Plus nomenclature and terminology around war is backwards and confusing.
Let me explain.
Conventional conflicts(WW1, WW2, Korea, Iran-Iraq 80-89, etc) requiring big human numbers are incredibly and increasingly uncommon.
Unconventional conflicts(Iran-US, 40+ yearS and counting) requiring fewer/better trained humans are incredibly and increasingly common.
This is an ongoing unconventional war entering its 5th decade with roots extending back 7 decades(Mossadegh coup in 1953 Iran) and incongruent ideological conflict extending back millenia.
And even IF there were a draft, the vast majority of fighting aged men and women are dangerously unsuitable for military service due to very poor average health and fitness.
IF there was a draft, the overwhelming majority would fail to meet minimum entry health & fitness criteria.
So the pay goes down, the work becomes forced, and non-military technology innovation continues to pay the same high rate as before and you think this would be an efficiency gain? The government can't just will cheaper work into existence by saying it, everything has its cost eventually.
If your goal is to cut costs then just lower budgets. If your goal is to get people because nobody wants to then maybe you shouldn't be at war since nobody wants to support it.
And yes, you're civilian skills are considered for your role in most any military. Most places just don't have mandatory service.
If there’s a massive cyber attack on US infrastructure, I certainly hope there won’t be more cyber security experts defending Netflix and Porhhub than the nations power grid.
There has already been a constant massive cyber attack on US infrastructure going on for years and it will never stop. Throwing more security experts at the problem won't necessarily solve anything.
Of course there will be. "It may not happen overnight, but it will happen."
Wars of choice (i.e. most US wars) can be turned on and off when required. Those can be waged without needing to use the draft.
Other wars, that continue with a determined opponent (Vietnamese War, for example), can not be turned off unilaterally and must proceed till a defeat or victory.
Those wars will always require a draft if "the war situation has developed not necessarily to [the US's] advantage". (Paraphrasing Hirohito's Speech regarding Japan's surrender.)
13 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 28.3 ms ] threadCombat mass is no longer about raw human numbers.
Plus nomenclature and terminology around war is backwards and confusing.
Let me explain.
Conventional conflicts(WW1, WW2, Korea, Iran-Iraq 80-89, etc) requiring big human numbers are incredibly and increasingly uncommon.
Unconventional conflicts(Iran-US, 40+ yearS and counting) requiring fewer/better trained humans are incredibly and increasingly common.
This is an ongoing unconventional war entering its 5th decade with roots extending back 7 decades(Mossadegh coup in 1953 Iran) and incongruent ideological conflict extending back millenia.
And even IF there were a draft, the vast majority of fighting aged men and women are dangerously unsuitable for military service due to very poor average health and fitness.
IF there was a draft, the overwhelming majority would fail to meet minimum entry health & fitness criteria.
Nevertheless, maybe there should be.
Not mass enlistment for large scale combat, but drafting people who have critical technical skills should be considered.
The current approach of filling gaps in technical knowledge with contractors is toxic.
If people have rare, technical knowledge necessary to safeguard our country, they should be required to be in the reserves.
I believe Switzerland has a system where citizens hold a role in the military analogous to the civilian position.
That’s a great freaking idea.
to safeguard Dick Cheney. FTFY.
If your goal is to cut costs then just lower budgets. If your goal is to get people because nobody wants to then maybe you shouldn't be at war since nobody wants to support it.
And yes, you're civilian skills are considered for your role in most any military. Most places just don't have mandatory service.
But the 5 Eyes militaries don’t do a very good job of leveraging civilian skillsets of their Reserve/National Guard soldiers, sailors, and airmen.
We talk about it all the time, and we try, but we haven’t been consistently successful.
A few halo casts to brag about?
Absolutely.
But consistently?
Nope.
Tons of latent intellectual and SME value waiting to be captured and focused.
Conscription works in some countries like Switzerland and Israel.
But it is like a “life tax”.
Several years of productive life involuntarily “taxed” by the state.
It does provide positive benefits such as buy-in, having made a tangible sacrifice for society.
As a volunteer soldier, I think we might be better served with having more ways to enter the military part-time.
Think more corporate uniform contractor than camouflage uniform locked into indentured servitude for esoteric skillsets.
Wars of choice (i.e. most US wars) can be turned on and off when required. Those can be waged without needing to use the draft.
Other wars, that continue with a determined opponent (Vietnamese War, for example), can not be turned off unilaterally and must proceed till a defeat or victory.
Those wars will always require a draft if "the war situation has developed not necessarily to [the US's] advantage". (Paraphrasing Hirohito's Speech regarding Japan's surrender.)