I find it a little disturbing the rising jingoism we are seeing in the states. Military recruitment ads are everywhere all of the sudden. It went away for a solid decade after the catastrophe of Iraq and Afghanistan, but it seems like the war drums are beating once again. The fear mongering over China has reached an absolute fever pitch, and it feels eerily reminiscent of the 2002 media blitz to justify toppling Saddam.
I have a feeling that should push come to shove china will turn out to be an overrated “power”, much like russia. I have nothing against china to be honest, i admire their determination and capacity to grow, but absolutely dislike their desire to expand militarily. While war is dangerous and undesirable for us, it is worse and even less desirable for china. If anything, their posturing will galvanise the much needed relationship between the us, free europe, and aligned nations even further. Personally i find such outcome good for us, and totally not desirable for china, russia, and other wannabe “powers”.
Unlike Russia, China actually makes stuff domestically. Like, a majority of the world's stuff, even. So their supply chain is rock solid. Also, China's corruption is a lot more.. functional.. than Russia. It oils the machine, blends with networking, rewards being a little greedy but punishes excess. And leadership is much more calculating and plans long-term. They've built on multi-decade plans successfully, frankly surpassing the West in that regard.
And finally, I think war is equally undesirable for us and China, considering we both have nukes, and direct war between nuclear powers is unacceptable. Nuclear wars have no winners.
> And finally, I think war is equally undesirable for us and China, considering we both have nukes, and direct war between nuclear powers is unacceptable. Nuclear wars have no winners.
It is a shame that china is taking the route of russia in lingering over its “glorious” past. If it would just settle it’s differences with taiwan and accept that taiwan can be like austria is for germany, allow hong kong a special status, and move on from all this petty posturing and warmongering, it would easily double its gdp and most important it would stand a chance at lifting its citizens out of poverty.
But it all boils down to the “ambitions” of insecure leaders, as in any country that takes that route.
And for me personally that makes china a huge disappointment - i really thought it could do better.
>The china spat is _nowhere_ near the prelude to iraq’s invasion.
They're just getting warmed up. The way China's legitimate concerns are just completely washed away in the American press at this point is honestly terrifying. We don't stop for even a second to wonder how we'd feel about Chinese warships cruising 12 miles off the coast of Miami, regardless of the "legality" of it. There are concessions to be made on both sides. But if cable news were to be believed, you'd think that China was actively taking over the world.
I am not simping for the CCP here. But we're starting to look apoplectic in comparison.
Until 2020, the US was part of the Open Skys treaty, which was specifically for allowing member states to fly unarmed spy aircraft in each others airspace.
China was never a member, so wasn't covered under it, but Russia was until they withdrew in 2021.
The only reason the US responded at all was internall politics. Geopolitically, we already assume that anything with line-of-sight to the sky is observable, and that this is probably good for geopolitical stability.
The difference being that France was an internationally recognised independent and sovereign country that was occupied by a foreign one.
Taiwan is drastically more complex, and de jure doesn't exist, being the loser of the Chinese Civil war, with both sides still claiming to be the one and only China (thus only one can be recognised at a time). De facto it is for all intents and purposes an independent sovereign country, but China would never allow that prestige blow (they won the Civil war, for them that means all of China, no exceptions, leaving the losers take a part of China away would be a big loss). For an American to imagine it, imagine the Confederates running away to Hawai and assimilating the locals, continuing to claim they're the legitimate government of the USA (to be fair historically they never did that, but imagine), and surviving for decades with no international recognition/trade/etc. outside of China/Russia.
The US had every right to come to the help of France. Taiwan.. is more complicated, as far as international law is concerned.
I'm not at all confident about international law, but I'm quite confident that international law had very little to do with why kids from Kansas picked up rifles to fight for France.
Because Germany declared war against the United States after their ally Japan attacked the United States? The us wasn’t the aggressor in that situation, and did not get involved when Germany invaded France.
You can't possibly think that refraining from freedom of navigation exercises near China would be a good idea. That type of appeasement would set a terrible precedent and only encourage further aggressive expansionism by China and other countries. Either the open seas are free or they're not. There is zero room for negotiation or concessions on that point.
And sailing along their coast is not aggressive expansionism, but.. what, exactly?
