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.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
And that is the point... Wars should only be fought by America if it is worth putting everyone's life on hold.

So we put everyone's life on hold always to stop something that might happen sometimes? Good plan /sarcasm. And what about when that war comes and everyone is disillusioned and pissed about being in an organization they never wanted to be in?

This casual let them fight it and let the nation keep on doing what ever they want proved to me that the volunteer army is a mistake.

You know, we were just talking about people who signed up and didn't realize what they were getting into.

Give me any other reason why we are in year 13 of this fighting.....

Because we are fighting an enemy we thought we could beat with a hammer and are now realizing it's not that simple? It's easier to start a war than it is to leave it. Always has been.

EDIT: And frankly, I'll point out your sense of scale is pretty messed up. In the grand scheme of things, Iraq and Afghanistan have been minor conflicts. These aren't wars that demand a wartime economy or society. They're just not that big. Proposing we set ourselves to act like we could go to war 24/7 (which realize it or not is what you propose) as a means of ensuring we don't won't work.

 LordofHats wrote:

having an army that is as large as it can be, filled with people who are forced into it, and have no talent for it, has also been a historical foible generally.

I'd debate this. Some cultures have a tradition of civic service and to them conscription is just part of life. It is accepted as part of growing up which gives it a social glamor and acceptance. Israel for example has a culture that allows this to work.

The US I'd say has a tradition of civic service but ours is somewhat cemented on it being voluntary so it just doesn't work for us.

israel actually is surrounded by threats that justify this... there is a bit of a difference between what israel does and the draft/conscription, it is mandatory military service for everyone, as opposed to a ballot that just goes out when they need more boots on the ground.
still compulsory OFC, but they are willing because its a very clear and present danger type situation there.

hence it doesnt fit the requirements I set forth,

IE the draft IS necessary, and the participants are more or less willing and able since there really are tangible threats.

OBS WW1 and two ALSO had tangible enough threats that it was necessary, and generally accepted.


also, to be fair, iraq and afghan wars actually took up more ordnance then WW1 and 2 combined I believe (might just be one of the two), so it actually is a huge cost, and the us economy IS a war economy, the onyl difference between ww2 and iraq/afghan is the scale of boots on the ground, and the ability of the enemy to strike back (ie NIL) so all we need is the military industrial war economy complex pumping out ordnance at such a huge level, but not manpower of a scale used in past wars.

 LordofHats wrote:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
And that is the point... Wars should only be fought by America if it is worth putting everyone's life on hold.

So we put everyone's life on hold always to stop something that might happen sometimes? Good plan /sarcasm. And what about when that war comes and everyone is disillusioned and pissed about being in an organization they never wanted to be in?

This casual let them fight it and let the nation keep on doing what ever they want proved to me that the volunteer army is a mistake.

You know, we were just talking about people who signed up and didn't realize what they were getting into.

Give me any other reason why we are in year 13 of this fighting.....

Because we are fighting an enemy we thought we could beat with a hammer and are now realizing it's not that simple? It's easier to start a war than it is to leave it. Always has been.

EDIT: And frankly, I'll point out your sense of scale is pretty messed up. In the grand scheme of things, Iraq and Afghanistan have been minor conflicts. These aren't wars that demand a wartime economy or society. They're just not that big. Proposing we set ourselves to act like we could go to war 24/7 (which realize it or not is what you propose) as a means of ensuring we don't won't work.

And what about when that war comes and everyone is disillusioned and pissed about being in an organization they never wanted to be in?

And that is the point, the politicans who put them there are GONE the next election....

Because we are fighting an enemy we thought we could beat with a hammer and are now realizing it's not that simple? It's easier to start a war than it is to leave it. Always has been.

Then we either pull out or use nukes...... I do not care which.... If you get all aghast about nuking another country then the war is obviously not critical to the United States survival is it? So why are we there?

You are missing the point and that is really sad because you are representative of an entire generation who does not understand you never go to war unless the nations survival is at stake.... It does get back to this from the very first post

*He also thinks that the fact that we don't have this in place is a sign of the moral decay of America, but I digress

BTW we are NOT in an war time economy ...If we were we would not be making cars we would be making MWAPS at all of the automobile plants and anyone making too much profit would be charged with a crime called war profiting...

 easysauce wrote:
us economy IS a war economy,

Not sure you know what a war economy is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
And that is the point, the politicans who put them there are GONE the next election....

Pretty sure that if we've learned anything from politics last 250 years, its that politicians can do almost anything short of hooking up with prostitutes and still get reelected.

