatest generation if a draft were needed? If so, could they prevent a second coming of baby boomers after?
Hey good news is if you do get drafted the next generation pays for you to retire at 50 and live for 40 more years. Well the rest of us work til 80 lol.
As a former Initial Entry Training(IET) instructor who wore the uniform, and who now teaches Advanced Individual Training(AIT) as a contractor after retiring I believe I can offer a POV to this.
Millennials are all individuals who can not be held to a broad brush. However attitudes towards instructions, attention spans, and the desire to WAAC is lacking in many individuals. Even the ones who take their oath very seriously.
Physical training is at an all time low. For some reason injuries continue to sky rocket even though standards are being continously dropped. They even reingeneered the entire PT program to prevent injuries. It does not seem tobe doing the trick. Mentally many lack the maturity to understand just exactly is being asked of them. One example when women were allowed into the Artillery one female in class during one lesson finally realized what our purpose in shooting artillery is. (its to kill personnel and destroy equipment among other things) This changer her whole opinion but at that point its too late. A quick google search before hand would have given her all the answers as to what a 13D does.
So my simple argument stands from the POV that patriotism would be ok again, enlistments would go up, but qualifying personnel would be a fraction of what it used to be. Many would simply be unable to serve either from mental readiness, physical readiness, to include obesity, or because aptitude scores would disqualify many for combat jobs.
OgreChubbs wrote: Hey good news is if you do get drafted the next generation pays for you to retire at 50 and live for 40 more years. Well the rest of us work til 80 lol.
lol.
Wrong.
Draftees rarely re-enlisted and served 20 years (minimum to get a retirement pension). No reason at all to assume they would do so in the future, if for no other reason than once the war/conflict requiring a draft to rapidly expand the force structure was over, the military would shrink back down, making it impossible for the majority of draftees to re-enlist even if they wanted to.
Not enough to live on as was implied in the post I responded to. It is more like a typical 401k. Not a pension like the previous (and still applicable for many) system.
A draftee doing 2-4 year term (likely in a draft scenario) ain't retiring after that 2-4 years.
Not enough to live on as was implied in the post I responded to. It is more like a typical 401k. Not a pension like the previous (and still applicable for many) system.
A draftee doing 2-4 year term (likely in a draft scenario) ain't retiring after that 2-4 years.
Oh for sure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
OgreChubbs wrote: Hey good news is if you do get drafted the next generation pays for you to retire at 50 and live for 40 more years. Well the rest of us work til 80 lol.
For the record, I'll be 37 when I retire from the military. For 20 years of ass breaking service, I'll get 40% of my base pay, but it really comes out to about 20% of what I earn, and medical insurance that I pay a cheaper amount on. For this, I'll have sacrificed the prime of my life. I'll have done 2+ years of deployments (going out the door on my fourth in a handful of weeks). I'll have been through multiple surgeries brought about by injuries incurred during my service. I'll have missed pivotal moments of my children's growth. I'll have life long debilitation's. I'll spend the rest of my life living with the knowledge that I've taken part in the process that has seen the death of hundreds if not thousands of peoples. The bad guys, good guys, and innocents. That's just the tip of the ice berg of what my Air Force service has brought me.
But you just keep making those posts acting like we're welfare children, living off of your hard labor. Asshat.
Not enough to live on as was implied in the post I responded to. It is more like a typical 401k. Not a pension like the previous (and still applicable for many) system.
A draftee doing 2-4 year term (likely in a draft scenario) ain't retiring after that 2-4 years.
Oh for sure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
OgreChubbs wrote: Hey good news is if you do get drafted the next generation pays for you to retire at 50 and live for 40 more years. Well the rest of us work til 80 lol.
For the record, I'll be 37 when I retire from the military. For 20 years of ass breaking service, I'll get 40% of my base pay, but it really comes out to about 20% of what I earn, and medical insurance that I pay a cheaper amount on. For this, I'll have sacrificed the prime of my life. I'll have done 2+ years of deployments (going out the door on my fourth in a handful of weeks). I'll have been through multiple surgeries brought about by injuries incurred during my service. I'll have missed pivotal moments of my children's growth. I'll have life long debilitation's. I'll spend the rest of my life living with the knowledge that I've taken part in the process that has seen the death of hundreds if not thousands of peoples. The bad guys, good guys, and innocents. That's just the tip of the ice berg of what my Air Force service has brought me.
But you just keep making those posts acting like we're welfare children, living off of your hard labor. Asshat.
There's a Point in that above paragraph. Toll on body, 20 years active in a extremely tough job is far different to 40-50 years in a office.
Retirement should be on the job too, some jobs your fine to work to 80, other have taken a heavy toll by time your 50.
Its not just related to age, its also what toll they take on the person. There needs to be a degree of flexibility and consideration of the circumstances
redleger wrote: As a former Initial Entry Training(IET) instructor who wore the uniform, and who now teaches Advanced Individual Training(AIT) as a contractor after retiring I believe I can offer a POV to this.
Millennials are all individuals who can not be held to a broad brush. However attitudes towards instructions, attention spans, and the desire to WAAC is lacking in many individuals. Even the ones who take their oath very seriously.
Physical training is at an all time low. For some reason injuries continue to sky rocket even though standards are being continously dropped. They even reingeneered the entire PT program to prevent injuries. It does not seem tobe doing the trick. Mentally many lack the maturity to understand just exactly is being asked of them. One example when women were allowed into the Artillery one female in class during one lesson finally realized what our purpose in shooting artillery is. (its to kill personnel and destroy equipment among other things) This changer her whole opinion but at that point its too late. A quick google search before hand would have given her all the answers as to what a 13D does.
So my simple argument stands from the POV that patriotism would be ok again, enlistments would go up, but qualifying personnel would be a fraction of what it used to be. Many would simply be unable to serve either from mental readiness, physical readiness, to include obesity, or because aptitude scores would disqualify many for combat jobs.
I remember having to learn the new PRT when I was at ALC.
while I can appreciate the emphasis on range of movement and building agility, I found it to be a bit too easy.
Honestly, I miss the days when PT was delegated down to a squad level where SGT's could tailor PT to the needs of their individual joes.
Not enough to live on as was implied in the post I responded to. It is more like a typical 401k. Not a pension like the previous (and still applicable for many) system.
A draftee doing 2-4 year term (likely in a draft scenario) ain't retiring after that 2-4 years.
Oh for sure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
OgreChubbs wrote: Hey good news is if you do get drafted the next generation pays for you to retire at 50 and live for 40 more years. Well the rest of us work til 80 lol.
For the record, I'll be 37 when I retire from the military. For 20 years of ass breaking service, I'll get 40% of my base pay, but it really comes out to about 20% of what I earn, and medical insurance that I pay a cheaper amount on. For this, I'll have sacrificed the prime of my life. I'll have done 2+ years of deployments (going out the door on my fourth in a handful of weeks). I'll have been through multiple surgeries brought about by injuries incurred during my service. I'll have missed pivotal moments of my children's growth. I'll have life long debilitation's. I'll spend the rest of my life living with the knowledge that I've taken part in the process that has seen the death of hundreds if not thousands of peoples. The bad guys, good guys, and innocents. That's just the tip of the ice berg of what my Air Force service has brought me.
But you just keep making those posts acting like we're welfare children, living off of your hard labor. Asshat.
I don't think most civilians understand just how stressful, physically and mentally, that being in the service can be.
I had a sociology professor that said all Servicemembers are using welfare...I wanted to throw her out a window.
Receiving benefits promised in a contractual agreement isn't welfare.
Honestly, I miss the days when PT was delegated down to a squad level where SGT's could tailor PT to the needs of their individual joes.
It's not still that way? That sounds like something that could be highly unit-dependent.
Friends with a guy in a Mortar Platoon. PT is relegated down to the Platoon level in his BN. That being said, it doesn't make it better. The PL only uses PT as an opportunity to train for triathalons. He's got 40% leg injury rate in his soldiers, because of his "individualized PT" program. This is a guy who when they put boots on the ground in an central African nation, in the middle of summer, thought it was a good idea to make his guys do a 5 mile run. 95% heat casualty rate in the platoon. Then made them do it again the next day.
The way the military does PT (all branches in general) is ass backwards. Leads to way to much injury. The surgery I referenced above, I had to have both my legs cut on because of our program. We had 3 people in my unit get that surgery in a 3 month span.
There is one situation where a draft could be necessary even in a modern war. It is possible, but fairly unlikely, that volunteerism dries up for whatever reason. You could have a situation where you need to expand the army, but simply don't have enough volunteers to do it. You don't need hundreds of thousands of troops, but you do need 20-30 thousand and for some reason the number of volunteer recruits you have coming in is way smaller.
That would be purely theoretical. I doubt that we would ever be in that situation, but it is theoretically possible.
redleger wrote: One example when women were allowed into the Artillery one female in class during one lesson finally realized what our purpose in shooting artillery is. (its to kill personnel and destroy equipment among other things) This changer her whole opinion but at that point its too late.
Wow. That seems like an incredibly dense person.
I mean, you joined the army in the first place. You know what guns do. You volunteer to train to shoot even bigger guns, and don't think that you'd be training to shoot at people? What else do you think artillery is for?
Honestly, I miss the days when PT was delegated down to a squad level where SGT's could tailor PT to the needs of their individual joes.
It's not still that way? That sounds like something that could be highly unit-dependent.
Friends with a guy in a Mortar Platoon. PT is relegated down to the Platoon level in his BN. That being said, it doesn't make it better. The PL only uses PT as an opportunity to train for triathalons. He's got 40% leg injury rate in his soldiers, because of his "individualized PT" program. This is a guy who when they put boots on the ground in an central African nation, in the middle of summer, thought it was a good idea to make his guys do a 5 mile run. 95% heat casualty rate in the platoon. Then made them do it again the next day.
The way the military does PT (all branches in general) is ass backwards. Leads to way to much injury. The surgery I referenced above, I had to have both my legs cut on because of our program. We had 3 people in my unit get that surgery in a 3 month span.
95% heat cas rate, then did it again the next day? I'm amazed the PL didn't get relieved.
redleger wrote: For some reason injuries continue to sky rocket even though standards are being continously dropped. They even reingeneered the entire PT program to prevent injuries. It does not seem tobe doing the trick.
I would be suspect that would have less to do with the fact millennials are softer, and more to do with the weight of a combat loadout going from 40-60lbs in WW2 to 60-100lbs currently. Significant arthritis by the mid-30s is, I suspect, not something you can avoid by a better training regimen.
Hopefully at some point technology advances to create ballistic plates that don't result in 30-odd pounds of body armor.
Grey Templar wrote: There is one situation where a draft could be necessary even in a modern war. It is possible, but fairly unlikely, that volunteerism dries up for whatever reason. You could have a situation where you need to expand the army, but simply don't have enough volunteers to do it. You don't need hundreds of thousands of troops, but you do need 20-30 thousand and for some reason the number of volunteer recruits you have coming in is way smaller.
That would be purely theoretical. I doubt that we would ever be in that situation, but it is theoretically possible.
It's possible, for a pretty generous definition of "necessary". A "survival of the nation is at stake" sort of war is going to be over far too quickly (and probably involve nuclear annihilation of at least one of the sides) for a draft to make any difference. By the time you can organize the draftees, get them trained and equipped, and get them into battle even a non-nuclear war has almost certainly used up all those expensive tanks/aircraft/etc. If you're down to throwing 20-30 thousand basic infantry conscripts into battle the war is already lost. The scenario where 20-30 thousand new soldiers would be useful is in the endless "war on {insert emotion of the decade}" conflicts where a major power spends years at a time aimlessly wandering around an occupied country and occasionally shooting at something. But there the word "needs" no longer applies. We don't need to defeat ISIS, it's simply a foreign policy goal that will be abandoned the moment it becomes politically inconvenient for those in power. If a draft is required to continue that kind of war then the war will simply end. It clearly isn't popular enough to get people to volunteer to fight, so forcing them to fight is going to mean committing political suicide.
Something like 90% of the US population would not even consider Military Service
10% who do we lose like 9% due to drugs, being a cutter, mental issues, rap sheet, lack of education, failed the freaking ASVAB, and medical issues
ASVAB the lowest the services will go is a score of 31. A score 19 can qualify for two MOS's for the National Guard (Laundry Technician is one of them)
We lose some due to the perception they think the Delay Entry Program is the actual "you ass is shipping today" thought
The Alcohol/Drug/HIV can be a perma stopper of a delay into the entry
Lack of intestinal fortitude
A woman
The other second big issue is Legal to Illegal. I have to careful in clarifying this one so I get back to this later
Something like 90% of the US population would not even consider Military Service
10% who do we lose like 9% due to drugs, being a cutter, mental issues, rap sheet, lack of education, failed the freaking ASVAB, and medical issues
ASVAB the lowest the services will go is a score of 31. A score 19 can qualify for two MOS's for the National Guard (Laundry Technician is one of them)
We lose some due to the perception they think the Delay Entry Program is the actual "you ass is shipping today" thought
The Alcohol/Drug/HIV can be a perma stopper of a delay into the entry
Lack of intestinal fortitude
A woman
The other second big issue is Legal to Illegal. I have to careful in clarifying this one so I get back to this later
When I went through boot camp, my platoon lost 20 out of 63 recruits for many of the reasons you listed. A few ended up in a CCP , several were lost due to injury, medical problems, or getting dropped back in training. We had one guy make it through that should have been kicked out by week three, because he was too stupid to live and was actually listed as dangerous because of stupidity.
When I took my ASVAB, a guy beside me slept through almost the whole test and missed qualifying for the National Guard by one point.
redleger wrote: For some reason injuries continue to sky rocket even though standards are being continously dropped. They even reingeneered the entire PT program to prevent injuries. It does not seem tobe doing the trick.
I would be suspect that would have less to do with the fact millennials are softer, and more to do with the weight of a combat loadout going from 40-60lbs in WW2 to 60-100lbs currently. Significant arthritis by the mid-30s is, I suspect, not something you can avoid by a better training regimen.
Hopefully at some point technology advances to create ballistic plates that don't result in 30-odd pounds of body armor.
I wouldn't blame the body armor. I'd blame the other stuff they've got stuffed in that backpack.
For thousands of years, soldiers didn't carry all their camping gear while they were actually fighting. They sensibly left that with their wagons and horses. It's only been the last 150 years or so where we for some reason are expecting soldiers to carry all of their necessary gear while fighting at the same time.