Furthermore, 1. UNCLOS allows coastal states to determine whether foreign ships are allowed to enjoy the right of innocent passage, and 2. the US does not even recognize UNCLOS. So much for "zero room for negotiation" - an unequivocally false statement.
The 12 nm limit is hardly "along their coast". In most cases it's not even in sight of their coast. Nothing even remotely aggressive about it.
Warships are allowed to transit foreign national waters under the right of innocent passage. They don't conduct any military operations during those transits. So again, that is obviously not aggressive.
> The US has not ratified UNCLOS. You have no right to invoke it in your defense.
You're the one who brought it up first. Also, the US generally adheres to the principles of UNCLOS, as it specifically objects to only a single section (Part XI, the International Seabed Authority).
> Article 25: 1. The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent.
But you omit this key part:
> Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention.
The Tawain Strait is more than 70 nautical miles wide, ergo, the middle part of the strait is reasonably outside the definition of "territorial sea."
There you go again, making things up. I never claimed that the USA had ratified the UNCLOS. Nor have I attempted to offer any sort of "defense" since no defense is needed. I merely corrected your errors and misconceptions.
The USA has ratified the earlier Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. You should actually read it.
I'm not sure which "Bay" you're referring to, but the US actually does tolerate Chinese and Russian warships patrolling near our territorial waters. The US Navy or Coast Guard will typically shadow the foreign warships from a safe distance just in case they do anything hostile, and to gather intelligence. This is routine and not a problem.
Russian ships sail around Europe all the time. What's your point?
I don't know why you're trying to muddy the waters here. The countries around China do not want them to expand their territory. Why are you okay with China doing so by ceasing the trips?
Legitimate concerns? How about the concerns of every country around China about China? Do they just not matter to you? Why are you washing away their legitimate concerns?
How do you propose that we maintain an all-volunteer military without recruitment?
Returning veterans are going to carry military culture back into civilian life. That's just the reality of the situation after so many years in Iraq and Afghanistan.
China is a real threat to American primacy and this time the battle is economic, but there are major military risks and we can't carry a big stick unless we keep the military in shape.
I don't know, fix the current active retention problems ranging from straight up moldy barracks to various issues with access to food and DFAC quality to toxic leadership at every level of the chain of command across the organization?
Isn’t the idea that America needs to retain its “primacy” Jingoism as well? It’s as if you are answering someone being upset (well, or don’t-like-much) about Jingoism with well, how America No. 1 if not with Jingoism?
If that's a fear worth courting WWIII over, shouldn't we have been considering the strategic importance of manufacturing stuff domestically for... IDK, the last forty years?
TBH, I wonder if it would be worth tossing off a few political flashpoints in the name of greater global stability. Hand over Taiwan on a silver platter in exchange for long-term friendship and economic concessions. Could we get to a place where the relationships between major powers is more of "a loose partnership of equals with broad leeway for dissent" rather than "the US surrounded by imminent threats to US hegemony"?
We're going to need China on our side for the next 50-100-200 years. In fact, the China that's currently being villianized is a more valuable partner than some fantasy "one day they wake up and switch to Western democracy" China, because they expand the tools available to respond to the next grand crisis.
> How do you propose that we maintain an all-volunteer military without recruitment?
Did I miss where the poster you are responding to called for maintaining an all-volunteer military, a thing that was created to allow the government to engage in military adventurism that the public would not support with the cadre + universal militia model that the US relied on for its first ~200 years?
> Military recruitment ads are everywhere all of the sudden.
It is because all branches of the military are struggling to recruit. IMHO it is because there is a mismatch in the mentality of the people at the top of the military and the people they want to enlist.
> I find it a little disturbing the rising jingoism we are seeing in the states. Military recruitment ads are everywhere all of the sudden. It went away for a solid decade after the catastrophe of Iraq and Afghanistan, but it seems like the war drums are beating once again. The fear mongering over China has reached an absolute fever pitch
You're not wrong, but not right enough. Iraq was an obvious lie, but China is an actual threat. They're quickly teching up to meet the western world and have 3x as many bodies to throw into a conflict if everything else fails.
