Ask HN: Would you participate if there were a draft in your country?
8 comments
> the US troops that have for so long enabled European
> governments to spend money on healthcare are now just a
> thin, semipermeable membrane between Russia and their
> safe, little garden
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#French_withdrawal plus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France
Also: France, Germany, UK and Italy spend as much combined as China does, ignoring the rest of the European countries.
Also: your fantasy that European healthcare can be afforded due to American military spending is offensive, wrong, and appears to be a bewildered reaction to "How are we the only rich country who have screwed up our healthcare provision so badly?"
very cute. your numbers are interesting. if you read your history, you will see that a certain coal mining consortium in the '60s and '70s decided to leverage an abiding presence of foreign troops into providing massive social programs for their citizenry despite the crippling effects of a huge, costly war. I said healthcare, but the reality is also roads, bridges, buried power lines, etc. By not having to fund standing armies, the governments of Europe were free to do a lot that i wish my country did for us.
I'd say sorry you were offended, but i find your frustration comical, so i guess i will say thank you instead.
I'd say sorry you were offended, but i find your frustration comical, so i guess i will say thank you instead.
I realize that Wikipedia is some kind of socialist conspiracy plot, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e...
And the standing army thing is ... odd. Related: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_...
And the standing army thing is ... odd. Related: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_...
God i hope so. At least someone is winning on the intellectual team.
As i see it happening, if there was a land war it would be fast and devastating in a very pointed way. Arguably suicidal incursions into city centers by specops chaps and gung ho paramilitary types using drones and wire cutters and wearing all manor of different uniform or guise. Then it is the blitz. This advance must occur before and effective air assault can be made.
All this to say it would go from peace to war in a matter of minutes to hours depending on your position. I don't see the Army of the Union responding very well to that.
This is all off topic really though, because i am more interested on the perspective of life through the war. That is why i asked. My answer changes like the wind.
So, what would you do?
As i see it happening, if there was a land war it would be fast and devastating in a very pointed way. Arguably suicidal incursions into city centers by specops chaps and gung ho paramilitary types using drones and wire cutters and wearing all manor of different uniform or guise. Then it is the blitz. This advance must occur before and effective air assault can be made.
All this to say it would go from peace to war in a matter of minutes to hours depending on your position. I don't see the Army of the Union responding very well to that.
This is all off topic really though, because i am more interested on the perspective of life through the war. That is why i asked. My answer changes like the wind.
So, what would you do?
> By not having to fund standing armies, the governments of Europe were free to do a lot that i wish my country did for us.
AFAIK, the only European country that doesn't fund a standing military (besides some of the microstates, like Andorra) is Iceland.
AFAIK, the only European country that doesn't fund a standing military (besides some of the microstates, like Andorra) is Iceland.
> Europe's long vacation is over; the US troops that have for so long enabled European governments to spend money on healthcare
Every OECD country, and probably every country in Europe outside of the OECD, as well, spends less -- and this is true whether in total, per capita, or per GDP -- than the US on healthcare, because they have systems that are more efficient than the system in the US.
Every OECD country, and probably every country in Europe outside of the OECD, as well, spends less -- and this is true whether in total, per capita, or per GDP -- than the US on healthcare, because they have systems that are more efficient than the system in the US.
As I'm barely out of draft eligible age (over 35), I don't have to worry about it.
That said, I very much believe that 1) the US would quickly fill its 2.5 million troops needed, but also that 2) we wouldn't ever really need them.
To point 1) our military force is already insanely large, to the point that military recruiters turn away (or at least, don't rabidly pursue) recruits that aren't supremely eligible. They could probably get half of the 2.5 million needed just by calling back would-be recruits that are 'on ice', meaning, they're passively being recruited, but there are more qualified applicants ahead of them, so the US just keeps them in contract limbo.
To point 2) the US military is large. It would take China actively recruiting (or secretly expanding) their eligible-for-service and rapidly training them before there was even a real potential for being outmanned.
