Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:

 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.

lol.

Capt, the new retirement system, you get something for life, no matter how long you served.

http://militarypay.defense.gov/BlendedRetirement/

 djones520 wrote:
Capt, the new retirement system, you get something for life, no matter how long you served.

http://militarypay.defense.gov/BlendedRetirement/

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.

 CptJake wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Capt, the new retirement system, you get something for life, no matter how long you served.

http://militarypay.defense.gov/BlendedRetirement/

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.

 djones520 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Capt, the new retirement system, you get something for life, no matter how long you served.

http://militarypay.defense.gov/BlendedRetirement/

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.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Capt, the new retirement system, you get something for life, no matter how long you served.

http://militarypay.defense.gov/BlendedRetirement/

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.

 Supertony51 wrote:

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.

 Hordini wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:

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?

 djones520 wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:

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

 Jihadin wrote:

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.

 Ouze wrote:

 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!"

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.

 ulgurstasta wrote:

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.

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

nfe wrote:

 ulgurstasta wrote:

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.

The US does not jail conscientious objectors. Not sure what would have prompted that belief.

No, but it does appear to treat them with the same disdain as crippled war veterans.

 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.