I think we had this discussion before. What actually is carried on the body armor.The molle system on the body armor distributes the load unlike the Alice pack
Sure, we have better ways of distributing the weight than in the past. But that can only compensate so much when you've got all that mass hovering just behind the shoulder blades. If you could totally distribute the weight over the entire body, and not just the torso, it might do something.
But then you'd probably just run into someone saying "hey, they could carry even more stuff right? lets give them more stuff!"
Grey Templar wrote: There is one situation where a draft could be necessary even in a modern war. It is possible, but fairly unlikely, that volunteerism dries up for whatever reason. You could have a situation where you need to expand the army, but simply don't have enough volunteers to do it. You don't need hundreds of thousands of troops, but you do need 20-30 thousand and for some reason the number of volunteer recruits you have coming in is way smaller.
That would be purely theoretical. I doubt that we would ever be in that situation, but it is theoretically possible.
It's possible, for a pretty generous definition of "necessary". A "survival of the nation is at stake" sort of war is going to be over far too quickly (and probably involve nuclear annihilation of at least one of the sides) for a draft to make any difference. By the time you can organize the draftees, get them trained and equipped, and get them into battle even a non-nuclear war has almost certainly used up all those expensive tanks/aircraft/etc. If you're down to throwing 20-30 thousand basic infantry conscripts into battle the war is already lost. The scenario where 20-30 thousand new soldiers would be useful is in the endless "war on {insert emotion of the decade}" conflicts where a major power spends years at a time aimlessly wandering around an occupied country and occasionally shooting at something. But there the word "needs" no longer applies. We don't need to defeat ISIS, it's simply a foreign policy goal that will be abandoned the moment it becomes politically inconvenient for those in power. If a draft is required to continue that kind of war then the war will simply end. It clearly isn't popular enough to get people to volunteer to fight, so forcing them to fight is going to mean committing political suicide.
As we are moving from a world with a world hegemon into a multi-polar world, I could maybe see a situation where a draft might be necessary. Say when two major powers get involved in a war about something important, but still not a "Survival of the nation" situation, when both sides aren't ready/willing to start flinging nukes just yet. Or maybe a escalated proxy war, both sides have troops on the ground but they aren't "officially" at war. It would of course always be a hairs edge from escalating into nuclear war, but I think there could be a possibility for a draft moving forward.
As we are moving from a world with a world hegemon into a multi-polar world, I could maybe see a situation where a draft might be necessary. Say when two major powers get involved in a war about something important, but still not a "Survival of the nation" situation, when both sides aren't ready/willing to start flinging nukes just yet. Or maybe a escalated proxy war, both sides have troops on the ground but they aren't "officially" at war. It would of course always be a hairs edge from escalating into nuclear war, but I think there could be a possibility for a draft moving forward.
You'd need to build an awful lot of jails to deal with the numbers of concientious objectors you'd get if you attempted to reinstate a draft for anything less than an end-of-life-as-we-know-it war.
redleger wrote: For some reason injuries continue to sky rocket even though standards are being continously dropped. They even reingeneered the entire PT program to prevent injuries. It does not seem tobe doing the trick.
I would be suspect that would have less to do with the fact millennials are softer, and more to do with the weight of a combat loadout going from 40-60lbs in WW2 to 60-100lbs currently. Significant arthritis by the mid-30s is, I suspect, not something you can avoid by a better training regimen.
Hopefully at some point technology advances to create ballistic plates that don't result in 30-odd pounds of body armor.
For older guys like me who just retired you would be correct. I attribute 3 years of my life(deployments) to my back, knees, and ankles. Vest with plates, 7.62 rounds in an assault pack walking all through baqubah, Iraq among other things.
Currently before even completing AIT you are seeing Females with a huge number of hip injuries. And even a few pregnancies which may be a different subject. Men tend to have shoulder injuries and normal strains at an alarming rate. I have seen more AIT trainees on crutches than I ever saw in my previous years as a line Soldier.
djones520 wrote: But you just keep making those posts acting like we're welfare children, living off of your hard labor.
Well, the USA hasn't really had to fight a modern war on its own territory. It's much too long since the civilians actually saw what a war is and they're not always too aware of exactly what is being fought over anyway. Seeing the Marines, or Army, or Air Force or Navy blow some desert place thing up is just entertainment on the news, good as long as "our boys showed them foreigners" and not too many fine men get shipped back home in lead boxes. Those citizens who think you spend too much on the military if you only want to be safe at home aren't wrong, but you do have allies you promised to protect and interests to look after. I'm not sure even all of the soldiers believe they're actually just keeping their country safe but they took the money and swore the oath so they have to trust the politicians to use them wisely.
I don't envy you. At least my mandatory service and reserve training is expressly to stop an invader long enough - and expensively enough - that he opts for talks instead.
As we are moving from a world with a world hegemon into a multi-polar world, I could maybe see a situation where a draft might be necessary. Say when two major powers get involved in a war about something important, but still not a "Survival of the nation" situation, when both sides aren't ready/willing to start flinging nukes just yet. Or maybe a escalated proxy war, both sides have troops on the ground but they aren't "officially" at war. It would of course always be a hairs edge from escalating into nuclear war, but I think there could be a possibility for a draft moving forward.
You'd need to build an awful lot of jails to deal with the numbers of concientious objectors you'd get if you attempted to reinstate a draft for anything less than an end-of-life-as-we-know-it war.
Shouldn't be a problem, the USA is already world leader in incarcerating people
But more seriously, if things are heading where I think they are, handling conscientious objectors is gonna be small fry compared to the bigger problems.
CptJake wrote: The US does not jail conscientious objectors. Not sure what would have prompted that belief.
Other countries exist. I know people personally who've been in jail as conscientious objectors. That said, as I understand it, the US retains a potential 5 year prison term for failure to submit to the draft should one be reinstated.
CptJake wrote: The US does not jail conscientious objectors. Not sure what would have prompted that belief.
Other countries exist. I know people personally who've been in jail as conscientious objectors. That said, as I understand it, the US retains a potential 5 year prison term for failure to submit to the draft should one be reinstated.
At least in the US, that's separate from the conscientious objector status.
Once a draft is instituted, someone applies for CO status. It's not the same as simply failing to show up.
CptJake wrote: The US does not jail conscientious objectors. Not sure what would have prompted that belief.
Other countries exist. I know people personally who've been in jail as conscientious objectors. That said, as I understand it, the US retains a potential 5 year prison term for failure to submit to the draft should one be reinstated.
At least in the US, that's separate from the conscientious objector status.
Once a draft is instituted, someone applies for CO status. It's not the same as simply failing to show up.
Not at all: you have to have an interview and then it's established how authentic your beliefs are believed to be. Not 100% sure but I believe that some degrees of CO can be drafted anyway and serve in non-combat roles, and some are wholly exempt, and some are determined to not be authentic/honest enough and get regularly drafted.
CptJake wrote: The US does not jail conscientious objectors. Not sure what would have prompted that belief.
Other countries exist. I know people personally who've been in jail as conscientious objectors.
And yet both those who mentioned incarcerating conscientious objectors specifically mentioned the US. Hence my reply.
nfe wrote: That said, as I understand it, the US retains a potential 5 year prison term for failure to submit to the draft should one be reinstated.
And that has nothing to do with my statement. Every male must register at age 18. If you are a conscientious objector you still register, and if called up make your case and go home.
Ouze wrote: Not at all: you have to have an interview and then it's established how authentic your beliefs are believed to be. Not 100% sure but I believe that some degrees of CO can be drafted anyway and serve in non-combat roles, and some are wholly exempt, and some are determined to not be authentic/honest enough and get regularly drafted.
As we are moving from a world with a world hegemon into a multi-polar world, I could maybe see a situation where a draft might be necessary. Say when two major powers get involved in a war about something important, but still not a "Survival of the nation" situation, when both sides aren't ready/willing to start flinging nukes just yet. Or maybe a escalated proxy war, both sides have troops on the ground but they aren't "officially" at war. It would of course always be a hairs edge from escalating into nuclear war, but I think there could be a possibility for a draft moving forward.
You'd need to build an awful lot of jails to deal with the numbers of concientious objectors you'd get if you attempted to reinstate a draft for anything less than an end-of-life-as-we-know-it war.
As we are moving from a world with a world hegemon into a multi-polar world, I could maybe see a situation where a draft might be necessary. Say when two major powers get involved in a war about something important, but still not a "Survival of the nation" situation, when both sides aren't ready/willing to start flinging nukes just yet. Or maybe a escalated proxy war, both sides have troops on the ground but they aren't "officially" at war. It would of course always be a hairs edge from escalating into nuclear war, but I think there could be a possibility for a draft moving forward.
You'd need to build an awful lot of jails to deal with the numbers of concientious objectors you'd get if you attempted to reinstate a draft for anything less than an end-of-life-as-we-know-it war.
That a nation reinstating a draft would need to build an awful lot of jails to deal with the number of conscientious objectors that would appear for anything less than an end-of-life-as-we-know-it war.
Dreadwinter wrote: We still don't send conscientious objectors to jail though, so why are we building jails?
I am very confused.
Who is 'we'? As I said above, nations other than the US exist. Some places do encarcerate conscientious objectors, and others did when they had conscription.
The only way I think my original post could be read as referencing the US is if you took the general 'you' to mean the actual person I was replying to, and their nation. But I think they had a German flag, anyway...
Dreadwinter wrote: We still don't send conscientious objectors to jail though, so why are we building jails?
I am very confused.
Who is 'we'? As I said above, nations other than the US exist. Some places do encarcerate conscientious objectors, and others did when they had conscription.
The only way I think my original post could be read as referencing the US is if you took the general 'you' to mean the actual person I was replying to, and their nation. But I think they had a German flag, anyway...
As we are moving from a world with a world hegemon into a multi-polar world, I could maybe see a situation where a draft might be necessary. Say when two major powers get involved in a war about something important, but still not a "Survival of the nation" situation, when both sides aren't ready/willing to start flinging nukes just yet. Or maybe a escalated proxy war, both sides have troops on the ground but they aren't "officially" at war. It would of course always be a hairs edge from escalating into nuclear war, but I think there could be a possibility for a draft moving forward.
You'd need to build an awful lot of jails to deal with the numbers of concientious objectors you'd get if you attempted to reinstate a draft for anything less than an end-of-life-as-we-know-it war.
Shouldn't be a problem, the USA is already world leader in incarcerating people
But more seriously, if things are heading where I think they are, handling conscientious objectors is gonna be small fry compared to the bigger problems.
ulgurstasta wrote: Shouldn't be a problem, the USA is already world leader in incarcerating people But more seriously, if things are heading where I think they are, handling conscientious objectors is gonna be small fry compared to the bigger problems.
This might be your problem.
Yes, I'm aware that someone other than me mentioned the US (clearly sarcastically!) after two other posts talking about concientious objectors. It's not my problem that other folks decided to conflate them all, or claim that all the posts about the subject explicitly mentioned the US, it's theirs.
Anyway, probably wasted enough time on people misreading what was a pretty flippant post, so...
redleger wrote: For some reason injuries continue to sky rocket even though standards are being continously dropped. They even reingeneered the entire PT program to prevent injuries. It does not seem tobe doing the trick.
I would be suspect that would have less to do with the fact millennials are softer, and more to do with the weight of a combat loadout going from 40-60lbs in WW2 to 60-100lbs currently. Significant arthritis by the mid-30s is, I suspect, not something you can avoid by a better training regimen.
Hopefully at some point technology advances to create ballistic plates that don't result in 30-odd pounds of body armor.
on this subject, just saw a video on a dude in medieval plate vs a modern soldier in full kit. The dude in armor is wearing a lot of heavy stuff, but its distributed well all over the body, with lots of flexible parts, where the modern soldier carries it all on the shoulders and back and hips, and it shows.
Though the modern soldier does not need a squire to get into gear either...
redleger wrote: For some reason injuries continue to sky rocket even though standards are being continously dropped. They even reingeneered the entire PT program to prevent injuries. It does not seem tobe doing the trick.
I would be suspect that would have less to do with the fact millennials are softer, and more to do with the weight of a combat loadout going from 40-60lbs in WW2 to 60-100lbs currently. Significant arthritis by the mid-30s is, I suspect, not something you can avoid by a better training regimen.
Hopefully at some point technology advances to create ballistic plates that don't result in 30-odd pounds of body armor.
on this subject, just saw a video on a dude in medieval plate vs a modern soldier in full kit. The dude in armor is wearing a lot of heavy stuff, but its distributed well all over the body, with lots of flexible parts, where the modern soldier carries it all on the shoulders and back and hips, and it shows.
Though the modern soldier does not need a squire to get into gear either...
Just give it a few years. Squires will come back in to style.
redleger wrote: For some reason injuries continue to sky rocket even though standards are being continously dropped. They even reingeneered the entire PT program to prevent injuries. It does not seem tobe doing the trick.
I would be suspect that would have less to do with the fact millennials are softer, and more to do with the weight of a combat loadout going from 40-60lbs in WW2 to 60-100lbs currently. Significant arthritis by the mid-30s is, I suspect, not something you can avoid by a better training regimen.
Hopefully at some point technology advances to create ballistic plates that don't result in 30-odd pounds of body armor.
on this subject, just saw a video on a dude in medieval plate vs a modern soldier in full kit. The dude in armor is wearing a lot of heavy stuff, but its distributed well all over the body, with lots of flexible parts, where the modern soldier carries it all on the shoulders and back and hips, and it shows.
Though the modern soldier does not need a squire to get into gear either...
Just give it a few years. Squires will come back in to style.
If power armour or powered systems come into fruitions', youl need a squire to don your warplate once more..
I suggest that if a draft were to happen, a lot of the 70% will suddenly find themselves classed as near super soldiers in order to get bodies into action.
Historically there is also the greatest generation to follow, where heroic acts, with relatively few units (forgive my terminology) involved in much of the fiercest fighting. Of course there werealso be episodes of self inflicted wounds to get out of the war. refusing orders, low morale, low operational readiness, poor planning and desertion.
hmm.....it actually appears that millennials would become the next greatest generation.
Millennials could handle it better than the generation who thinks we're all lazy feths. A better question is if baby boomers can handle having no money for retirement. Guess they shouldn't have been so lazy.
Peregrine wrote: Correct answer: who cares. WWIII will be over about 45 minutes after it starts, and there will be no surviving government to organize a draft.