Besides the recruiting efforts, there's less cutesy factors at play too, like the attack on abortion rights seemingly out of nowhere. Birth rates are down, which does not lend itself well to maintenance and replacement of a functional army should a conflict arise in the next three decades. Undermining abortion establishes a direct-to-military pipeline for young adults to escape desperate situations (yes, it's as ugly as it sounds-- such is war).
Nobody's going to do anything about ongoing job displacement so we'll have a lot of desperate men of fighting age with nothing else to do. We're ramping up production capability again, but those jobs will go to robots and women after we hand the men rifles and ship them out to some atoll in the middle of the Pacific. The rest of us will eventually be conscripted out of necessity since this won't be some pointless skirmish in the Falklands, which will solve the retirement and housing crises.
Gen Z will dodge the draft, embrace the Communist invaders they romanticize and experience life as subjugated citizens under occupation. Ironically, they don't really have anything to fight for. They've been conditioned to resent their ancestors, each other, and the idea of meritocracy. Let your parents die in war/childbirth and you'll net an early inheritance.
Start learning Mandarin. It'll either help you get a job on a red team/intelligence unit or help you assimilate once it's all over.
I thought the same at first but then I remember all those teenagers out there just stepping into adulthood with noone to guide them in life. They can easily get tricked into this, wasting their potential.
Yeah... but if they can be tricked into joining the military, they're incredibly likely to waste their potential on other internet traps than divert it into something productive.
This give them a couple years of (mostly) internet detox before getting sent back into it.
“Anyone who can be fooled by an internet scam should be sent to war” is faulty in two ways, given that it hinges on a young person making poorly informed decisions:
- being sent to war should probably not be the result of being young and gullible
- if we need to send anyone to war, should we send the dumbest people we can find?
If it had no downsides, it could be an easy choice. But between the dubious morality, war crimes and PTSD, it's hard to compensate regardless of the positives (money, relatively, discipline, physical fitness?)
How many military avionics technicians or dental assistants or petroleum supply specialists end up committing war crimes or suffering from PTSD? Come on.
We should be more judicious about using military forces as part of foreign policy, and provide better support to the combat troops who are deployed into impossible situations. But the majority of personnel are in low risk support jobs that aren't much different from typical civilian jobs. Lose the hyperbole.
Bullshit. Most enlistment contracts specify a particular career field. The troops in combat arms are there because they chose that option. The Pentagon isn't going to take a dental assistant and reassign them to infantry unless they specifically request that change (and meet various eligibility criteria).
Your contract specified that you wouldn’t be sent to a war zone? I don’t believe that. You might be able to find a job that’s unlikely to get you deployed.
If the US military starts wantonly changing enlistment contracts, we aren't that far from a national draft anyway, so the distinction is kind of meaningless.
> How many military avionics technicians or dental assistants or petroleum supply specialists end up committing war crimes or suffering from PTSD? Come on
In some countries, working for a criminal organization, will land you in jail.
If that were the only things soldiers did. However...
Either way, you did something good. Unlike many of your comrades. You got the lucky ticket that was the thing you were ordered to do (or offered to volunteer).
They are intrinsically morally questionable if not just plain morally wrong. Imagine someone was destroying your stuff you don't want to be destroyed or trying to end your life prematurely you'd very much like to continue. Ah, you might say, but it's not immoral when done to bad people. But you are the bad people according to someone's definition.
If you don't understand how it's more morally questionable than helping victims of natural disasters you are a way worse person than op who naturally chose to say "I saved people from natural disaster", not "I went to hot countries to kill some brown folk and destroy some of their stuff because my commander said they were bad".
I assure you that the average US soldier does not have a job nearly exciting enough to be committing war crimes. The average soldier is positioned in a nondescript base in the middle of Kansas changing HMMV tires and engine oil.
It's pretty hard to execute this job with dubious morality.
Happy to hear it worked out well for you. My point isn't to dismiss military as a career.
It's more about if you are a teenager deciding to join military because you believe the things a psyops egirl on TikTok told you, it's very likely that a series of disappointments is awaiting for you there on top of the opportunity cost of your wrong choice.
Have you seen the US army lately? Lots more programming socks and yiffing, even in the upper ranks, and not so much of the high physical requirements any more. I understand it's a great honour for Americans to die advancing Israel's interests in the region though so I must be missing something.
Hasn't the army failed to provide healthy distrust in people seeing how many times they have been exploited in various ways? Maybe they should include in training month of two of stories and example how previous members have been exploited by others...