That said, if China were 'fully engaged' they've got ~600 million persons eligible for service[1], and could likely overwhelm the US in a full on assault, if that was their only objective.
This is a fun (though perhaps dated) military force comparison chart that illustrates overall, potential and other types of manpower available to nations: [1] - http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison.asp
That said, I very much believe that 1) the US would quickly fill its 2.5 million troops needed, but also that 2) we wouldn't ever really need them.
To point 1) our military force is already insanely large, to the point that military recruiters turn away (or at least, don't rabidly pursue) recruits that aren't supremely eligible. They could probably get half of the 2.5 million needed just by calling back would-be recruits that are 'on ice', meaning, they're passively being recruited, but there are more qualified applicants ahead of them, so the US just keeps them in contract limbo.
To point 2) the US military is large. It would take China actively recruiting (or secretly expanding) their eligible-for-service and rapidly training them before there was even a real potential for being outmanned.
That said, if China were 'fully engaged' they've got ~600 million persons eligible for service[1], and could likely overwhelm the US in a full on assault, if that was their only objective.
This is a fun (though perhaps dated) military force comparison chart that illustrates overall, potential and other types of manpower available to nations: [1] - http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison.asp
I was just perusing that chart myself when i read your comment. Bangaladesh... who knew?
I think you are not taking into account the real necessities and logistics of an actual war. The cost of the Kerfuffle on Terror would be a pittance, both in lives lost and in wealth use, compared to a shooting war in East Europe.
I think you are not taking into account the real necessities and logistics of an actual war. The cost of the Kerfuffle on Terror would be a pittance, both in lives lost and in wealth use, compared to a shooting war in East Europe.
oh, also, given the expanded capability of remote control warfare and logistics, a government could conceivably push the edge of eligibility to at least 50, maybe higher.
I would also make the argument that all humans are cousins, meaning we are all one family, meaning a draft in any or all countries is a big deal, but i bet i would be called crazy.
I would also make the argument that all humans are cousins, meaning we are all one family, meaning a draft in any or all countries is a big deal, but i bet i would be called crazy.
You make a salient point with the invention of the remote drone, but if I'm betting on it, I'd wager the bigger worry is them taking the draft age DOWN to tap into that primo gamer demographic.
Holy shit, hide the children, the government is after their thumbs.
So would you do your 2 years Social Service or hide/ignore or leave?
So would you do your 2 years Social Service or hide/ignore or leave?
It would depend on a rather lot. I hate to be "THAT GUY", where the answer to a hypothetical is always more and more questions, but if it were right now, I'd have a hard time supporting American imperialism more than I already do with my taxes, especially as it currently seems hell bent on restricting, removing and or curtailing my individual rights.
Our foreign policy has been, to put it gently, sloppy of late, and I have a hard time imagining that the kind of response you're describing as necessary isn't going to be seen historically as a "gross overreaction".
So, the best I can answer at this point is "unlikely".
Our foreign policy has been, to put it gently, sloppy of late, and I have a hard time imagining that the kind of response you're describing as necessary isn't going to be seen historically as a "gross overreaction".
So, the best I can answer at this point is "unlikely".
No. I disagree with military draft for several reasons, not least that it tends to produce a belligerent force of malcontents that are much more likely to really fuck things up.
Also, is there really any point in being cannon fodder in a nuke fight?
Besides, I think your analysis is a bit mental.
US troops that have for so long enabled European governments to spend money on healthcare
The US government spent more on healthcare per citizen that the European governments do, even during the Bush years. You then spend a shit-ton more privately. It isn't the existence of US troops that enable European governments to provide healthcare. Providing healthcare this way is just cheaper overall.
Also, is there really any point in being cannon fodder in a nuke fight?
Besides, I think your analysis is a bit mental.
US troops that have for so long enabled European governments to spend money on healthcare
The US government spent more on healthcare per citizen that the European governments do, even during the Bush years. You then spend a shit-ton more privately. It isn't the existence of US troops that enable European governments to provide healthcare. Providing healthcare this way is just cheaper overall.