I can tell you that, in the event of nuclear Armageddon, your government will still be operating. I have a mountain on top my duty station, and a 10.5 hour work day these days. After this last week, if I am the only cockroach to crawl out of the rubble, I will MAKE you have a government so you can all feel my pain.
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers." Attributed by Plato to Socrates ~380 BC.
Our sires' age was worse than our grandsires'. We, their sons, are more
worthless than they; so in our turn we shall give the world a progeny yet more corrupt.
-Horace, 20 BC.
Grumpy old people complaining that the youth these days are not nearly as good as their own generation was are from all times. Therefore, I wouldn't worry.
With that being said, I feel as if generation Y would most likely be draft dodgers/rebellious being that they grew up with
all this technology like social media, text-messaging, IPhones, instant entertainment (Youtube, Netflix), celebrity influences, all of which give them this rebellious mentality.
In other words, a lot of today's millennials from what I can gather from my own personal experiences have gone really soft, with a few sprinkles of stubbornness and self-entitlement.
An example of this would be towards the end of Vietnam in 1973, when a lot of drafted privates (who were probably draft dodgers from the start) began turning on their sergeants and superiors. Yet there were still some who were willing to honorably serve their country.
Fast forwards forty or so years and compare that generation to this one.
What do you guys think?
We may have grown softer than in previous eras, but that isn't a generational phenomena. It's a problem throughout the Western world, and in some parts of Asia. And it crosses generational lines.
In any generation, there are those (numbers will vary generation to generation) who have the potential for greatness and will step up to the plate when the time comes.
Drafted Millennials would probably be stunned to be able to live on one job.
The interesting ones would be the drafted hipsters, and the undoubtedly dire impact they would have on military service. Just imagine when their personal sidearms are replica blackpowder 1800s dueling pistols. Mustache regulations would be pushed to the breaking point. MREs would be artfully served in boots, combat harnesses, and basically anything but the mess kit. Were the war to last long enough, you might even see 'deconstructed' options enter circulation. Their penchant for the esoteric and outdated would lead to hording of antiquated equipment, and application of often overlooked regulations.
I've no doubt they'd still be effective soldiers- it would just be more entertaining to watch than Tank Girl, or the hippies helmet art.
Well of course had the baby boomers been drafted they would have performed so poorly they would lose a war with a vastly inferior foreign power. Oh wait
Now they are upset social security isn't giving them enough free money for working half-ass jobs their whole lives.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Well of course had the baby boomers been drafted they would have performed so poorly they would lose a war with a vastly inferior foreign power. Oh wait
Now they are upset social security isn't giving them enough free money for working half-ass jobs their whole lives.
In all fairness, the rules of engagement were jacked, forcing our military to fight with an arm tithed solidly behind their back.
My platoon sergent was Marine recon and told me about coming under fire from rubber plantations and having to radio in for permission to return fire because the higher ups didn't want to damage the trees.
An uncle flew missions over North Vietnam and was forbidden from attacking railroads and docks even though they could see war materials being unloaded. Ford had a plant in Russia that was cranking out military vehicles to be sent to North Vietnam.
As far as poor performance goes, you are very mistaken, and you would realize it if you looked at any major engagements over there.
On topic, I think the man or woman in the trenches does a great job today just as was done in the past. The politicians are what Jack them up.
I think I miss the millennial cut off by 4 years...so when I was in (until I was medically discharged, but that's another story) I didn't have the opportunity to see how millennials would react to the military.
I also don't think that the generation as a whole would necessarily be the first and foremost issue if attempting to institute a draft. Good luck trying to forcibly conscript Hispanics and African-Americans after Vietnam (which led to the cries that black soldiers were being unjustly victimized and the fear we would witness massive African-American casualties prior to Desert Storm) AND 20+ years of the war on drugs which has led to both an absurd amount of unwarranted minority arrests on trumped up charges as well as a wave cops killing African-Americans under questionable circumstances.
Then you have the issue of whether or not to draft women on the basis of equality and a lot of more "traditional" people will probably be widely opposed to that. You also have the issue of drafting Muslims to consider as well. One of my DI's was Lebanese, but I have no idea if he was actually Muslim. I know many serve without issue, but I don't know how well the community as a whole would take to being drafted in the event of a war against an Arab state.
The physical fitness issue is the biggest one. When I left for MCRD we had guys failing to do a single pullup and still being shipped out for basic. I'd say over half of my platoon (and we won the company PFT award for highest platoon score) couldn't do 10 pull ups and were running sub 23:00. Hell, there were guys who couldn't max crunches and that's not something I can even comprehend...in short, the minimal physical fitness standards seem low to me in many ways. Yet somehow over half the draft eligible population, can't meet them? I should note, that I most likely should have been disqualified prior to even shipping out due to some hearing difficulties (I can't hear certain pitches and almost got busted week one for that), have exercise-induced asthma, and have some gait issues that ultimately led to me tearing up my knees from the constant running. So, "technically" I shouldn't even meet the standards.
As far as millennials go:
1) There's a lot of talk about rates of obesity, but the millennial generation can't be categorized as such. You really have three very disparate groups now. There are those who are overweight/obese. Most still probably fall into the category of average and average is good enough to physically get through boot. Then there is a third group that exists in larger numbers than ever before, the "gym rats." A lot of them shun crazy endurance work, but endurance is easier to build than strength and run times are an overrated statistic as far as gauging combat physical fitness. I'd say yes, you need to be sable to walk all day, but that's easy. An 800m run in boots and utility wear (like the USMC has implemented) is a better assessment than a pseudo cross country 3 miler in running shoes.
2) Special snowflakes and attitude adjustments. There have always been large numbers of young men that rebel against authority. The numbers of those who maintain that attitude into service quickly dwindle when reality sets in. Anyone with a negative attitude is going to run quickly into the reality of you're facing a dishonorable discharge that'll screw your life up quick and I doubt most people are dumb enough to keep running.
3) There are already tons of millennials in the military that are serving honorably. Just because someone is posts gak or games all day doesn't mean they can't be something more. One veteran I know literally lives on imgur now, but he did his duty while he was in. As crappy as I think most social media is, I can't really say it's much worse than watching the stupidity that has dominated TV for most of its existence.
4) Stupidity goes viral. The idiotic stuff you see on the internet about millennials has always been going on. We just now have the technology to broadcast and disseminate it all over the world. The Instagram baddies of today were the mean girls of yesterday. The guys hooked on free internet porn are no different than guy's digging through their dad's "hidden" stash of Playboys. Sure, there's a lot of strange, not conducive to military service stuff out there, but I think it's wildly exaggerated.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Well of course had the baby boomers been drafted they would have performed so poorly they would lose a war with a vastly inferior foreign power. Oh wait
Now they are upset social security isn't giving them enough free money for working half-ass jobs their whole lives.
In all fairness, the rules of engagement were jacked, forcing our military to fight with an arm tithed solidly behind their back.
My platoon sergent was Marine recon and told me about coming under fire from rubber plantations and having to radio in for permission to return fire because the higher ups didn't want to damage the trees.
An uncle flew missions over North Vietnam and was forbidden from attacking railroads and docks even though they could see war materials being unloaded. Ford had a plant in Russia that was cranking out military vehicles to be sent to North Vietnam.
As far as poor performance goes, you are very mistaken, and you would realize it if you looked at any major engagements over there.
On topic, I think the man or woman in the trenches does a great job today just as was done in the past. The politicians are what Jack them up.
Politicians have been jacking up wars since America decided it needed to police the world. McNamara was just the beginning.
Seemingly the only lesson America learned from Vietnam is that a volunteer force is preferable.
Jihadin wrote: The withdraws some would have not looking at their Smartcells would be interesting. Espacially on patrols
You have no idea how many of the gaks I've busted with their cellphones out in a facility that prohibits them. Or cameras.
'We know about their nuclear facilities because idiots took selfies at work. Please do not be these morons!'. Then again, we have bosses who put handicap bathroom stalls up two flights of stairs, so.....
Jihadin wrote: The withdraws some would have not looking at their Smartcells would be interesting. Espacially on patrols
You have no idea how many of the gaks I've busted with their cellphones out in a facility that prohibits them. Or cameras.
'We know about their nuclear facilities because idiots took selfies at work. Please do not be these morons!'. Then again, we have bosses who put handicap bathroom stalls up two flights of stairs, so.....
NinthMusketeer wrote: Well of course had the baby boomers been drafted they would have performed so poorly they would lose a war with a vastly inferior foreign power. Oh wait
Now they are upset social security isn't giving them enough free money for working half-ass jobs their whole lives.
In all fairness, the rules of engagement were jacked, forcing our military to fight with an arm tithed solidly behind their back.
My platoon sergent was Marine recon and told me about coming under fire from rubber plantations and having to radio in for permission to return fire because the higher ups didn't want to damage the trees.
An uncle flew missions over North Vietnam and was forbidden from attacking railroads and docks even though they could see war materials being unloaded. Ford had a plant in Russia that was cranking out military vehicles to be sent to North Vietnam.
As far as poor performance goes, you are very mistaken, and you would realize it if you looked at any major engagements over there.
On topic, I think the man or woman in the trenches does a great job today just as was done in the past. The politicians are what Jack them up.
Sorry, going by the OP I thought this was a thread for one to pull gak out of their ass. Certainly what I said would be a ridiculous opinion to carry in a rational conversation, much like the idea that millennials are somehow inferior to any other generation.
Ouze wrote: "lol today's kids and their smart phones"
Finally, we're just about where OP started. Speaking of, where did he get to?
I dunno. I lost track because my phone was off all weekend while I was out on a river, drinking beer and having the time of my life. It was cool too because I talked with a friend of mine and I are going to spend late September hiking around the Smokey Mountains, which presumably have no cell signal. It's tough but being able to be vastly out of cell range in the middle of nowhere is a welcome vacation away from having to constantly check my phone for a job that's harder and less rewarding than than the ones most of the nitwits 30 years older than me at the same employer have because I have worse benefits, less vacation, and more to prove than they do yet I have to hear them prattle on about how "back in my day" while all the while, there were on-campus kegers, offsite parties the likes of which are still legendary, paid business trips, and almost everyone in the company that's been there longer than me gets a full extra vacation I'll never see (and I get a full week of vacation the poor bastards after me will never see on top of that).
Is... is 33 still a millennial? I can't ever keep track.
FrozenDwarf wrote: no way in hell they could, but that is not becoue of the unfit part, it is the personal tech.
when they cant leave their smarts OFF for even 5 mins, how would they survive 1 month whitout them, or the internet.
That's a generalisation, and you know it.
That, or a trolling attempt.
On the chance I'm wrong, a few examples shouldn't go awry (includes both 5 minute examples, and 1 month examples):
- Millennials already in the military.
- Mandatory exams, of which it's common to be bereft of technology for at least an hour, up to 2 and a half.
- Socialising in good company
- Playing board games, D&D, Warhammer, etc etc
- Millenials doing charity work in more remote countries, ones that lack facilities for Internet and personal tech.
daedalus wrote: and almost everyone in the company that's been there longer than me gets a full extra vacation I'll never see (and I get a full week of vacation the poor bastards after me will never see on top of that).
Yeah, so, they were able to afford college by working part time, graduated at 22 and were immediately able to find a job, and by 26 were in a career that allowed them to buy a house and start a family on a single income, etc etc - but hey, you got an iphone, so what are you complaining about?
The whole lazy millenials thing drives me a bit crazy. I feel like it is a bit of a thing but its also blown out of proportion and I feel where they are coming from. Ive worked at jobs before where Im at the bottom working 60+ hour work weeks, busting my ass because the top 5 guys on the list have been there since 92 and decided they only need to show up and get a paycheck. You wanna talk about lazy how about we talk about that. Im not saying they shouldnt get pick of the litter and so on but waaay to many times have I literally seen those guys have 12 smoke breaks a shift and always lugging a fresh cup of coffee around and taking a piss break every 20 minutes.
Thats my experience in the work force, as far as the military goes I couldnt tell you, Im sure in all reality theres good workers and terrible workers just like everywhere else. And most importantly I do know from several military types in my life, they much prefer someone that WANTED to join next to them in the gak, than someone that was forced there
Ouze wrote: "lol today's kids and their smart phones"
Finally, we're just about where OP started. Speaking of, where did he get to?
Perhaps he somehow managed to get himself drafted and was going to take this thread to his local board in order to plead the case he couldn't handle being drafted. His gambit must have failed.
Ouze wrote: "lol today's kids and their smart phones"
Finally, we're just about where OP started. Speaking of, where did he get to?
Perhaps he somehow managed to get himself drafted and was going to take this thread to his local board in order to plead the case he couldn't handle being drafted. His gambit must have failed.
Ya. Enlisted today. MI series
Edit
I see a lot of applicants getting denied off the bat from enlisting into the Services. Then again that also determines how the Doctors eval the Applicants. One can get PDQ on first attempt but has to come back for Consults from Specialists to determined what and what they cannot do. Which varies from Service to Service. Ex. Coming hot on a piss test is immediate No Go for the USMC to enlist. Quite a few with mental issues who either misread or FUBAR a question. I think the hardest one to accept was severe acne on the back who had to get a Waiver from a full bird to get into the Army. Athlete's feet another No GO till its cleared. Looks we get when we tell them to use foot spray and piss on them in the shower is priceless
If we were in a draft sitaution, a lot of things thatwaive people now would be ignored. The need for manpower would allow the requirements to dwindle or change. Age and hieght/weight are the ones that come to mind most readily in past wars, and even int he War on Terror the requirements for I.Q. were changed.
This is what has always happened historically and would also happen in a future draft. Just like past drafts, in future drafts the only people who would get out of it would be Richie Rich and his ilk.
I'd love to see these soft 'Boomers' drafted so they can put their money where their mouth is.
In response to the whole 'Da yoof of today and their gadgets' moaning... I'm reminded of this
(Time 2.09 if it doesn't automatically start at the passing out parade)
War today is not the same as war in the past. If the country starts drafting everyone, something has gone horribly wrong. Computer guided missiles, aircraft, warships and a whole host of technology makes large blobs of infantry obsolete.
Yesterday while at the gym, I observed that the Elliptical there had a setting for performing the 1.5 mile run section of the Navy PFT. On a whim I tried it and scored an Excellent. Granted, that's gonna be easier than a flat run since it's an elliptical.
I'm not sure what the rest of the PFT requirements look like, but based upon that, I'd wager I could probably pass the Navy test, at least.