If you join a military because of an e-girl you’re still a simp. Perhaps the ultimate simp, risking your life in an organization that doesn’t care about you on the off chance you might see a TikTok military influencer once at some organized event. Just a simp with a gun.
Wow, not a single ounce of pity in what you wrote.
These people are being manipulated because of their loneliness and you’re OK with reducing the situation to: “stupid sex starved simp got what they deserve”.
E-girls are visually stimulating to the point of uncontrollable ejaculation.
These men can’t possibly think they have a shot at having sex or even a genuine conversation with these carefully engineered influencers. They are like moths drawn to a flame. They worship these girls and fantasize about them and show their devotion by doing stupid irrational shit. Simp activities.
I don't think it's loneliness. It's like the trope of the rich guy that is addicted to hookers. I think for a lot of these men it's just an addiction, and for many others it's probably the cause and not the result of their loneliness. I'm sure there are some that are in a pit of dispair and loneliness just grasping at anything, but those people can't be helped, they can only help themselves, but they won't.
Plenty of men have gone off to war to impress a girl. It's probably the number two reason men go off to war, number one being conscription.
It's just that now, we have a sick society where most men don't have some girl in their town they'd go to war to impress. Their dream girl isn't in their math class, she's on twitch and she's made of plastic and digital filters.
Men have always been very exploitable. It is up to individual men to not let themselves be exploited. Men these days do a lot to warn other men about the dangers of being influenced by women. Whenever a man acknowledges the beauty of a woman, it imbues her with a bit more power and influence, and with social media this can scale to truly stupendous levels.
As men we need to stop this. If every man simply decided tomorrow no woman’s beauty warranted us doing anything that we didn’t already want to do, women would become powerless and we would once again take control as the masters of this world.
I don’t think this comment will be very popular, but I’m not here to say popular things, I’m here to speak truth.
People are more lonely and sexually frustrated than the past several generations, this is sexual liberation in name only. Consumerist materialism is candy not sustenance, people are venerating self destruction. We are supposed to love each other, not idolize dolls on a screen. If you can't see how that's sick then I can't help you.
People have been complaining about "kids these days" since at least 600 BC. [1] It's interesting that this illusion is so strong that people still do it, completely unironically.
I just want more productivity. I don’t really care how we achieve it. I learned about “simps” and “e girls” from the article and discussions. I much rather these people were put to use doing research or labor or on some expedition military or exploration. I see them having much more positive things to contribute to society.
We should expect more from others. And it should be okay for people to disagree, but their options should be rich enough they naturally make a better decision.
There's a difference between "we should expect more from others" and "we should force them all into the military because I personally don't like how a few of them spend their time."
Maybe consider minding your own business? We're doing fine.
Just because it has been happening for a long time, doesn't mean that any specific instance is wrong. Maybe it does increase the burden of proof though.
Again, a common excuse made by every generation. "<insert new tech here> is making them weak!!" There's a well-known xkcd about it. [1] They used to complain about bicycles.
There being an XKCD about it has zero value, it's like saying there's a Simpsons episode about it. While on the other hand, social media has a demonstrable impact on today's youth mental health, while bicycles... well.
You Americans (Russian accent) really play up generational differences and resentments by having these ready-made boxes for your arbitrary cutoffs (what’s Gen Z again, like 1998–?)
1997 is usually talked about as the start of gen z, I think. One good metric is that millennials usually remember 9/11, and gen z people usually don't.
Oh yeah, Internet jokes and whatever. Calling a 22 year-old a “Boomer” is different from unironically yelling about how kids-these-days are too soft (see the start of this thread).
Some of us in gen z don't see much of a point to killing people in real life, but don't see the harm in video games. Neither have any "real purpose" other than making money.
Most people in the military never kill anyone. In fact, most people in the army are never even in the opportunity to look at someone who they may need to kill. You're probably far more likely to be on a humanitarian mission helping out people in need than you are to be firing a gun or dropping a bomb on someone.
The purpose of the entire enterprise is killing people. I never sell anything, but that doesn't mean my job isn't making the company money, by way of making the stuff that the company sells.