I see your point, but i am not so sure you understand how expensive force maintenance really is. Healthcare is just one cost, as well as training, logistics, etc. By not having to maintain a standing army, there is a huge amount of available capital to spend on whatever.
I think it is a good thing, by the by, i just wish more Eurofolk were aware of how intertwined our countries are. Often times, it feels as if all that ever gets talked about is the 'bad' the US does, and the loudest tend to be the biggest beneficiaries of the 'evil' empire.
I think it is a good thing, by the by, i just wish more Eurofolk were aware of how intertwined our countries are. Often times, it feels as if all that ever gets talked about is the 'bad' the US does, and the loudest tend to be the biggest beneficiaries of the 'evil' empire.
You have no idea what you are talking about in the slightest. The EU maintains several standing armies and has around 100,000 more active serving personnel than the US does.
Typed huge response. Thought better of it. You may be right, but i do not think you are.
Here, I know it is from wikipedia which is a crap source, but the numbers are referenced:
US active serving personnel - 1,369,532 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces
EU active serving personnel - 1,453,028 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union
edit - one thing to keep in mind is that although US expenditure is 2.5 times larger than the EU, much of that historically was spent on weapons rather than troops as it was directed towards trying to bankrupt the USSR by the meta-game of convincing them to play the game of arsenal oneupmanship, while having deeper pockets.
US active serving personnel - 1,369,532 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces
EU active serving personnel - 1,453,028 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union
edit - one thing to keep in mind is that although US expenditure is 2.5 times larger than the EU, much of that historically was spent on weapons rather than troops as it was directed towards trying to bankrupt the USSR by the meta-game of convincing them to play the game of arsenal oneupmanship, while having deeper pockets.
You know, you could write a pretty decent novel with this train of thought.
The Fourth World War: A Retrospective
or
Losing Humanity
or
我們贏了
or
Losing Humanity
or
我們贏了
I would object in the US, and volunteer in either Ukraine, Denmark, or Germany.
Why?
I feel like at that point, any objections to serving under the Evil Empire would be supplanted by the greater possibility of winning, and thus surviving under them.
Why?
I feel like at that point, any objections to serving under the Evil Empire would be supplanted by the greater possibility of winning, and thus surviving under them.
I do not believe in good and evil. I do believe that Denmark kicks ass, and i believe that free* thought and liberal socialism is worth fighting for.
Also, Denmark.
Also, Denmark.
Edit: the 'healthcare' comment was asinine. I wish i had said shift the majority of their budgets to conflict logistics. Sorry, emotional ameribro.
[deleted]
The Story: Pretend the world stands on the edge of massive conflict.It has been 100 years since the last time this situation occurred, and all the theorists and politicians and bankers say it is impossible, so you continue to focus on your job and/or education when Boom! Another airliner is brought down, this time on camera. Gleeful partisans cheer and hold up abused teddy bears soaked in jet fuel. Every news agency starts spewing jingo like it is a game. Suddenly, the EU shuts down the Eastern flank of fortress Europe. The US shifts half of its Navy to either ocean. The 180000 plus soldiers in Central Europe go on to the frontline. bIn the US, roughly 2.5 million jobs need to be filled to balance the shift in forces after all reserves and Guards are called up. Europe's long vacation is over; the US troops that have for so long enabled European governments to spend money on healthcare are now just a thin, semipermeable membrane between Russia and their safe, little garden. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Denmark, Germany, Holland, France, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Byelorussia, Canada, the US: if you are in one of these countries, and you get a notice, would you serve or object?
If you are in the Rodina or any of the loyal slavic satellites, would you join, serve, or object?
I know this disregards a huge chunk of the human family. My apologies.
I would object in the US, and volunteer in either Ukraine, Denmark, or Germany. I would try to get a tech/recon position. I would try to emigrate to Denmark when it was all said and done, if it ends and if there is a Denmark.