"Today's Millenials" - doubtful they could handle a draft.
Basic training would be hard for someone who has been taught to see the world through the perspective of inclusiveness. Feels like there are enough people who fit this description that unit cohesion would be an issue.
My cousin recruits for the Marines and said the washout rate spiked about 5 years ago. His unit screens for a variety of red flags that go beyond physical / mental fitness, they are mostly social. One of his test questions is about video games, not going to share but it's basically about knowing names of characters. People who know the answer get sent to the Army recruiter.
It's doubtful that the country could handle a draft. If the US (or the species, eg alien invasion) faces the kind of existential threat the creates the necessity of drafting millions of people into the military then there's a good chance we're all gonna die. Maybe millennial draftees, and the rest of us, would rise to the occasion but if we've already gone past all our technologically advanced weaponry to the point where we're pulling people off the street, giving them a gun and a helmet and shipping them to the front then the odds of a positive outcome are pretty low.
We had a draft for Vietnam because of political reasons not military necessity and under the current social and political conditions we won't see that again. If military necessity requires a draft then we'd all better hope kids today can handle the situation.
techsoldaten wrote: One of his test questions is about video games, not going to share but it's basically about knowing names of characters. People who know the answer get sent to the Army recruiter.
techsoldaten wrote: One of his test questions is about video games, not going to share but it's basically about knowing names of characters. People who know the answer get sent to the Army recruiter.
That seems...irrelevant to the job.
It does seem like proper military methodology though.
The last time someone in my family fought on the battlefield was World War 1. My Great Grandfather, on my mothers side.
Even during the draft, my grandparents weren't soldiers. Instead, one was a manager in a munitions factory. The other? Built Fighter Planes (I want to say Hurricanes, but don't quote me on that).
That Simpsons joke, pretty much accurate. Millennials, Xillennials, whoever, they have skills that may be required in National Service, they'll do their jobs.
The hilarious irony of the thread is that millenials would more likely be drafted to pilot drones digitally--something they would excel at while the self righteous techsoladen's of the country would be sitting on their asses and continue to behave like insensitive pricks.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The hilarious irony of the thread is that millenials would more likely be drafted to pilot drones digitally--something they would excel at while the self righteous techsoladen's of the country would be sitting on their asses and continue to behave like insensitive pricks.
I think the real irony is that literally everything worth noting about this stupidly insulting question was said on page one, but not only did the thread keep going it got necro'd a month later so a few posters could just keep throwing out insults. For supposedly not being as lazy as my generation some people apparently didn't take the five minutes required to read the first 10 responses before posting
LordofHats wrote: I think the real irony is that literally everything worth noting about this stupidly insulting question was said on page one, but not only did the thread keep going it got necro'd a month later so a few posters could just keep throwing out insults. For supposedly not being as lazy as my generation some people apparently didn't take the five minutes required to read the first 10 responses before posting
It's not because the older people are lazy, though that might be a contributing factor. See, I think the problem is they're so plugged into their smartphones and their facebook and social media and stuff, and even though someone's already said it, they gotta chime in and say it too, because they're such conceitedSPECIAL SNOWFLAKES that they think that their opinion matters more than the last person who said it, so they want to say it again, pages later hopefully after everyone else forgot the original point, to make themselves seem self-important. They think they're entitled to it for some reason.
Oh, I just figured out why: They're not like millennials. Millennials know they're not important or special, because they get reminded of it literally constantly via almost every form of major modern media. Millennials suck and they know it. They're just acting like that at this point to piss everyone else off. The other generations just got coddled into accepting that they're special though, and got pandered to by the media in their generations, obviously.
LordofHats wrote: I think the real irony is that literally everything worth noting about this stupidly insulting question was said on page one, but not only did the thread keep going it got necro'd a month later so a few posters could just keep throwing out insults. For supposedly not being as lazy as my generation some people apparently didn't take the five minutes required to read the first 10 responses before posting
It's not because the older people are lazy, though that might be a contributing factor. See, I think the problem is they're so plugged into their smartphones and their facebook and social media and stuff, and even though someone's already said it, they gotta chime in and say it too, because they're such conceitedSPECIAL SNOWFLAKES that they think that their opinion matters more than the last person who said it, so they want to say it again, pages later hopefully after everyone else forgot the original point, to make themselves seem self-important. They think they're entitled to it for some reason.
Oh, I just figured out why: They're not like millennials. Millennials know they're not important or special, because they get reminded of it literally constantly via almost every form of major modern media. Millennials suck and they know it. They're just acting like that at this point to piss everyone else off. The other generations just got coddled into accepting that they're special though, and got pandered to by the media in their generations, obviously.
I could see people unfamiliar with the military not knowing. I only know because my dad was one. I can't remember specifically ever hearing anyone outside the military sphere using the term.
LordofHats wrote: I think the real irony is that literally everything worth noting about this stupidly insulting question was said on page one, but not only did the thread keep going it got necro'd a month later so a few posters could just keep throwing out insults. For supposedly not being as lazy as my generation some people apparently didn't take the five minutes required to read the first 10 responses before posting
It's not because the older people are lazy, though that might be a contributing factor. See, I think the problem is they're so plugged into their smartphones and their facebook and social media and stuff, and even though someone's already said it, they gotta chime in and say it too, because they're such conceitedSPECIAL SNOWFLAKES that they think that their opinion matters more than the last person who said it, so they want to say it again, pages later hopefully after everyone else forgot the original point, to make themselves seem self-important. They think they're entitled to it for some reason.
Oh, I just figured out why: They're not like millennials. Millennials know they're not important or special, because they get reminded of it literally constantly via almost every form of major modern media. Millennials suck and they know it. They're just acting like that at this point to piss everyone else off. The other generations just got coddled into accepting that they're special though, and got pandered to by the media in their generations, obviously.
Wait, I thought we were back to spewing crap? Is this a serious or sarcastic response to my comment? To be clear; I was not being serious when I posted it.
techsoldaten wrote: One of his test questions is about video games, not going to share but it's basically about knowing names of characters. People who know the answer get sent to the Army recruiter.
That seems...irrelevant to the job.
Well, do you really want your Marines to have a good memory and love attention to detail? How are they going to screw up so they can get yelled at?
They can go be the best they can be in the Army!
I am 100% calling horsegak on this. How and why would that be even remotely relevant?
feeder wrote: The entire premise of this thread is pure unadulterated pig vomit. Everyone's participating to the best of their ability.
FWIW I'm not treating this seriously nor putting much effort into crappery, because like you said it isn't a rational premise in the first place, and the people who subscribe to it aren't worth the effort. Like global warming deniers I'm happy to wait and watch reality catch up to deliver a well-earned dose of karma.
Compel wrote: The last time we had a draft was World War 2.
The last time someone in my family fought on the battlefield was World War 1. My Great Grandfather, on my mothers side.
Even during the draft, my grandparents weren't soldiers. Instead, one was a manager in a munitions factory. The other? Built Fighter Planes (I want to say Hurricanes, but don't quote me on that).
That Simpsons joke, pretty much accurate. Millennials, Xillennials, whoever, they have skills that may be required in National Service, they'll do their jobs.
My Great Grandfather on my fathers side served in World War One. He enlisted in 1914, as an Irish national he was safe from conscription. During the Battle of Passchendaele his arm was blown off and he was left, buried alive in mud, for over a day until he was found.
Spoiler:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I could see people unfamiliar with the military not knowing. I only know because my dad was one. I can't remember specifically ever hearing anyone outside the military sphere using the term.
My cousin recruits for the Marines and said the washout rate spiked about 5 years ago. His unit screens for a variety of red flags that go beyond physical / mental fitness, they are mostly social. One of his test questions is about video games, not going to share but it's basically about knowing names of characters. People who know the answer get sent to the Army recruiter.
I don't understand, if they know who the characters are they don't get recruited, or they do? Seems...oddly specific.
My cousin recruits for the Marines and said the washout rate spiked about 5 years ago. His unit screens for a variety of red flags that go beyond physical / mental fitness, they are mostly social. One of his test questions is about video games, not going to share but it's basically about knowing names of characters. People who know the answer get sent to the Army recruiter.
I don't understand, if they know who the characters are they don't get recruited, or they do? Seems...oddly specific.
It appears to be "vidya games are for losers, hoo-rah!" and entirely keeping with the toxicity of this garbage fire of a premise.
Could it be that people who bothered to learn the names of the characters around them are better suited to Army, those who don't are better for other services?
It appears to be "vidya games are for losers, hoo-rah!" and entirely keeping with the toxicity of this garbage fire of a premise.
I like how much it will self-select for people who don't have the mental acuity to recognize obvious characters from cultural elements that are increasingly unavoidable within one's childhood.
I knew a guy that went into the Marines right out of high school. That was at least 18 years ago, as he was a couple grades older than I am. Now, he probably couldn't have listed the names of every pokemon (I don't think I could name more than one, now or then) but I can't imagine he wouldn't have known WTF "Mario" was. Christ, my grandfather knows "Mario".
Or, more likely still, the entire original anecdote was BS thought up to troll this perpetual train wreck some more.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Well of course had the baby boomers been drafted they would have performed so poorly they would lose a war with a vastly inferior foreign power. Oh wait
Now they are upset social security isn't giving them enough free money for working half-ass jobs their whole lives.
In all fairness, the rules of engagement were jacked, forcing our military to fight with an arm tithed solidly behind their back.
My platoon sergent was Marine recon and told me about coming under fire from rubber plantations and having to radio in for permission to return fire because the higher ups didn't want to damage the trees.
An uncle flew missions over North Vietnam and was forbidden from attacking railroads and docks even though they could see war materials being unloaded. Ford had a plant in Russia that was cranking out military vehicles to be sent to North Vietnam.
As far as poor performance goes, you are very mistaken, and you would realize it if you looked at any major engagements over there.
On topic, I think the man or woman in the trenches does a great job today just as was done in the past. The politicians are what Jack them up.
Sorry, going by the OP I thought this was a thread for one to pull gak out of their ass. Certainly what I said would be a ridiculous opinion to carry in a rational conversation, much like the idea that millennials are somehow inferior to any other generation.
Considering WWIII will be against the zombie/cat menace, I have faith in our millennials. After all, they've been playing FPS games all their lives. Give these guys a light rifle and a bitching sound track to play and they will stomp all over those zombie/cat/Leichtensteinians!
Or, more likely still, the entire original anecdote was BS thought up to troll this perpetual train wreck some more.
I can't believe how much mileage this insipid thread has gotten out of the question "would the age bracket who makes up 48% of today's active duty military serve if we had a draft"
NinthMusketeer wrote: Well of course had the baby boomers been drafted they would have performed so poorly they would lose a war with a vastly inferior foreign power. Oh wait
Now they are upset social security isn't giving them enough free money for working half-ass jobs their whole lives.
In all fairness, the rules of engagement were jacked, forcing our military to fight with an arm tithed solidly behind their back.
My platoon sergent was Marine recon and told me about coming under fire from rubber plantations and having to radio in for permission to return fire because the higher ups didn't want to damage the trees.
An uncle flew missions over North Vietnam and was forbidden from attacking railroads and docks even though they could see war materials being unloaded. Ford had a plant in Russia that was cranking out military vehicles to be sent to North Vietnam.
As far as poor performance goes, you are very mistaken, and you would realize it if you looked at any major engagements over there.
On topic, I think the man or woman in the trenches does a great job today just as was done in the past. The politicians are what Jack them up.
Sorry, going by the OP I thought this was a thread for one to pull gak out of their ass. Certainly what I said would be a ridiculous opinion to carry in a rational conversation, much like the idea that millennials are somehow inferior to any other generation.
Considering WWIII will be against the zombie/cat menace, I have faith in our millennials. After all, they've been playing FPS games all their lives. Give these guys a light rifle and a bitching sound track to play and they will stomp all over those zombie/cat/Leichtensteinians!
The only downside to the zombie apocalypse is the lack of headphones and rocking new music to headbang to while I double tap some dead ass. (not necrophilia, you freaks)
Considering WWIII will be against the zombie/cat menace, I have faith in our millennials. After all, they've been playing FPS games all their lives. Give these guys a light rifle and a bitching sound track to play and they will stomp all over those zombie/cat/Leichtensteinians! ]
Frazz, most of these guys have never seen a gun, never mind knowing what 'recoil' is. I can see it now 'Why is my aim hack not working!?!?" 'Oh my god, why is the flamethrower not working on their undead flesh!?!? The grenade killed a bunch of our own guys!' 'I rocket jumped! Where are my legs!?!?'
I'm sure it's been said but haven't read all posts in thread because tl;dr... the whole irony in this thread is the fact that millennials out number everyone else in the military...
Considering WWIII will be against the zombie/cat menace, I have faith in our millennials. After all, they've been playing FPS games all their lives. Give these guys a light rifle and a bitching sound track to play and they will stomp all over those zombie/cat/Leichtensteinians! ]
Frazz, most of these guys have never seen a gun, never mind knowing what 'recoil' is. I can see it now 'Why is my aim hack not working!?!?" 'Oh my god, why is the flamethrower not working on their undead flesh!?!? The grenade killed a bunch of our own guys!' 'I rocket jumped! Where are my legs!?!?'
WOAH! You are telling me that real world guns have recoi..... wait you mean recoil is in video games and you have to take it in to account when aiming? OH THE WORLD WE LIVE IN!
Frazz, most of these guys have never seen a gun, never mind knowing what 'recoil' is. I can see it now 'Why is my aim hack not working!?!?" 'Oh my god, why is the flamethrower not working on their undead flesh!?!? The grenade killed a bunch of our own guys!' 'I rocket jumped! Where are my legs!?!?'
Here we have an impressive exhibit of a comment made about how other people cannot tell reality from fictional stereotypes based upon the assumption that those people largely reflect the ones found in a fictional stereotype.
I do need to go to the shooting range again. It's been a couple years now.
Older people bashing younger generations is a tradition that goes as far back as ancient Greece. It's just like seeing older people complaining that new forms of entertainment will destroy society which is an also equally ancient tradition.
What if the Ancient Gods living in their paradise lands were not an apocryphal myth but literally how awesome and amazing everyone and everything used to be?
And since the time of those mighty beings; Rah, Thor, Zeus and so on, we have slipped into the inadequacy of modern existence...