Then we either pull out or use nukes...... I do not care which.... If you get all aghast about nuking another country then the war is obviously not critical to the United States survival is it? So why are we there?

There are so many things wrong with this I don't know where to start. I'll just assume you're okay with starting nuclear holocaust.

You are missing the point and that is really sad because you are representative of an entire generation who does not understand you never go to war unless the nations survival is at stake....

No. If anything, I'm of the opinion that if you wait till your survival is at stake to go to war, you've already put yourself in a corner. And frankly, I don't have a problem with the US using its might to make the world a better place. No comment on whether our current wars are achieving that, but using drones to take out terrorists, removing dictators from power, and the occasional humanitarian relief mission are all things that in general, I'm fine with.

Good job hitting the 'you youngins and your ______" button though. Very insightful. Quite baffling as if anything, my generation is profoundly anti-war, much like the young people of the 60's and 70's. We don't really need to be forcibly conscripted to oppose war.

 easysauce wrote:
israel actually is surrounded by threats that justify this... there is a bit of a difference between what israel does and the draft/conscription, it is mandatory military service for everyone, as opposed to a ballot that just goes out when they need more boots on the ground.
still compulsory OFC, but they are willing because its a very clear and present danger type situation there.

Well, that tends to happen when you're given other's lands and the formers owners n ot agreeing with that.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:I got into a debate with a veteran over on a political forum I go to. Basically, his position is that "there should be a national draft for EVERY single conflict the US gets involved in"*. Now, maybe I'm crazy, but this seems like a really bad idea, since the vast majority of the conflicts the USA has been involved in since WWII have been needless and wasteful (think Vietnam and the Middle-East conflicts of the past decade)

Am I just totally off-base?

~Tim?

*He also thinks that the fact that we don't have this in place is a sign of the moral decay of America, but I digress.

I'd have suggested to him that the use of foxholes and tanks was also a sign of the deca of America's military, and the only way to use a *real* army is to stand upright in a line about 80 yards away from your enemy and fire only on the command of your officer.



But I calculate that my satire would be lost on your friend. The moral of this story is definitely "do not post on political website forums".

Good job hitting the 'you youngins and your ______" button though. Very insightful. Quite baffling as if anything, my generation is profoundly anti-war, much like the young people of the 60's and 70's. We don't really need to be forcibly conscripted to oppose war.

For such an anti war generation you and your generation really do not appear to have a problem with wars if they do not inconvenience you personally....

You and the President.....

2007


2008


I won't bother with the other years he promised and still Americans are dying over there and the President has spent more time on vacation than on trying to keep his promise...


Good night...

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
For such an anti war generation you and your generation really do not appear to have a problem with wars if they do not inconvenience you personally....

Not sure where you get that idea from.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:


But I calculate that my satire would be lost on your friend. The moral of this story is definitely "do not post on political website forums".

 LordofHats wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
us economy IS a war economy,

Not sure you know what a war economy is.

the us economy IS a military industrial complex, with an economy based on and heavily intertwined with the arms industry that produces war material on in excess of what was produced during periods of total war...

that is very much a war economy,

what your wiki wisdom is talking about, is a TOTAL WAR economy, where is is completely based on it, not partially.

total or not, there is always a war economy, especially in the USA,

wiki, while being nice to have, is not always correct,

the real definition, from a real encyclopedia, is

War Economy

(1) In capitalist countries, a specific part of the national economy that is responsible for the financing of the preparation and conduct of war; in socialist countries, the part of the national economy that strengthens defensive capability.

(2) A branch of knowledge (military economic science) that studies the economic aspects of national defense and warfare.

The war economy as a part of the national economy includes the production of various types of military products, as well as the distribution, exchange, and consumption of the products.

so I am very correct in saying, that the USA is a LARGE war economy, they produce a huge amount of war based material, how can you argue that fact? its roughly 20% of their spending, it does not have to be 100% to be a war economy, nor does it have to be a "total" war economy. even in TOTAL war, it was sub 50%,

from a real, non idiot made, encyclopedia

Two world wars have shown that success in war depends to a great degree on the quantity and quality of economic resources and on the effective mobilization and utilization of these resources. In the wars of the 19th century, the military spending of the warring nations accounted for between 8 and 14 percent of national income on the average, whereas in World War I this indicator was 24.2 percent in Austria-Hungary, 36.9 percent in Great Britain, 31.6 percent in Germany, 19.2 percent in Italy, 24.1 percent in Russia, 25.6 percent in France, and 15.5 percent in the USA. During World War II the corresponding figure was 43.4 percent in the USA , 55.7 percent in Great Britain, and 67.8 percent in Germany. In order to satisfy the enormous military requirements brought on by World War I and especially by World War II, it was necessary to place a significant part of the national economy of the warring nations on a military footing. Thus, according to some estimates, the share of military production in total US industrial production was 60.6 percent between 1941 and 1945.

 easysauce wrote:
the us economy IS a military industrial complex, with an economy based on and heavily intertwined with the arms industry that produces war material on in excess of what was produced during periods of total war...