That's not even necessarily a bad thing. WWII? Solid war, the Nazi's needed killing. And I like having people willing to do that on my behalf, so that I don't have to. But pretending the military is some lollipop guild that goes around spreading happiness and cheer is extremely disingenuous.
I never said it was a lollipop guild. I was pushing back against the implication that "in the military = killing people", as if it is a rite of passage or something. And no, the military actually isn't about killing people, it is merely about the threat of being able to kill people. Probably the best military in the world would be one so powerful that no one would even try to battle it.
The purpose of a country having a military is about the threat of killing people. The purpose the military itself is killing people. The military doesn't threaten, it is the threat. The same way I own a gun to defend myself, but the intrinsic purpose of the gun itself is to kill.
For real, America already brainwashes its populace into worshipping the Armed Forces and the flag anyway (cue the anecdotes saying otherwise) so why not make everybody part of it? Tie that to free college education and a 2-4 yrs compulsory service would cover the vast majority of degrees seen around here (4yrs compsci). Might even teach discipline and teach people valuable skills regarding fitness and self sufficiency.
I'm serious. On the surface it seems like I would have hated it myself, but I can't help but agree that I might have learned discipline and having a clear path through college would have been so much simpler.
(Before anyone argues that sending all youth to fight is bad (tm), other countries with compulsory service typically do not deploy people during that period. They usually get the same training but only clerical or local work).
I've read that a mandatory civil service could be good. Could be helping the elderly, cleaning parks or waterways, etc. You get out there and meet your neighbors and community. Get involved in local society.
Egirls, anime waifus. From trend of defense forums these days, I expect some recruitment in 5 years to be just tits and spicy memes. Anyone remember ISIS and thier dank nasheeds. Medium is the message or something.
It'll just be TikToks (or, sorry, the American government equivalent, after they purge the internet of the wokes and commies) remixing memes from Maxor's Metal Gear videos.
"The ironyposting is dialed up to 11, however, with Lujan’s own videos about psychological operations. In a video entitled “no one is immune to propaganda”, she even shares content laying out how the U.S. government manipulates public opinion through the media. In true Gen-Z style, she captioned another of her videos “propaganda this propaganda that let me take a propa ganda at them yitties”.
Damn 10/10 shitposting, maybe enlisting is not so bad.
139 comments
[ 0.26 ms ] story [ 207 ms ] threadAnd finally, I think war is equally undesirable for us and China, considering we both have nukes, and direct war between nuclear powers is unacceptable. Nuclear wars have no winners.
> And finally, I think war is equally undesirable for us and China, considering we both have nukes, and direct war between nuclear powers is unacceptable. Nuclear wars have no winners.
It is a shame that china is taking the route of russia in lingering over its “glorious” past. If it would just settle it’s differences with taiwan and accept that taiwan can be like austria is for germany, allow hong kong a special status, and move on from all this petty posturing and warmongering, it would easily double its gdp and most important it would stand a chance at lifting its citizens out of poverty.
But it all boils down to the “ambitions” of insecure leaders, as in any country that takes that route.
And for me personally that makes china a huge disappointment - i really thought it could do better.
Meanwhile, the only thing that's doubling in Russia is the price of butter.
They're just getting warmed up. The way China's legitimate concerns are just completely washed away in the American press at this point is honestly terrifying. We don't stop for even a second to wonder how we'd feel about Chinese warships cruising 12 miles off the coast of Miami, regardless of the "legality" of it. There are concessions to be made on both sides. But if cable news were to be believed, you'd think that China was actively taking over the world.
I am not simping for the CCP here. But we're starting to look apoplectic in comparison.
Spy balloons in your airspace is in a similar category. They weren’t armed, but could clearly spy.
China was never a member, so wasn't covered under it, but Russia was until they withdrew in 2021.
The only reason the US responded at all was internall politics. Geopolitically, we already assume that anything with line-of-sight to the sky is observable, and that this is probably good for geopolitical stability.
Taiwan is drastically more complex, and de jure doesn't exist, being the loser of the Chinese Civil war, with both sides still claiming to be the one and only China (thus only one can be recognised at a time). De facto it is for all intents and purposes an independent sovereign country, but China would never allow that prestige blow (they won the Civil war, for them that means all of China, no exceptions, leaving the losers take a part of China away would be a big loss). For an American to imagine it, imagine the Confederates running away to Hawai and assimilating the locals, continuing to claim they're the legitimate government of the USA (to be fair historically they never did that, but imagine), and surviving for decades with no international recognition/trade/etc. outside of China/Russia.