I guess it would depend on the country. Some Western world countries clearly have seen a decline in patriotism, which is a good psychological way of dealing with the trauma of both military training and life on the front. Not saying there isn't any millenials in the army and that none a patriotic, but less be honest here : people are way less patriotic (in some countries) that in the past. Not saying it's a bad thing, but it sure helped warfaring nations back in the day when you naively and blindly entered a war for ''the motherland'' and etc.
I never thought of millennials being weaker or lazy. With easy access to Internet and social media everywhere they are just more informed. Millennials have the advantage of being able more easily educate themselves on current events and then decide for themselves if they agree or not.
Here we have an impressive exhibit of a comment made about how other people cannot tell reality from fictional stereotypes based upon the assumption that those people largely reflect the ones found in a fictional stereotype.
I do need to go to the shooting range again. It's been a couple years now.
If it was just a stereotype I'd be a lot happier. We're undermanned and we showed 25 of them the door for Outstanding Stupidity in the last two months. 'This material is Confidential and not to leave the facility' does not mean 'try to leave the building with it'. 'Cameras and Photography Prohibited' does not mean 'Take a Selfie in Front of this sign!' I'm talking grade A, full on slow stupidity. Of the thirty guys we took in we have ONE millennial still on, and his time is up at the end of the week, and despite the recommendations of all the team leads, he's not being retained due to policy handed down from on high, or at least, from Foggy Bottom.
Out of twenty six millennials, we found 1 guy who was worthwhile, and we were not even allowed to keep him. And it makes me fething furious. We get young talent, we can't keep em, but we can keep the guys who've been in for a thousand fething years, who're fething sprawled across the desks drunk, or sit all day doing puzzles and not working, but someone shows some talent, and they get pirated right out of our office by the field manager's wife who wants them for her team over at OPM. We have about 26 YEARS before our estimated time of completion at this point, so we've dragged it up form 48, but I STILL can't decide what side the boss is on. I swear to god he's trying to force the project to fail.
loki old fart wrote: Do you think people will support a war, like they used too? or will apathy mean that support will be sporadic.
You've got some assumptions in there that don't really hold up. Support for war in general isn't weaker today.
While war broke out in Europe in WW1 Wilson maintained a policy position of strict neutrality. He was privately concerned about a German victory but didn't want to involve the US. When Germany sunk the Lusitania, Wilson did nothing more than demand Germany warn the vessel so passengers could disembark before sinking it. Germany broke that promise three times, only for Wilson to repeat his requirement for future attacks. Can you imagine a US president today failing to respond to that with war, and then winning office again? Because Wilson won re-election in 1916 (though it was close). It was only after that, with yet more sinkings and the revelation that Germany attempted to encourage a Mexican attack on the US, that the US entered the war.
In 1939 while Hitler was expanding the Reich across Europe, it was not uncommon to find polls where as little as 5% of the population supported sending US troops to aid. As the war turned that number increased, but it never reached a majority until the US came under direct attack.
The Korean War was very different, perhaps as the US came off of relatively clean wars against pretty despicable regimes in Germany and Japan. More than 70% supported US involvement in the Korean War at the outset. That said, during the war itself support dropped in to a minority position as the US position worsened and the MacArthur Crisis played out, before the end of the war ending the war with majority support.
When the US committed active combat troops to Vietnam, support was 64% (though this might be due in part to claimed attack on the Maddox, I couldn't find a poll before then).
The first Gulf War had minority support, just 37%. This quickly improved as the war was decidely quickly and decisively.
Support for the war in Afghanistan polled around 90%, though in wake of 9/11 I'm honestly surprised it wasn't higher.
The second Gulf War... in February 2001, before 9/11, there was popular support for invasion and removal of Saddam, 52% wanted it. After 9/11, and with the US already in Afghanistan, support for Iraq peaked at 75%.
So there's a pretty clear seperation marked by WWII, prior to and including, where the US sentiment was largely opposed to war, perhaps because the US understanding of war was defined by the Civil War. After WWII you see majority support for US wars, even ones like Vietnam that were dependent on weird geo-political theories to justify US intervention.
So no, the US is not less likely to support a war than they used.
If it was just a stereotype I'd be a lot happier. We're undermanned and we showed 25 of them the door for Outstanding Stupidity in the last two months. 'This material is Confidential and not to leave the facility' does not mean 'try to leave the building with it'. 'Cameras and Photography Prohibited' does not mean 'Take a Selfie in Front of this sign!' I'm talking grade A, full on slow stupidity. Of the thirty guys we took in we have ONE millennial still on, and his time is up at the end of the week, and despite the recommendations of all the team leads, he's not being retained due to policy handed down from on high, or at least, from Foggy Bottom.
Out of twenty six millennials, we found 1 guy who was worthwhile, and we were not even allowed to keep him. And it makes me fething furious. We get young talent, we can't keep em, but we can keep the guys who've been in for a thousand fething years, who're fething sprawled across the desks drunk, or sit all day doing puzzles and not working, but someone shows some talent, and they get pirated right out of our office by the field manager's wife who wants them for her team over at OPM. We have about 26 YEARS before our estimated time of completion at this point, so we've dragged it up form 48, but I STILL can't decide what side the boss is on. I swear to god he's trying to force the project to fail.
Well, fair enough. For what it's worth, the second paragraph is more or less about what I've witnessed in the private sector, and we actually try to pay out for talent retention sometimes. I think while it's true that its hard to find good jobs nowadays, the actual honest-to-god ones that are worth having can pretty much come and go as they please. I also recall an article talking about how the FBI and NSA were having problems finding people to staff their black-hat programs. Not sure if it was journalistic speculation, but one of the things floated as a cause in it was the drug tests. As in, the guys you want for those kinds of positions were the guys who weren't comfortable taking drug tests. Not that you want someone who's job it is to carry a gun around getting high, but I guess my point is that the people who might be able to do it best are probably getting better offers elsewhere.
yellowfever wrote: I never thought of millennials being weaker or lazy. With easy access to Internet and social media everywhere they are just more informed. Millennials have the advantage of being able more easily educate themselves on current events and then decide for themselves if they agree or not.
Lol,
"More informed" and "has access to the internet and social media" don't exactly go together. I don't think this increased information access has led to an increase in how well informed people are. If anything, it's just encouraged more Group-think and mindless sheep behavior. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. In this case, the horse is taking a selfie, watching cat videos, and just doing whatever his friends do with it instead of drinking the dang water.
I also recall an article talking about how the FBI and NSA were having problems finding people to staff their black-hat programs... As in, the guys you want for those kinds of positions were the guys who weren't comfortable taking drug tests. but I guess my point is that the people who might be able to do it best are probably getting better offers elsewhere.
NSA shocked that people they want to employ because they do illigal stuff also do other illigal stuff? I'd say that's stupidity on the part of the NSA and FBI.
yellowfever wrote: I never thought of millennials being weaker or lazy. With easy access to Internet and social media everywhere they are just more informed. Millennials have the advantage of being able more easily educate themselves on current events and then decide for themselves if they agree or not.
Lol,
"More informed" and "has access to the internet and social media" don't exactly go together. I don't think this increased information access has led to an increase in how well informed people are. If anything, it's just encouraged more Group-think and mindless sheep behavior. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. In this case, the horse is taking a selfie, watching cat videos, and just doing whatever his friends do with it instead of drinking the dang water.
Because people in the past spent their days reading Tolstoy and Shakespeare whilst sipping tea and listening to the works of Moszkowski and Mendelssohn? The young have much more access to information than in the past, and are much more likely to read the news or look up facts. The internet has not brought any more "Group-think" or "mindless sheep". It has just meant that those people find more and more niche groups rather than local groups of friends all thinking and doing the same. My parents generation still formed friendships groups of likeminded people and hung out in places that matche their views.
yellowfever wrote: I never thought of millennials being weaker or lazy. With easy access to Internet and social media everywhere they are just more informed. Millennials have the advantage of being able more easily educate themselves on current events and then decide for themselves if they agree or not.
Lol,
"More informed" and "has access to the internet and social media" don't exactly go together. I don't think this increased information access has led to an increase in how well informed people are. If anything, it's just encouraged more Group-think and mindless sheep behavior. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. In this case, the horse is taking a selfie, watching cat videos, and just doing whatever his friends do with it instead of drinking the dang water.
Well obviously not everyone will take advantage, but I think it goes without saying that information on any given topic is much more readily available then say during the Vietnam War.
Here we have an impressive exhibit of a comment made about how other people cannot tell reality from fictional stereotypes based upon the assumption that those people largely reflect the ones found in a fictional stereotype.
I do need to go to the shooting range again. It's been a couple years now.
If it was just a stereotype I'd be a lot happier. We're undermanned and we showed 25 of them the door for Outstanding Stupidity in the last two months. 'This material is Confidential and not to leave the facility' does not mean 'try to leave the building with it'. 'Cameras and Photography Prohibited' does not mean 'Take a Selfie in Front of this sign!' I'm talking grade A, full on slow stupidity. Of the thirty guys we took in we have ONE millennial still on, and his time is up at the end of the week, and despite the recommendations of all the team leads, he's not being retained due to policy handed down from on high, or at least, from Foggy Bottom.
Out of twenty six millennials, we found 1 guy who was worthwhile, and we were not even allowed to keep him. And it makes me fething furious. We get young talent, we can't keep em, but we can keep the guys who've been in for a thousand fething years, who're fething sprawled across the desks drunk, or sit all day doing puzzles and not working, but someone shows some talent, and they get pirated right out of our office by the field manager's wife who wants them for her team over at OPM. We have about 26 YEARS before our estimated time of completion at this point, so we've dragged it up form 48, but I STILL can't decide what side the boss is on. I swear to god he's trying to force the project to fail.
This is similar to the point I tried to make earlier in this post. As someone who actually works with Trainees in AIT(the school you attend immediately after basic training) for the last 5 years of my life, I can tell you that the talent is few and far between. Physical conditioning is extremely poor. The ability to learn through deductive reasoning is poor, as is basic common sense. every weekend someone gets caught stealing from the PX. We warn them every Friday that they have cameras everywhere but it still happens. At least once per month inappropriate sexual behaviors occur especially since we integrated. The ability to focus on one thing for more than 5 min is rare. Out of a class of 30 in the 13J school house I usually can pick out 10 off the bat that would fail at life if an NCO did not follow them around baby sitting them constatnly. So as someone who is speaking not from speculation but from experience, no they would not make it at first. When I was on the line it took me no less than 6 months of constant supervision, Im talking time away from my family on the weekends coming in to make sure they would clean their rooms, do PT, and stay out of trouble. 6 months of constant counseling and correction to get points across. The army isn't all constant training for war, which may be part of the problem. There are hundreds of other daily tasks that happen and warfighting is usually last on the list of things that happen on the regular. I could write a book on why the majority of the younger generation fails.
Compel wrote: Isn't the question then, is that particularly different from how army recruits have *always* behaved?
"Those damned recruits. They took the Kings Shilling from the bottom of a beer mug, why do they dare have the temerity to think that's unfair?"
That is a good question. I can only compare with the groups I went to AIT and Basic with and served at my first duty station with. Would need other veterans to chime in. So those traits are not new. Its the frequency we see them that is new.
Physical fitness: In my basic training the only ones we worried about failing the PT test were the few Females we had and one Male. Out of a company size element thats pretty good. On the flip side, the last PT test I over saw before retirement we had about 50% meet the exact bare minimum, 10% male failures and 5% female failures. (Standards are lower for females) Of those that met the bare minimum I am sure that there were double pushups and situps counted. I never did it but I know NCOs who did after a Soldiers 3rd failure just go get them out of there.
When my NCO told me to do something as a Private-Specialist it was never answered with why or why me, it was roger and I moved out smartly. Same could be said for all of my old friends from my first duty station. Now I find my self having to breath as I explain why they should do what they are told. Many of you are wondering why is that a big deal. Because training Soldiers to execute functions and follow instructions is important. Combat related tasks require quick thought, and quick decision making. I didn't understand a lot of the why till I was almost a Sergeant and then it all made sense.
Mental toughness: Soldiers today, that I have experienced, have a tendency to take offense very quickly. I mean very quickly. The norms of my generation are now taboo. I understand times changing and you must adapt or leave, but the simple things like telling a soldier to shut is ***** holster after politely and sternly explaining to him he can not talk during instructions in the classroom leads to triggering and an inability to further function. The point of that statement is after the first time instructions should have been followed. Its a different life.
These people volunteered. Now put a draft into the mix and you are talking a weak force. I am not using hyperbole. they thought they wanted to be here and quickly many realized there is actual hard hard work involved, and stress, and standards. Imagine if they hadn't volunteered.
To be blunt, contrary to popular belief the military isn't a place where only the best and brightest go. Stupid people have always found their way into the ranks.
LordofHats wrote: To be blunt, contrary to popular belief the military isn't a place where only the best and brightest go. Stupid people have always found their way into the ranks.
Truth. My concern is the frequency in which I see them.
I blame high fructose corn syrup in everything for the lack of fitness and low quality memes for the brain. Plus a generous helping of "the 90's were great!" and "durn kids"
Compel wrote: Isn't the question then, is that particularly different from how army recruits have *always* behaved?
"Those damned recruits. They took the Kings Shilling from the bottom of a beer mug, why do they dare have the temerity to think that's unfair?"
That is a good question. I can only compare with the groups I went to AIT and Basic with and served at my first duty station with. Would need other veterans to chime in. So those traits are not new. Its the frequency we see them that is new.
Physical fitness: In my basic training the only ones we worried about failing the PT test were the few Females we had and one Male. Out of a company size element thats pretty good. On the flip side, the last PT test I over saw before retirement we had about 50% meet the exact bare minimum, 10% male failures and 5% female failures. (Standards are lower for females) Of those that met the bare minimum I am sure that there were double pushups and situps counted. I never did it but I know NCOs who did after a Soldiers 3rd failure just go get them out of there.
When my NCO told me to do something as a Private-Specialist it was never answered with why or why me, it was roger and I moved out smartly. Same could be said for all of my old friends from my first duty station. Now I find my self having to breath as I explain why they should do what they are told. Many of you are wondering why is that a big deal. Because training Soldiers to execute functions and follow instructions is important. Combat related tasks require quick thought, and quick decision making. I didn't understand a lot of the why till I was almost a Sergeant and then it all made sense.