A war economy has nothing to do with volume of production its a state of the economy being geared towards war production. Now if we're arguing from different definitions of the term then I guess we both get to be right. Volume of production increases pretty steadily over time. it shouldn't be shocking that our 21st century economy produces more than the mid 20th one.

how can you argue that fact?

My argument was that you don't know what a war economy is but apparently I'm arguing what you call a 'total war economy' which is a term I've never seen mentioned in any books but wouldn't be the first time that happened.

EDIT: Though I must point out;

During World War II the corresponding figure was 43.4 percent in the USA

Do you really want to argue that 43.4 percent of the current US economy is dedicated to the production of military arms/tools? Cause that's gonna be an uphill battle. Our current production levels are no where near that high.

not to be a douche, but WIKI is not a valid reference, I am getting my info from actual reputable encyclopedias and resources.

the military industrial complex we have now, is the term they use when a war economy basically lasts forever,

War economy
Definition

War economy is the term used to describe the contingencies undertaken by the modern state to mobilize its economy for war production. Philippe Le Billon describes a war economy as a "system of producing, mobilising and allocating resources to sustain the violence".

The war economy can form an economic system termed the "military-industrial complex". Many states increase the degree of planning in their economies during wars.


Concerning the side of aggregate demand, this concept has been linked to the concept of "military Keynesianism", in which the government's military budget stabilizes economic business cycles and fluctuations and/or is used to fight recessions.

so thats where I am coming from




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:


Do you really want to argue that 43.4 percent of the current US economy is dedicated to the production of military arms/tools? Cause that's gonna be an uphill battle. Our current production levels are no where near that high.

no.. you are not reading what i wrote, I am arguing that, because we still have a war economy/military industrial complex, be it 20%, or 40%, it is still a war economy. you are stating that only "total" war economy, is war economy, which is false,
I in no way, shape or form, said, nor believe current spending is that high, if you think so, you need to re read my post.

read the actual definition from an actual encyclopedia above, your wiki wisdom is wrong,

 easysauce wrote:
not to be a douche, but WIKI is not a valid reference, I am getting my info from actual reputable encyclopedias and resources.

This is an internet forum, not a research paper. Wiki is a convenient link to generalized information.

the military industrial complex we have now, is the term they use when a war economy basically lasts forever,

There's actually another wiki article for that ('Permanent War Economy' a term I have heard of)

I've just never read the term total war economy before (or at least I don't remember it). Usually when I see people talking about that they just say 'war economy' but that's history circles, mainly WWII. I wouldn't be shocked to find political science or economics using a more, differential, set of terms.

Either way it matters less. We both know what we mean now and its turned out to just be a difference in terminology.

yup...

and we both think they spend too much i think,

so more in common then apart.

 easysauce wrote:
yup...

and we both think they spend too much i think,

so more in common then apart.

I heard a cool story once. To keep it short (and cause I don't fully remember said story) a regimental commander in Iraq was utterly shocked to see how many supplies his regiment uses in three months when someone showed him (football fields worth). The material used by the US military in war is massive (and depending on who you read, there's a lot of waste )

yeah, it takes an absurdly large amount of material and logistics to keep an army going,

The problem with the concept that "a draft is desirable because it would make the powers that be reticent to start foreign adventures, because their families might get drafted" - is that past history has shown that the kind of people of wealth, means, means or who are in power; i.e. who are situated to make or influence these kinds of decisions are also fairly adept at avoiding a draft anyway. Those guys "have other priorities than military service."

War is wasteful in material, money and men.

Nothing good will come out of the current war.

If average Americans do not care, and they do not or we still not be there then perhaps It's time to spread the pain around..

It worked in Russia with the Afghansti, perhaps it will work here. We shall see.

Tomorrow I go to visit absent friends. More soldiers most Americans do not care about. They can no longer speak for themselves so the politicians get to lie about them once a year, or play golf.....