The US had every right to come to the help of France. Taiwan.. is more complicated, as far as international law is concerned.
Furthermore, 1. UNCLOS allows coastal states to determine whether foreign ships are allowed to enjoy the right of innocent passage, and 2. the US does not even recognize UNCLOS. So much for "zero room for negotiation" - an unequivocally false statement.
Warships are allowed to transit foreign national waters under the right of innocent passage. They don't conduct any military operations during those transits. So again, that is obviously not aggressive.
https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-three/
You're the one who brought it up first. Also, the US generally adheres to the principles of UNCLOS, as it specifically objects to only a single section (Part XI, the International Seabed Authority).
> Article 25: 1. The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent.
But you omit this key part:
> Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention.
The Tawain Strait is more than 70 nautical miles wide, ergo, the middle part of the strait is reasonably outside the definition of "territorial sea."
The USA has ratified the earlier Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. You should actually read it.
https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mt...
I'm not sure which "Bay" you're referring to, but the US actually does tolerate Chinese and Russian warships patrolling near our territorial waters. The US Navy or Coast Guard will typically shadow the foreign warships from a safe distance just in case they do anything hostile, and to gather intelligence. This is routine and not a problem.
Legitimate concerns? How about the concerns of every country around China about China? Do they just not matter to you? Why are you washing away their legitimate concerns?
[0] https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/04/19/...
Returning veterans are going to carry military culture back into civilian life. That's just the reality of the situation after so many years in Iraq and Afghanistan.
China is a real threat to American primacy and this time the battle is economic, but there are major military risks and we can't carry a big stick unless we keep the military in shape.
There are a few differences between eminence and extremism. One is measured by its fruits, and the other is detached from its fruits.
TBH, I wonder if it would be worth tossing off a few political flashpoints in the name of greater global stability. Hand over Taiwan on a silver platter in exchange for long-term friendship and economic concessions. Could we get to a place where the relationships between major powers is more of "a loose partnership of equals with broad leeway for dissent" rather than "the US surrounded by imminent threats to US hegemony"?
We're going to need China on our side for the next 50-100-200 years. In fact, the China that's currently being villianized is a more valuable partner than some fantasy "one day they wake up and switch to Western democracy" China, because they expand the tools available to respond to the next grand crisis.
Did I miss where the poster you are responding to called for maintaining an all-volunteer military, a thing that was created to allow the government to engage in military adventurism that the public would not support with the cadre + universal militia model that the US relied on for its first ~200 years?
Why talk about this like it's an end in itself? There's an opportunity cost involved
Other NATO countries combined spend less than the US. At what point is it enough?
You're not wrong, but not right enough. Iraq was an obvious lie, but China is an actual threat. They're quickly teching up to meet the western world and have 3x as many bodies to throw into a conflict if everything else fails.
Besides the recruiting efforts, there's less cutesy factors at play too, like the attack on abortion rights seemingly out of nowhere. Birth rates are down, which does not lend itself well to maintenance and replacement of a functional army should a conflict arise in the next three decades. Undermining abortion establishes a direct-to-military pipeline for young adults to escape desperate situations (yes, it's as ugly as it sounds-- such is war).
Nobody's going to do anything about ongoing job displacement so we'll have a lot of desperate men of fighting age with nothing else to do. We're ramping up production capability again, but those jobs will go to robots and women after we hand the men rifles and ship them out to some atoll in the middle of the Pacific. The rest of us will eventually be conscripted out of necessity since this won't be some pointless skirmish in the Falklands, which will solve the retirement and housing crises.
Gen Z will dodge the draft, embrace the Communist invaders they romanticize and experience life as subjugated citizens under occupation. Ironically, they don't really have anything to fight for. They've been conditioned to resent their ancestors, each other, and the idea of meritocracy. Let your parents die in war/childbirth and you'll net an early inheritance.
Start learning Mandarin. It'll either help you get a job on a red team/intelligence unit or help you assimilate once it's all over.