Mental toughness: Soldiers today, that I have experienced, have a tendency to take offense very quickly. I mean very quickly. The norms of my generation are now taboo. I understand times changing and you must adapt or leave, but the simple things like telling a soldier to shut is ***** holster after politely and sternly explaining to him he can not talk during instructions in the classroom leads to triggering and an inability to further function. The point of that statement is after the first time instructions should have been followed. Its a different life.
These people volunteered. Now put a draft into the mix and you are talking a weak force. I am not using hyperbole. they thought they wanted to be here and quickly many realized there is actual hard hard work involved, and stress, and standards. Imagine if they hadn't volunteered.
Dad would have just stuffed them in a locker and thrown them down the stairs to motivate the platoon.*
NinthMusketeer wrote: If millennials really suck so much, isn't it the fault of the previous generation for raising them so poorly?
Well, yeah, but when you start pointing out uncomfortable truths like that, everyone flails to show why it was turtles all the way down, with the exception that somehow they're still to blame.
NinthMusketeer wrote: If millennials really suck so much, isn't it the fault of the previous generation for raising them so poorly?
Ah, the blame game!
I'm not really sure that's the issue. I mean, I grant how my parents tried to raise me is now called child endangerment, neglect, and abuse, but it did work.
NinthMusketeer wrote: If millennials really suck so much, isn't it the fault of the previous generation for raising them so poorly?
Ah, the blame game!
I'm not really sure that's the issue. I mean, I grant how my parents tried to raise me is now called child endangerment, neglect, and abuse, but it did work.
I think nature vs nurture is pretty well documented.
I think nature vs nurture is pretty well documented.
So you're suggesting that they were coddled too much?
I am suggesting that previous generations were terrible at being parents as opposed to millennials just being bad because they are millennials, which is what you are suggesting.
Each generation has to learn quicker than the previous, in order to keep up with technology. With the information age, they are constantly berated with new and changing information about the world. They are also constantly told they are the worst thing to ever happen to the world and they will be the doom of it.
But yeah, totally coddled. Little snot nosed brats.
NinthMusketeer wrote: If millennials really suck so much, isn't it the fault of the previous generation for raising them so poorly?
Ah, the blame game!
I'm not really sure that's the issue. I mean, I grant how my parents tried to raise me is now called child endangerment, neglect, and abuse, but it did work.
Uhm, not sure if you are aware but the blame game started quite a while ago with millenials being blamed for everything (and still are). To pretend I was starting it up is willful ignorance at best. Which, come to think of it, goes to support the point I was making.
I am suggesting that previous generations were terrible at being parents as opposed to millennials just being bad because they are millennials, which is what you are suggesting.
No, I'm suggesting that a staggering number of them that are well.... idiots. I mean genuine morons. My own parents sucked, I have the literal scars to prove it. But these guys? One flushed his shirt down a toilet and started to flood the place. One tried to set the place on fire (and underground fires are VERY bad). We had people try to carry off Confidential (at least) microfilm reels. I have NEVER had this issue with older people. Not that I have not had issues with them, but NOTHING like this.
While I still worked in retail (specifically, a pet store), I was asked by a decidedly non-millenial whether you could keep a "Nemo fish' in a goldfish bowl with some table salt. Twice. I also had a middle-aged lady try to get me to use a coupon on a purchase she'd made a week ago while I was trying to hurry her out the door because someone had set the Bed, Bath, and Beyond next to us on fire and we were starting to fill up with smoke.
I am suggesting that previous generations were terrible at being parents as opposed to millennials just being bad because they are millennials, which is what you are suggesting.
No, I'm suggesting that a staggering number of them that are well.... idiots. I mean genuine morons. My own parents sucked, I have the literal scars to prove it. But these guys? One flushed his shirt down a toilet and started to flood the place. One tried to set the place on fire (and underground fires are VERY bad). We had people try to carry off Confidential (at least) microfilm reels. I have NEVER had this issue with older people. Not that I have not had issues with them, but NOTHING like this.
So let me get this straight, you work in a top secret underground facility and you guys staff it with people who apparently need babysit constantly?
No, I'm suggesting that a staggering number of them that are well.... idiots. I mean genuine morons. My own parents sucked, I have the literal scars to prove it. But these guys? One flushed his shirt down a toilet and started to flood the place. One tried to set the place on fire (and underground fires are VERY bad). We had people try to carry off Confidential (at least) microfilm reels. I have NEVER had this issue with older people. Not that I have not had issues with them, but NOTHING like this.
Hahaha
This conversation has reminded me of Institutionalized:
"How can you say what MY best interest is? What are you trying to say, I'M crazy?
When I went to YOUR schools, I went to YOUR churches
I went to YOUR institutional learning facilities?! So how can you say I'M crazy?"
Maybe the military needs to take a step back and figure out why only the people who can't tie their own shoelaces are falling into it? I assure you, you can find intelligent young people. I think you're seeing a marketing/recruiting issue, not a generational one.
daedalus wrote: Maybe the military needs to take a step back and figure out why only the people who can't tie their own shoelaces are falling into it? I assure you, you can find intelligent young people. I think you're seeing a marketing/recruiting issue, not a generational one.
I can't see why it would be hard to talk young people into signing up for a job that could entail being deployed to fight one of several meaningless conflicts in which nothing worthwhile happens, destroying your physical and mental health in the process, possibly losing your life, all the while earning mediocre pay and a lifetime of substandard healthcare.
Good point. Who wants to shoot up a bunch of farm hands that are just trying to defend their livelihoods? Or see their mates get blown to smithereens by IEDs on patrol?
That lack of faith in the wars we commit to, alongside the increased awareness of the lifelong mental health impact of serving makes signing up a rather unattractive process, especially as the positive aspects of serving don't seem to be very well communicated to the public (at least in the UK).
I am suggesting that previous generations were terrible at being parents as opposed to millennials just being bad because they are millennials, which is what you are suggesting.
No, I'm suggesting that a staggering number of them that are well.... idiots. I mean genuine morons. My own parents sucked, I have the literal scars to prove it. But these guys? One flushed his shirt down a toilet and started to flood the place. One tried to set the place on fire (and underground fires are VERY bad). We had people try to carry off Confidential (at least) microfilm reels. I have NEVER had this issue with older people. Not that I have not had issues with them, but NOTHING like this.
Guy sounds like a dangerous pyromaniac. Did he have nothing in his history that red flagged this?
daedalus wrote: Maybe the military needs to take a step back and figure out why only the people who can't tie their own shoelaces are falling into it? I assure you, you can find intelligent young people. I think you're seeing a marketing/recruiting issue, not a generational one.
I can't see why it would be hard to talk young people into signing up for a job that could entail being deployed to fight one of several meaningless conflicts in which nothing worthwhile happens, destroying your physical and mental health in the process, possibly losing your life, all the while earning mediocre pay and a lifetime of substandard healthcare.
Well... maybe because that's not how it is at all?
Maybe the military needs to take a step back and figure out why only the people who can't tie their own shoelaces are falling into it? I assure you, you can find intelligent young people. I think you're seeing a marketing/recruiting issue, not a generational one.
I'd suggest:
1. The Poor Bloody Infantry (Bless Their Woolen Socks) are, let's be realistic, unskilled laborers. By the nature of the job they have the highest turn-over, highest exposure to danger and are generally held in contempt by everyone they come in contact with during the execution of their duties - rarely if ever to make someone's life better in any way. Nontheless, i'll personally float any infantryman at least one beer/refreshment on principle, because they're the most consistently important component of defending the realm at home and abroad.
2. Everyone else requires one or more of the following:
a. Management Capacity - i.e. officers
b. Technical Capacity - i.e. gunners/mechanics/radar ops/etc
c. Magnificent Bastardry - i.e. Quartermaster, Senior Officers
d. Competition level lying skills - Senior Officers, Quartermasters, Procurement liaisons
Each and every one of which can be rewarded more highly in the private sector, in some cases in more agreeable climates.
So why exactly would someone who can do better work for
A. HM government of the aircraft carrier which has no aircraft to carry
B. His Excellency Emmanuel Macron
C. Donald Trump, Leader of the Free World
D. Etc.
When the defense of their home and all they hold dear is better served by accumulating vast amounts of money doing a more rewarding job with the same or less levels of stress, and relocating to, say, Switzerland?
The effect of Communism which meant 'being as far away from Russia as possible' was valuable doesn't really apply any more. DEFEND THE HOMELAND!(tm) isn't relevant since most people have moved house/jobs/families enough times that a sense of having something _static_ that can be defended that existed in the olden days has gone. "All the enemies are over there and we can't let them come here" died in 2001 so that doesn't apply.
As for the OP; I'd suggest Vietnam could only happen when Vietnam happened:
1. The Evil Empire was a "thing"
2. The president hadn't been outed as a spy, a liar and a crook, and directly comparable to the hyped up 'evil' of the Evil Empire
3. Air interdiction and long range missiles hadn't developed to what they are today
4. Drones didn't exist in their current combat capacity
5. The handling of Veterans Affairs wasn't recognised as a national tragedy
6. Culture was fairly polarised into extremes, e.g. Hippies, Rock&Rollers, whatever the straight edge folks called themselves back then and could be addressed and managed as blocks.
Whereas now:
1. Death to... erm. I was going to say Kale but someone would come out of the woodwork to support it. The only universally ( by which I mean at least 90%+ population) acceptable target for outrage these days are those crazy nazis
2. Donald Trump
3. America Sees All, when it can be bothered.
4. A chap in Steubenville Ohio can launch a drone strike to kill you and everyone you know between coffee breaks without any risk to himself
5. I won't mock this, it's bad enough
6. Death To Kale!
So let me get this straight, you work in a top secret underground facility and you guys staff it with people who apparently need babysit constantly?
lol k
It's hardly secret. But it is underground. And, NORMALLY no. Most of the people down here are fairly competent, though I could say a few things about some of management's decisions.
These guys were through a subcontractor with the option to hire. WE didn't pick them, they came as a group.
daedalus wrote:
Maybe the military needs to take a step back and figure out why only the people who can't tie their own shoelaces are falling into it? I assure you, you can find intelligent young people. I think you're seeing a marketing/recruiting issue, not a generational one.
I work for the civilian side of your government.
Ouze wrote:
I can't see why it would be hard to talk young people into signing up for a job that could entail being deployed to fight one of several meaningless conflicts in which nothing worthwhile happens, destroying your physical and mental health in the process, possibly losing your life, all the while earning mediocre pay and a lifetime of substandard healthcare.
See above.
nareik wrote:Guy sounds like a dangerous pyromaniac. Did he have nothing in his history that red flagged this?
No, just stupid. Big Sign: NO SMOKING, SILVER NITRATE FILM! what's he do? Light up. Surrounded by 10 THOUSAND silver nitrate reels. Never mind that smoking inside the facility is prohibited and the sign is there to meet safety requirements. Never mind that day one they show you a safety film that shows a reel of this stuff BURNING UNDERWATER.
nareik wrote:Guy sounds like a dangerous pyromaniac. Did he have nothing in his history that red flagged this?
No, just stupid. Big Sign: NO SMOKING, SILVER NITRATE FILM! what's he do? Light up. Surrounded by 10 THOUSAND silver nitrate reels. Never mind that smoking inside the facility is prohibited and the sign is there to meet safety requirements. Never mind that day one they show you a safety film that shows a reel of this stuff BURNING UNDERWATER.
Wow, well I guess we just gotta admire this guy's American, libertarian spirit and refusal to allow authoritarians to micromanage the minor details of his life. Maybe not perfect material for the job though.
Didn't 'try to set the place on fire' he 'could have set the place on fire without trying' perhaps a more apt description?
daedalus wrote:
Maybe the military needs to take a step back and figure out why only the people who can't tie their own shoelaces are falling into it? I assure you, you can find intelligent young people. I think you're seeing a marketing/recruiting issue, not a generational one.
I work for the civilian side of your government.
Well then, we go back to my previous comment about how even the FBI and NSA are having issues getting the people they want.
Meanwhile, google, apple, and other tech companies have a tendency to discriminate against "old people" and their stock prices rise and rise. Private sector works means getting the best prescriptions, and the .gov is waaaaay too uptight to work for.
daedalus wrote: Private sector works means getting the best prescriptions, and the .gov is waaaaay too uptight to work for.
I dunno, the last time the US smoked a lot of good weed, they bombed Hanoi. Apple they just put out updates to destroy your iphone so you have to buy a new one.
So let me get this straight, you work in a top secret underground facility and you guys staff it with people who apparently need babysit constantly?
lol k
It's hardly secret. But it is underground. And, NORMALLY no. Most of the people down here are fairly competent, though I could say a few things about some of management's decisions.
These guys were through a subcontractor with the option to hire. WE didn't pick them, they came as a group.
daedalus wrote:
Maybe the military needs to take a step back and figure out why only the people who can't tie their own shoelaces are falling into it? I assure you, you can find intelligent young people. I think you're seeing a marketing/recruiting issue, not a generational one.
I work for the civilian side of your government.
Ouze wrote:
I can't see why it would be hard to talk young people into signing up for a job that could entail being deployed to fight one of several meaningless conflicts in which nothing worthwhile happens, destroying your physical and mental health in the process, possibly losing your life, all the while earning mediocre pay and a lifetime of substandard healthcare.
See above.
nareik wrote:Guy sounds like a dangerous pyromaniac. Did he have nothing in his history that red flagged this?
No, just stupid. Big Sign: NO SMOKING, SILVER NITRATE FILM! what's he do? Light up. Surrounded by 10 THOUSAND silver nitrate reels. Never mind that smoking inside the facility is prohibited and the sign is there to meet safety requirements. Never mind that day one they show you a safety film that shows a reel of this stuff BURNING UNDERWATER.
So your opinion on the value of millennials to the military is based on the actions of some people who were working for a civilian subcontractor, so are probably paying them the square root of sweet FA and sending of any bodies that are still warm so they can keep on scraping the pork barrel (which is my experience of private subcontractors on government contracts. Politicians don't seem be able to understand that if the largest employer in the country can't do a job cheaper it's unlikely a smaller contractor can without cutting something. Either pay, benefits or rights, which does not tend to draw the cream of the crop)
Maybe the reason Millenials have so much problems in the voluntary military is because the percentage of Millenials with university degrees and high end schooling is much bigger than before, so the percentage that enters the military is more commonly from the low end?
I don't know how it works in USA, but in Spain, the kind of guy that with 15-16 years wants to join the military/Police is the one that probably has repeat some times and don't has the... higgest notes of his class. Extra points if he consumes some kind of drugs.