Here's to that lying bastard in the White House just before Veterans Day...

yeah, IM still outright disgusted with obama;s chain of lies

"well end the war"
"close gitmo"

and so on... such a travesty, he had the chance to actually change things for the better, and instead just was another empty head making empty promises...

so many apologists too, always ready to defend the lies, and give X or Y excuse why the president is "powerless" to close gitmo or end the war, or otherwise make good on promises.

he was really good at accepting a nobel prize for nothing, and taking credit for the seals kill of osama, ill give him that.

Hey guys



did you know Obama said he would end the wars and hasn't?

Just wanted to make sure someone saw that ITT

 LordofHats wrote:
There are people who join envisioning a life of hot women, exotic locals, and lots of money. Then they realize its not really that glamorous and they regret it.

Unless they become fighter pilots.

We wouldn't be drafting any of those, though.

On the upside, a draft might do something about the obesity epidemic.

 Seaward wrote:


On the upside, a draft might do something about the obesity epidemic.

We could use them in pace of sandbags We'll call it Operation Fat Shield.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
War is wasteful in material, money and men.

Nothing good will come out of the current war.

If average Americans do not care, and they do not or we still not be there then perhaps It's time to spread the pain around..

It worked in Russia with the Afghansti, perhaps it will work here. We shall see.

Tomorrow I go to visit absent friends. More soldiers most Americans do not care about. They can no longer speak for themselves so the politicians get to lie about them once a year, or play golf.....

Here's to that lying bastard in the White House just before Veterans Day...

That's not a lie he did end the Iraq like two years ago.

It's almost like politicians say whatever they have to to get elected or something, and then maybe they get around to it.

 LordofHats wrote:
It's almost like politicians say whatever they have to to get elected or something, and then maybe they get around to it.

True, but it's weird example to pick cause he did end the Iraq War, I'm sure there's plenty of examples to pick of Obama lying but that really isn't one of them.

Never let reason stand in the way of righteous fury

I'm not a big fan of the universal draft.

However, i FELL like their is some truth to the fact that Iraq adn Afghanistan (and othe rlimited wars) don't impact the average non-military citizen and hence become back-burner issues. I think a draft would change that. I mean look at Vietnam as an example of the draft leading to political backlash.

However, i don't know anything. I just feel that way.

 Easy E wrote:
I'm not a big fan of the universal draft.

However, i FELL like their is some truth to the fact that Iraq adn Afghanistan (and othe rlimited wars) don't impact the average non-military citizen and hence become back-burner issues. I think a draft would change that. I mean look at Vietnam as an example of the draft leading to political backlash.

However, i don't know anything. I just feel that way.

Iraq and Afghanistan don't impact the average civilian, but it's still civilian pressure and political backlash that forced (in Afghanistan's case, ongoing) withdrawal in both of those conflicts.

That's dumb. We don't need anyone who doesn't want to be there. The logistics are in place for anyone who wants to join to do so, and we have no problems filling quotas as is.

If actual war were to break out, we would need more Mechanics, and ordinance guys, and motor T drivers, all of which would be horrible billets for draftees. You also can't force anyone to be infantry anymore, like they did in Vietnam. There's much too much that goes into training a modern infantryman.

 Seaward wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I'm not a big fan of the universal draft.

However, i FELL like their is some truth to the fact that Iraq adn Afghanistan (and othe rlimited wars) don't impact the average non-military citizen and hence become back-burner issues. I think a draft would change that. I mean look at Vietnam as an example of the draft leading to political backlash.

However, i don't know anything. I just feel that way.

Iraq and Afghanistan don't impact the average civilian, but it's still civilian pressure and political backlash that forced (in Afghanistan's case, ongoing) withdrawal in both of those conflicts.

True. I guess elections matter!

Compulsory conscription for Military Services is morally indefensible, no matter what country you're from.

When a State demands and compels you to serve, in whatever form (Military Service, National Service), its saying that you are the property of the State, to be used and your life expended as politicians see fit. If a War is justified and reasonable, then the State should have no shortage of volunteers willing to sign up, fight and risk their lives in a War they believe is justified and worth winning. If not, then maybe its a War that should not be fought in the first place.

The State does not own you, and has no right to compel you to serve in anything.

Sadl, this seems to be the nature of modern democracy these days. Politicians and Governments see themselves as our Masters, not our Servants. This is the biggest reason I believe we (Britain) still need a Monarchy. I dread the day when an ego-centric Prime Minister / President with an over-inflated opinion of his own self worth and importance has no superior authority to answer to. Having to account for yourself to the Monarch of the UK is a good reality check for arrogant self interested politicians.