Tl;dr they're trying to pressure high schoolers into JROTC with stuff like automatic enrollment
This give them a couple years of (mostly) internet detox before getting sent back into it.
But sure, if they don’t lose a limb, die or become traumatized and kill themselves it’s not a bad life course.
We should be more judicious about using military forces as part of foreign policy, and provide better support to the combat troops who are deployed into impossible situations. But the majority of personnel are in low risk support jobs that aren't much different from typical civilian jobs. Lose the hyperbole.
In some countries, working for a criminal organization, will land you in jail.
Good luck bombing anything without mechanics or gasoline, and medical staff helps lower the perceived stakes of war (however slightly).
I rendered humanitarian assistance that saved lives in the wake of the Sumatra earthquakes. My friends have done the same after the Japanese Tsunami.
We don't have to take the (rather overwhelming) bad with the slivers of good.
Either way, you did something good. Unlike many of your comrades. You got the lucky ticket that was the thing you were ordered to do (or offered to volunteer).
What do you mean by that?
Neither of those things is necessarily morally questionable.
If you don't understand how it's more morally questionable than helping victims of natural disasters you are a way worse person than op who naturally chose to say "I saved people from natural disaster", not "I went to hot countries to kill some brown folk and destroy some of their stuff because my commander said they were bad".
It's pretty hard to execute this job with dubious morality.
It's more about if you are a teenager deciding to join military because you believe the things a psyops egirl on TikTok told you, it's very likely that a series of disappointments is awaiting for you there on top of the opportunity cost of your wrong choice.
I don't see how it could possibly backfire in the decades to come when those guys come out to start their actual lives. /s
These people are being manipulated because of their loneliness and you’re OK with reducing the situation to: “stupid sex starved simp got what they deserve”.
Wanting sex or being lonely isn’t wrong, it’s a human need.
E-girls are visually stimulating to the point of uncontrollable ejaculation.
These men can’t possibly think they have a shot at having sex or even a genuine conversation with these carefully engineered influencers. They are like moths drawn to a flame. They worship these girls and fantasize about them and show their devotion by doing stupid irrational shit. Simp activities.
It's just that now, we have a sick society where most men don't have some girl in their town they'd go to war to impress. Their dream girl isn't in their math class, she's on twitch and she's made of plastic and digital filters.
As men we need to stop this. If every man simply decided tomorrow no woman’s beauty warranted us doing anything that we didn’t already want to do, women would become powerless and we would once again take control as the masters of this world.
I don’t think this comment will be very popular, but I’m not here to say popular things, I’m here to speak truth.
What's sick about that? Feelings are temporary, death is permanent. Your definition of a "not sick" society is a sick one by my book
I mean, yeah, but you're sort of just taking one mental image and assuming that's the rule and not the exception
Worst case scenario they can live out some gundam fantasy while having a sense of real purpose and duty.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6795513/
We should expect more from others. And it should be okay for people to disagree, but their options should be rich enough they naturally make a better decision.
Maybe consider minding your own business? We're doing fine.
[1] https://xkcd.com/1227/
Oh yeah, Internet jokes and whatever. Calling a 22 year-old a “Boomer” is different from unironically yelling about how kids-these-days are too soft (see the start of this thread).
That's not even necessarily a bad thing. WWII? Solid war, the Nazi's needed killing. And I like having people willing to do that on my behalf, so that I don't have to. But pretending the military is some lollipop guild that goes around spreading happiness and cheer is extremely disingenuous.
I'm serious. On the surface it seems like I would have hated it myself, but I can't help but agree that I might have learned discipline and having a clear path through college would have been so much simpler.
(Before anyone argues that sending all youth to fight is bad (tm), other countries with compulsory service typically do not deploy people during that period. They usually get the same training but only clerical or local work).
The military has tried all sorts of things. Current USMC ad.[1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9gTAjbiQEM
In fact, I’d be more interested in an example of any military in history that didn’t use some sort of promise of fornication in recruitment.
Ads for the British Forces are a bit more modest and don't present bombing as some kind of heroic action.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWQafHqfNy0
https://www.mintpressnews.com/simp-to-soldier-e-girls-milita...
Fair game, it’s Creative Commons.
https://twitter.com/rordonb/status/1653977289049399296/media...
Damn 10/10 shitposting, maybe enlisting is not so bad.