Our military is actually made of better educated kids (or at least more kids with post-high school degrees) than at any other time in history. You need a waiver to get in without a HS degree, and many kids come in and take advantage of tuition assistance programs in the service to take college classes while on active duty. Many kids come in with associate's degrees or even bachelor's degrees.
CptJake wrote: Our military is actually made of better educated kids (or at least more kids with post-high school degrees) than at any other time in history. You need a waiver to get in without a HS degree, and many kids come in and take advantage of tuition assistance programs in the service to take college classes while on active duty. Many kids come in with associate's degrees or even bachelor's degrees.
Also a significant portion didn't join under the "jail or the Corps" plan that was common in Dad's era.
Marine Corps, putting the penal in penal legion back in the 1950s...
So let me get this straight, you work in a top secret underground facility and you guys staff it with people who apparently need babysit constantly?
lol k
It's hardly secret. But it is underground. And, NORMALLY no. Most of the people down here are fairly competent, though I could say a few things about some of management's decisions.
These guys were through a subcontractor with the option to hire. WE didn't pick them, they came as a group.
daedalus wrote:
Maybe the military needs to take a step back and figure out why only the people who can't tie their own shoelaces are falling into it? I assure you, you can find intelligent young people. I think you're seeing a marketing/recruiting issue, not a generational one.
I work for the civilian side of your government.
Ouze wrote:
I can't see why it would be hard to talk young people into signing up for a job that could entail being deployed to fight one of several meaningless conflicts in which nothing worthwhile happens, destroying your physical and mental health in the process, possibly losing your life, all the while earning mediocre pay and a lifetime of substandard healthcare.
See above.
nareik wrote:Guy sounds like a dangerous pyromaniac. Did he have nothing in his history that red flagged this?
No, just stupid. Big Sign: NO SMOKING, SILVER NITRATE FILM! what's he do? Light up. Surrounded by 10 THOUSAND silver nitrate reels. Never mind that smoking inside the facility is prohibited and the sign is there to meet safety requirements. Never mind that day one they show you a safety film that shows a reel of this stuff BURNING UNDERWATER.
This really sounds like a failure by your bosses, not the people being hired. They are clearly not qualified for the position, based on what you are saying. But they are still being brought in. Maybe, I dunno, your bosses should address that issue?
This really sounds like a failure by your bosses, not the people being hired. They are clearly not qualified for the position, based on what you are saying. But they are still being brought in. Maybe, I dunno, your bosses should address that issue?
But millenials are the problem here! Gr!
No, the problem, per se, is that no matter who much we scream we need more people, we're idiots and liars and it takes an outside contractor to study the issue. And the previous outside contractors who studied it, at 3 million dollars a pop, are also liars and idiots that foolishly agreed with our assessment.
The contractor shenanigans came from them hiring anyone who could pass a piss test and a background check, regardless of what the boss thought, until they screwed up on site.
So your opinion on the value of millennials to the military is based on the actions of some people who were working for a civilian subcontractor, so are probably paying them the square root of sweet FA and sending of any bodies that are still warm so they can keep on scraping the pork barrel (which is my experience of private subcontractors on government contracts. Politicians don't seem be able to understand that if the largest employer in the country can't do a job cheaper it's unlikely a smaller contractor can without cutting something. Either pay, benefits or rights, which does not tend to draw the cream of the crop)
Let's start at the top on this post:
We have 30 employees at this point. Mostly due to death or retirement, though we've had to let people go for returning to active duty or transferring to OPM.
We need 100 more people then we currently have, in order to complete the project in the next two decades.
Our contractors get better bennies then I do and don't have to pay for them out of their paycheck. The people who write the checks for these contractors deliberately try to make it cost as much as possible to justify their budgets, and so they get the same amount next year. It's not cheaper, it's actually more expensive, and it's that way by design.
And, since you must have missed this: I started talking about this as I had seen the same thing on the civilian side that the US military guys here were talking about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Our military is actually made of better educated kids (or at least more kids with post-high school degrees) than at any other time in history. You need a waiver to get in without a HS degree, and many kids come in and take advantage of tuition assistance programs in the service to take college classes while on active duty. Many kids come in with associate's degrees or even bachelor's degrees.
But it does not mean they have the least bit of common sense. One guy we were glad to see the back of was ex airforce (insert chairforce jokes here), and was constantly in trouble for harassing people. He departed after he startled one of the old ladies so badly she had to be taken out by ambulance.
daedalus wrote: Maybe the military needs to take a step back and figure out why only the people who can't tie their own shoelaces are falling into it? I assure you, you can find intelligent young people. I think you're seeing a marketing/recruiting issue, not a generational one.
I can't see why it would be hard to talk young people into signing up for a job that could entail being deployed to fight one of several meaningless conflicts in which nothing worthwhile happens, destroying your physical and mental health in the process, possibly losing your life, all the while earning mediocre pay and a lifetime of substandard healthcare.
Well... maybe because that's not how it is at all?
CptJake wrote:Our military is actually made of better educated kids (or at least more kids with post-high school degrees) than at any other time in history. You need a waiver to get in without a HS degree, and many kids come in and take advantage of tuition assistance programs in the service to take college classes while on active duty. Many kids come in with associate's degrees or even bachelor's degrees.
How Goddamn DARE you two try to sway the liberal propaganda machine with facts. I got tickled pink when I got back at someone telling me what life was like now in Baghdad, which is where I served.
TIL serving in the military pays well, has decent healthcare, and carries no personal risk to either your physical or mental health, and the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq were totally worthwhile. I'm sure the next time a thread similar to this comes up we'll all be on the same page about those things and I will make sure all of my friends who served know they are just parroting liberal talking points if they claim otherwise.
Ouze wrote: TIL serving in the military pays well,
When I got active duty E-4 pay, I was bringing home $1,500-$1,700 every two weeks. That's in a laborer rank, not E-5 or higher, which tends to be where you end up in less than 8 years if you do it right.
Tricare, which I use right now, is better insurance than I have a Caterpillar. I've not come across too many insurances within the employers around me that can compare to it.
Ouze wrote: and carries no personal risk to either your physical or mental health,
Being a fry cook has personal risk to your physical and mental health. I'd argue that EVERY job does to either one or the other. Not to the degree of combat, but then again we don't spend every second of our military careers in combat.
Ouze wrote: and the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq were totally worthwhile.
Subjective, but seeing the lives of Iraqis firsthand that were improved solely by Saddam's regime not continuing to slaughter them, I'd say it WAS worthwhile. Afghanistan? You'd have to ask someone who was there.
Ouze wrote: I'm sure the next time a thread similar to this comes up we'll all be on the same page about those things and I will make sure all of my friends who served know they are just parroting liberal talking points if they claim otherwise.
Ouze wrote: TIL serving in the military pays well,
When I got active duty E-4 pay, I was bringing home $1,500-$1,700 every two weeks. That's in a laborer rank, not E-5 or higher, which tends to be where you end up in less than 8 years if you do it right.
Subjective, but seeing the lives of Iraqis firsthand that were improved solely by Saddam's regime not continuing to slaughter them, I'd say it WAS worthwhile..
And if you ask the people being slaughtered by ISIS because of the power vacuum?
Ouze wrote: and the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq were totally worthwhile.
Subjective, but seeing the lives of Iraqis firsthand that were improved solely by Saddam's regime not continuing to slaughter them, I'd say it WAS worthwhile. Afghanistan? You'd have to ask someone who was there.
Very subjective. I get mixed reports from the Arabs and Kurds I spend time with in Iraq and I'm there as a civilian with no military entourage at all, so I like to think we get pretty unfiltered and honest opinions (though of course I'm still a westerner and there can be a clear difference in what people say depending on whether our US collegues are with us or not and I'll bet the Europeans get different chat when me and the other Brit aren't there, too, so there's obviously still some distinctions in levels of openess depending on audience, as you'd expect).
Just Tony wrote: When I got active duty E-4 pay, I was bringing home $1,500-$1,700 every two weeks. That's in a laborer rank, not E-5 or higher, which tends to be where you end up in less than 8 years if you do it right.
So, the same money as someone making $20/hour at a job with a 40 hour work week, but with the government controlling your life outside of your "on the clock" hours and a much higher chance of death than the average office job. Yeah, that's better than working minimum wage at walmart, but that's pretty underwhelming compared to even entry-level jobs for college graduates. So who do you think you're going to get at that rate: the best of the best, who are taking a major pay cut out of sheer desire to join the military, or the people who have limited career options and are desperate for something that pays enough to live off of?
Being a fry cook has personal risk to your physical and mental health. I'd argue that EVERY job does to either one or the other. Not to the degree of combat, but then again we don't spend every second of our military careers in combat.
Fry cooks generally don't spend even one second of their culinary endeveaours in combat.
1. The Poor Bloody Infantry (Bless Their Woolen Socks) are, let's be realistic, unskilled laborers. By the nature of the job they have the highest turn-over, highest exposure to danger and are generally held in contempt by everyone they come in contact with during the execution of their duties - rarely if ever to make someone's life better in any way. Nontheless, i'll personally float any infantryman at least one beer/refreshment on principle, because they're the most consistently important component of defending the realm at home and abroad.
This might be the most laughable post I've seen in this thread.
The modern infantrymen of the US is probably more highly trained than a number of positions. They are from unskilled. No one holds them in contempt within the military. People might pity them, but I've never met anyone (veteran, active, civilian) that actually holds them in contempt.
Also, the majority of people I know who went infantry or had previously served as such were actually more articulate and better educated than the average unskilled laborer by a pretty wide margin. No one just falls into that anymore. A lot of people actually go infantry because they are actually patriotic or, in some cases, just want to see real combat.
Things like supply/admin/transportation are where people tend to fall into because they didn't score high enough on the ASVAB for something better or didn't want to go combat arms.
Just Tony wrote: When I got active duty E-4 pay, I was bringing home $1,500-$1,700 every two weeks. That's in a laborer rank, not E-5 or higher, which tends to be where you end up in less than 8 years if you do it right.
So, the same money as someone making $20/hour at a job with a 40 hour work week, but with the government controlling your life outside of your "on the clock" hours and a much higher chance of death than the average office job. Yeah, that's better than working minimum wage at walmart, but that's pretty underwhelming compared to even entry-level jobs for college graduates. So who do you think you're going to get at that rate: the best of the best, who are taking a major pay cut out of sheer desire to join the military, or the people who have limited career options and are desperate for something that pays enough to live off of?
Let's get off the work qualifications of the military shall we. That's a screaming politics topic and has no place in this forum. Now back to complaining about kids these days!
My slacker daughter's Anthropology Prof has a handlebar moustache. :-)
Just Tony wrote: When I got active duty E-4 pay, I was bringing home $1,500-$1,700 every two weeks. That's in a laborer rank, not E-5 or higher, which tends to be where you end up in less than 8 years if you do it right.
So, the same money as someone making $20/hour at a job with a 40 hour work week, but with the government controlling your life outside of your "on the clock" hours and a much higher chance of death than the average office job. Yeah, that's better than working minimum wage at walmart, but that's pretty underwhelming compared to even entry-level jobs for college graduates. So who do you think you're going to get at that rate: the best of the best, who are taking a major pay cut out of sheer desire to join the military, or the people who have limited career options and are desperate for something that pays enough to live off of?
They also pay your rent.
And at least in theory cover your food costs.
If you can call MREs food. Mess halls aren't bad by any means. A little bland perhaps. You would have to supplement your diet somewhat if you got into weightlifting while enlisted.
You can realistically hit E4 by 20. Assuming you're of moderate intelligence and work ethic. If you enlist in the Army with a college degree you go in as a E4 (specialist, not a corporal). In that case you would be making just under 26k a year. Second lieutenants make a little over 32k a year. It's not an unreasonable salary.
And if you actually go in without a degree and then get your degree done on benefits than you gained a lot more than you could have possibly done working an unskilled civilian job at 18.
Also the ASVAB minimum score would suggest that at the least the military is turning away 20-30% of potential enlistees. I think it's been a few years since you could get an ASVAB or felony waiver.
There gak bags in the military, but the idea that it's drawing from the dregs is blatantly false.
E-6 at 15.5 years. $3751 a month.
BAH, Basic Allowance for Housing, $1550 a month.
BAS, Basic Allowance for Subsitance, $370 a month.
SDAP, Special Duty Assignment Pay, $225 a month.
100% Medical insurance for myself and my family.
100% Dental insurance for myself, partial for my family.
$70,700 a year, in pure money. The medical and dental on top of that... probably clearing $80,000 a year.
I consider that reasonable pay. When I deploy, as I am now, I get other monetary incentives to sweeten the pot. This current deployment, I'm getting an extra $375 a month. If I were in a combat zone, it would average out to about $700 a month.
I've spoken many times here about a lot of the negatives that come with military service. I would not call our pay one of them. Say what you want about G.W., but he made great efforts in getting our pay onto a respectable level after the debacle of the 90's.
djones520 wrote: E-6 at 15.5 years. $3751 a month.
BAH, Basic Allowance for Housing, $1550 a month.
BAS, Basic Allowance for Subsitance, $370 a month.
SDAP, Special Duty Assignment Pay, $225 a month.
100% Medical insurance for myself and my family.
100% Dental insurance for myself, partial for my family.
$70,700 a year, in pure money. The medical and dental on top of that... probably clearing $80,000 a year.
I consider that reasonable pay. When I deploy, as I am now, I get other monetary incentives to sweeten the pot. This current deployment, I'm getting an extra $375 a month. If I were in a combat zone, it would average out to about $700 a month.
I've spoken many times here about a lot of the negatives that come with military service. I would not call our pay one of them. Say what you want about G.W., but he made great efforts in getting our pay onto a respectable level after the debacle of the 90's.
To add to that:
- BAH & BAS does not get taxed.
- Depending on your state, active duty pay can be tax free.
Military pay cannot be compared to civilian pay simply by going "gross-military pay" vs "gross-civilian pay". I'm about to switch over to military pay, and comparing my current gross to my new gross, I'll be taking a $10,000+ cut in pay.
But looking at the big picture:
- I'll no longer pay $7,000 a year in health insurance, dental, vision.
- I won't pay federal taxes on close to $20,000 of my income.
- I won't pay any Oklahoma taxes on any of my income.
- My wife will pay fewer taxes because our taxable household income puts is in a much lower tax bracket.
So my $10,000+ cut in gross pay will actually result in a higher net pay for me.
And since I already have my education, as my student loans show, I'll pass 2 years of free college each to my two daughters.
The problem with comparing private pay to government pay is that private companies are so different.
I work for a small defense contractor in the DMV area and get paid more than 60k a year, while having full benefits for me and my family that are provided free of charge, and a 5% deposit to my IRA that isn't a match but rather a pledge - they essentially pay me an extra >3000/year that has to go to an IRA.
So essentially the only things that come out of my >5k per month are taxes; everything else I get from the company for no cost for me and my family.
I got hired two and some change months ago, so definitely entry level, and don't even have my clearance yet, at which point my salary will go up.
The other neat thing about this job is they pay for a lot of my hobby things as well (as I am on the wargaming team) and gave me a sign on bonus. So woo private contractors!
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, let me give you some advice here, so you don't lose that sweet gig. (It does sound sweet)
- Don't try to flush a t-shirt down the toilet
- Fire bad. Fire no no.
- Don't steal sensitive documents.
From what I understand from the thread, these are common rookie mistakes. Good luck!
My job has a outsized number of millennials, and if I had a nickel for every time one of those things happened, I wouldn't have anything because they're all really smart.
NinthMusketeer wrote: If millennials really suck so much, isn't it the fault of the previous generation for raising them so poorly?
Ah, the blame game!
I'm not really sure that's the issue. I mean, I grant how my parents tried to raise me is now called child endangerment, neglect, and abuse, but it did work.
Uhm, not sure if you are aware but the blame game started quite a while ago with millenials being blamed for everything (and still are). To pretend I was starting it up is willful ignorance at best. Which, come to think of it, goes to support the point I was making.
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, let me give you some advice here, so you don't lose that sweet gig. (It does sound sweet)
- Don't try to flush a t-shirt down the toilet
- Fire bad. Fire no no.
- Don't steal sensitive documents.
From what I understand from the thread, these are common rookie mistakes. Good luck!
My job has a outsized number of millennials, and if I had a nickel for every time one of those things happened, I wouldn't have anything because they're all really smart.
I have two groups in the local branch of the company ( roughly 350 people if you include the ones who WFH 100%) that I would trust to get something done and done right without babysitting or needing to constantly hound them for a response. One group is two people who have been with the company forever and survived countless layoffs and downsizing because they're that reliable. The other group is a couple teams totaling 30+ people, with only 15% of them being older than 30. They're trustworthy because the 34 year old director of their BU grew them from five people large back when he was the manager and he runs a tight ship with good people. I never worked for him, but I gave his people training semi-regularly. If they had any feth ups, I let him know and they were gone.
Ouze wrote: TIL serving in the military pays well,
When I got active duty E-4 pay, I was bringing home $1,500-$1,700 every two weeks. That's in a laborer rank, not E-5 or higher, which tends to be where you end up in less than 8 years if you do it right.
That in total benefits, or salary alone?
That was just base pay, not total benefits. Someone else broke it down much further to include benefits before I responded.
Subjective, but seeing the lives of Iraqis firsthand that were improved solely by Saddam's regime not continuing to slaughter them, I'd say it WAS worthwhile..
And if you ask the people being slaughtered by ISIS because of the power vacuum?
ISIS sprang up because we got pulled out prematurely. We won't go into the politics of it in here because, well, US politics. But it takes 10 years to get an active duty base set up, and BHO pulled us out before Victory Base Complex was completed. Not a coincidence, nor is it a coincidence that our lack of presence during his tenure saw ISIS rise from the insurgency. When ISIS' first offensive hit, you also saw Iraqi soldiers and police abandoning their posts and even their equipment the first moment the attack happened. ISIS gave rise because the people of the region are generally so unambitious that they would rather be subjugated than try to take charge of their own destiny. Most, not all. Yet again, another topic...
Peregrine wrote:
Just Tony wrote: When I got active duty E-4 pay, I was bringing home $1,500-$1,700 every two weeks. That's in a laborer rank, not E-5 or higher, which tends to be where you end up in less than 8 years if you do it right.
So, the same money as someone making $20/hour at a job with a 40 hour work week, but with the government controlling your life outside of your "on the clock" hours and a much higher chance of death than the average office job. Yeah, that's better than working minimum wage at walmart, but that's pretty underwhelming compared to even entry-level jobs for college graduates. So who do you think you're going to get at that rate: the best of the best, who are taking a major pay cut out of sheer desire to join the military, or the people who have limited career options and are desperate for something that pays enough to live off of?
Working a foundry is more dangerous than your average military duty, and pays considerably less. Then you look at how few degree holding people can even GET a nice cush office job because their degree is junk, and it skews things even further. Long and short, though, bullets don't zip past your face every second of your military service.
Being a fry cook has personal risk to your physical and mental health. I'd argue that EVERY job does to either one or the other. Not to the degree of combat, but then again we don't spend every second of our military careers in combat.
Fry cooks generally don't spend even one second of their culinary endeveaours in combat.
Got that. You DO realize that in a career that spans from '92 to current, I've spent a total of 1 year in a combat zone? That's the reality that most people don't get, especially people from other countries that have no clue how the military in the US actually functions.
Ouze wrote: TIL serving in the military pays well,
When I got active duty E-4 pay, I was bringing home $1,500-$1,700 every two weeks. That's in a laborer rank, not E-5 or higher, which tends to be where you end up in less than 8 years if you do it right.
That in total benefits, or salary alone?
That was just base pay, not total benefits. Someone else broke it down much further to include benefits before I responded.
I guess when you consider that you're largely tax free (if not entirely) that $1500 every two weeks isn't so bad. By about 6-7 years in I was about 80k gross pay, which (after insurance, 401k pre-tax of 10% and so on) came out to about 1600 a paycheck IIRC. Course, I've got the fringe benefits of being able to skip into work tomorrow and inviting everyone to go feth themselves, and going to work across the street. I mean, I'd have to get hired across the street first, but you get what I'm trying to say. I've also not been subject to drug tests in...ever, and can drink through the week if I choose, work from home at least two days a week, and stroll into and leave work whenever the hell feels good. Not to mention I go to the gym because I want to, not because I'm ordered. Feels better that way to me.
I dunno man. If it works for you, own it. I've only been citing the reasons why as a (when I lean the wrong direction across the line I was born right next to) am a Millennial who wouldn't go military save for an absolute last ditch choice and assume the rest of my brethren must have somewhat similar reasons. Well, except for the ones who do go military, which I think is something like half of the military right now if that figure that was floated earlier was accurate.
I seriously doubt Socrates ever did actually say that. A lot of the things purported to be said by him are already suspect enough by virtue of it being believed that Plato attributed a lot of his own material to Socrates to give it more credibility.
Having that been said, I giggle at how true the point is that the quote is attempting to make.
Fry cooks generally don't spend even one second of their culinary endeveaours in combat.
My Grandfather and Brother In Law could both tell you some stories about that sort of thing, but they were and are Navy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus wrote: I seriously doubt Socrates ever did actually say that.
You'd be right, it was originally written by Kenneth John Freeman for his dissertation at Cambridge, in 1907. To be fair, his subject was "Schools of Hellas: an Essay on the Practice and Theory of Ancient Greek Education from 600 to 300 BC"
daedalus wrote: I seriously doubt Socrates ever did actually say that. A lot of the things purported to be said by him are already suspect enough by virtue of it being believed that Plato attributed a lot of his own material to Socrates to give it more credibility.
Having that been said, I giggle at how true the point is that the quote is attempting to make.
I know he didn't say that, but shhhhh! Don't ruin it!
Just Tony wrote: ISIS sprang up because we got pulled out prematurely. We won't go into the politics of it in here because, well, US politics. But it takes 10 years to get an active duty base set up, and BHO pulled us out before Victory Base Complex was completed. Not a coincidence, nor is it a coincidence that our lack of presence during his tenure saw ISIS rise from the insurgency.
George W. Bush signed a SOFA in November 2008 that stipulated all troops were out in 2011 - and he was lucky to get that, under threat of all of them being pulled by the end of 2008. BHO wasn't able to get another one signed because the Iraqi parliament wouldn't have gone for immunity for prosecution for US troops.
A lie of omission is still a lie, but why let historical accuracy get in the way of a lazy, dishonest narrative, right?
Just Tony wrote: ISIS sprang up because we got pulled out prematurely. We won't go into the politics of it in here because, well, US politics. But it takes 10 years to get an active duty base set up, and BHO pulled us out before Victory Base Complex was completed. Not a coincidence, nor is it a coincidence that our lack of presence during his tenure saw ISIS rise from the insurgency.
George W. Bush signed a SOFA in November 2008 that stipulated all troops were out in 2011 - and he was lucky to get that, under threat of all of them being pulled by the end of 2008. BHO wasn't able to get another one signed because the Iraqi parliament wouldn't have gone for immunity for prosecution for US troops.
A lie of omission is still a lie, but why let historical accuracy get in the way of a lazy, dishonest narrative, right?
Now we're trending into US politics Ouze... but suffice to say, many believed a new SOFA could've been negotiated.
Whether that would've made a difference to the rise of ISIS in Iraq... that's a whole 'nother "what-if'ing"...
Just Tony wrote: ISIS sprang up because we got pulled out prematurely. We won't go into the politics of it in here because, well, US politics. But it takes 10 years to get an active duty base set up, and BHO pulled us out before Victory Base Complex was completed. Not a coincidence, nor is it a coincidence that our lack of presence during his tenure saw ISIS rise from the insurgency.
George W. Bush signed a SOFA in November 2008 that stipulated all troops were out in 2011 - and he was lucky to get that, under threat of all of them being pulled by the end of 2008. BHO wasn't able to get another one signed because the Iraqi parliament wouldn't have gone for immunity for prosecution for US troops.
A lie of omission is still a lie, but why let historical accuracy get in the way of a lazy, dishonest narrative, right?
Then I was misinformed.
NinthMusketeer wrote:Obviously, ISIS is millenials' fault.
Wow, you REALLY are taking the whole millenials thing personally...
whembly wrote: Now we're trending into US politics Ouze... but suffice to say, many believed a new SOFA could've been negotiated.
Whether that would've made a difference to the rise of ISIS in Iraq... that's a whole 'nother "what-if'ing"...
So far as if another could have been negotiated, that's a different argument - and a fair one. Bush was under the gun when he signed it, but BHO had a very long window to try and renegotiate with - 3 years is a really long time.
whembly wrote: Now we're trending into US politics Ouze... but suffice to say, many believed a new SOFA could've been negotiated.
Whether that would've made a difference to the rise of ISIS in Iraq... that's a whole 'nother "what-if'ing"...
So far as if another could have been negotiated, that's a different argument - and a fair one. Bush was under the gun when he signed it, but BHO had a very long window to try and renegotiate with - 3 years is a really long time.
Pfft. Don't think of it like US politics. That's a defensive game, and we all know that's for losers. Think of it like middle eastern politics.
whembly wrote: Now we're trending into US politics Ouze... but suffice to say, many believed a new SOFA could've been negotiated.
Whether that would've made a difference to the rise of ISIS in Iraq... that's a whole 'nother "what-if'ing"...
So far as if another could have been negotiated, that's a different argument - and a fair one. Bush was under the gun when he signed it, but BHO had a very long window to try and renegotiate with - 3 years is a really long time.
Indeed it is, and popular school of thought is he didn't try hard enough.
Despite that, a bigger reason for ISIS' climb is Al-Maliki. His giving the axe to almost every competent (and Sunni) military commander that he had, crippled his Army. He took what was a competent force, and turned it into a loyalist lap-dog militia, a-la the Red Army 1930's.
That is the reason a handful of poorely armed irregular fighters managed to do things like overrun entire divisions.
Our efforts in standing up a competent, stable, Iraqi military was much more effective then they have been in Afghanistan. It's not our fault those efforts were sabotaged by their own government.
whembly wrote: Now we're trending into US politics Ouze... but suffice to say, many believed a new SOFA could've been negotiated.
Whether that would've made a difference to the rise of ISIS in Iraq... that's a whole 'nother "what-if'ing"...
So far as if another could have been negotiated, that's a different argument - and a fair one. Bush was under the gun when he signed it, but BHO had a very long window to try and renegotiate with - 3 years is a really long time.
Indeed it is, and popular school of thought is he didn't try hard enough.
Despite that, a bigger reason for ISIS' climb is Al-Maliki. His giving the axe to almost every competent (and Sunni) military commander that he had, crippled his Army. He took what was a competent force, and turned it into a loyalist lap-dog militia, a-la the Red Army 1930's.
That is the reason a handful of poorely armed irregular fighters managed to do things like overrun entire divisions.
Our efforts in standing up a competent, stable, Iraqi military was much more effective then they have been in Afghanistan. It's not our fault those efforts were sabotaged by their own government.
I think that he didn't try hard enough is a pretty fair rap - the allure of finishing up the "bad war" on someone else's terms and concentrating on "the good war" was pretty strong, especially as it seemed (at the time) to be winding down.
But who knows - after the Nisour Square shooting, the Iraqi government might never have agreed to ever give US personnel immunity, and the US would never have agreed to anything less.
Just Tony wrote: ISIS gave rise because the people of the region are generally so unambitious that they would rather be subjugated than try to take charge of their own destiny. Most, not all.
Oh, what insight! Tell me, how much time have you spent with these people as a civilian? Hell, how much time have you spent with them without a uniform and a weapon?
I meet quite a lot of very, very motivated and ambitious folks out there (and the majority of the folks I meet are shepherds and farmers!). Funnily enough, it's largely their milennials who've largely grown up through the chaos of the second Gulf War onwards.
Ouze wrote: I think that he didn't try hard enough is a pretty fair rap - the allure of finishing up the "bad war" on someone else's terms and concentrating on "the good war" was pretty strong, especially as it seemed (at the time) to be winding down.
But who knows - after the Nisour Square shooting, the Iraqi government might never have agreed to ever give US personnel immunity, and the US would never have agreed to anything less.
I think it is more than fair to say that no deal was possible, but at the same time whatever deal might have been possible was never given a chance by Obama.
Failure here had several authors.
The various efforts to lay blame squarely on Obama for the terms and nature of withdrawal, and no blame on Bush for entering the war in the first place are really quite incredible.
While we're at it we can go back and blame Bush Sr. for allowing Saddam to stay in power. Or we could go back and blame the British and French for splitting up the region along arbitrary geographic lines that left little care to the populations within them.
SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES 
