Do members of the military get too much respect? What profession do you respect the most?

[Thaluikhain]

I would like to point out that a couple of you seem to think that very few service members overseas actually put their lives in danger or see combat, that's only partly true; and yes I'm just talking from my own experiences here. The post office on one FOB I went to was named for a 42A (human resources) soldier who was killed in a mortar attack. The dining facility on another FOB was named for a female soldier also killed in a mortar attack, I don't know what her job was. My point is, everyone over there is exposed to some kind of danger at one time or another. For example the C-130 I took from Kuwait to Balad, Iraq caught fire before it left the ground, not for combat related reasons, it just happened. On JBB the area I lived in got mortared about every other day. Yeah it's not the ground combat that the combat arms guys see everyday, but it's still danger and it's still real.

I think the problem with people saying that only a fraction of military personnel see combat is that it implies you get to decide for yourself if you are part of that fraction. Which is why I've always said that if I was going to join up, it'd be in NORFORCE, unless we were doing WW2 again and my nation was under immediate threat by Axis or Axis like forces.

 

[RaikuFA]

i respect everyone whos served their country and thats how it should be

 

[Volkov]

Being the world's dominant power gives you all sorts of options that could/should (not necessarily are) used to increase those things, though.

Not really. I heard the argument that having an overwhelmingly strong military improves economy by virtue of encouraging free trade, but I've never seen anything approaching actual proof for that (and I did look, I was interested). Having a strong/large military CAN have a somewhat similar effect for plan-based economies, but never for capitalist or regulated capitalist ones.

That's the thing, "global power", "position on the world chess board" and so forth is not at all the same as quality of life of civilians, and the two are really not related. Or if they are, there is not serious proof of that (if you provide a paper that shows otherwise, I will read it, because I have been looking for one).

There are many and varied reason why Australia hasn't been attacked, but powerful and warlike allies such as the US is a definite factor.

I don't think this is true. I would, however, say that Australia NOT being warlike is a definite factor. Correlation vs. causation, etc.

Again, not saying I agree with that the line of thinking which requires such a massive expenditure, but there are reasons for it.

This I agree with completely. I just don't think these reasons have anything to do with quality of life of civilians, and are instead concerned, partly, with the enormous military industrial complex, and even more so with the massive propaganda tool that the international status of the US military has turned into. In other words, (seriously) reducing the expenditures on US military is just about impossible for any single politician, even if it's absolutely the right thing to do.

I think we've been discussing this wrong though. I've been saying that having an overwhelmingly strong military has absolutely zero effect on civilians' quality of life, you are saying it has a small positive one, but may not be worth it. I think the latter is a better way of looking at it - what matters is the ratio of increase (assuming it's an increase, which is not actually guaranteed) to quality of life to money invested into the organization. I.e., quality per dollar. I think here you and I agree that the number is far too low to justify investing any more, even if we can't quite agree on its magnitude.

 

[Xin Baixiang]

That man was a coward - myself and every Marine I know agree. He took an oath that he then reneged on because he didn't want to go and then he dared to use morality to justify it. For your information, there are laws allowing a soldier - sometimes compelling him - to disobey an unlawful order from a superior officer. Refusing to deploy is not one of them.

Pff. Who needs a moral compass when you have direct orders?
"You do as you are told, soldier! We talked about that 'using your brain' issue."

Seriously, from reading this thread I was starting to think that the army-men weren't brainless bots, then you came along. Good show.

Did...did you read the second part of the paragraph you quoted? I received all sorts of training explicitly telling me that I was OBLIGATED to say, "No sir, I will not shoot that child to win you a 20 dollar bet. I'm sorry, but I think maybe we should go talk to the commander about your needing some decompression time." We do actually think. We use the grey matter for all sorts of reasons, and it takes a pretty disturbing misreading of the text, again, you quoted to see something else.

 

[Silenttalker22]

Some funny discussion by people, scorning military respect, utterly convinced they know what they're talking about. Funny, funny stuff.

 

[Volkov]

In the Marines, at least, your rifle has probably belonged to at least five other Marines before you, and is in shit condition. We don't get the best funding.

Could you plz. provide a source that would actually state, though, that the reliability of infantry weapons is noticeably lower than it should be? Ideally not a word-to-mouth one?

 

[StarCecil]

That man was a coward - myself and every Marine I know agree. He took an oath that he then reneged on because he didn't want to go and then he dared to use morality to justify it. For your information, there are laws allowing a soldier - sometimes compelling him - to disobey an unlawful order from a superior officer. Refusing to deploy is not one of them.

Pff. Who needs a moral compass when you have direct orders?
"You do as you are told, soldier! We talked about that 'using your brain' issue."

Seriously, from reading this thread I was starting to think that the army-men weren't brainless bots, then you came along. Good show.

Brainless, how? I recognized, when I swore to defend the United States, that there would be times that I might not feel one hundred percent about the job. And there were times when I sincerely wished that I could quite. But I didn't, because I take pride in myself - pride that means I will do as I promised to do. That soldier didn't want to go because he wanted to pick and choose when he got to do his job. That's not how the military works.

As I said, there are instances when a soldier can refuse an order - and there are instances when military law compels him to - but this was not one of those instances.

 

[StarCecil]

In the Marines, at least, your rifle has probably belonged to at least five other Marines before you, and is in shit condition. We don't get the best funding.

Could you plz. provide a source that would actually state, though, that the reliability of infantry weapons is noticeably lower than it should be? Ideally not a word-to-mouth one?

I don't know that if I can find an actual source that says, word-for-word that your issue rifle isn't reliable (they are only as reliable as the maintenance you give them) but all our rifles were used before. Some came in poor condition, but most were reliable. Why do you ask?

 

[AmayaOnnaOtaku]

Nurses. Seriously they work crazy hours and literally break their bodies to care for others while the doctor gets all the credit

 

[Xin Baixiang]

Nurses. Seriously they work crazy hours and literally break their bodies to care for others while the doctor gets all the credit

There was this one nurse who...well, she broke her body for me and Torak's Beard did I feel grateful after that weekend.

 

[Right Hook]

I've never really been swayed by the whole "soldiers are heroes" argument.

If they were directly protecting their homeland against foreign invaders, then yes, that would be pretty damn heroic. If WW3 started, then every last soldier who fought to protect my country would earn my eternal respect. Hell, I'd probably enlist myself.

But soldiers fighting in current conflicts? I don't wish to sound ungrateful here, but somebody who goes to far-flung countries to kill the natives and is driven more by the pay than a pressing need to protect the motherland... isn't that the definition of a mercenary?

That's about the best answer you'll get, not to mention that all of these guys signed up to do this, nobody forced them, they could have been something else. I think they get too much respect from some people but at the same time I think others give them too much crap. I don't agree with this seemly senseless bloodshed but I don't need to be a dick to every soldier I meet, everybody is allowed an opinion and I can be friends with someone who I don't see eye to eye with on everything. I'm not extra nice to my mail man but I'm not a jerk to him either, he is just doing his job that he chose to do, it's really the same thing.

 

[Volkov]

Sorry, that part was intended to be tongue in cheek. The rifle that I was issued was used by someone before me. That individual, unfortunately, was sent home for being...not entirely well. So I ended up with their weapon, and the armory sergeant informed me that the weapon was "cursed". We all had a good laugh at that.

While word-to-mouth is better than nothing, I am sure you recognize that this is in no way good enough basis to make a statistically statement like "usually". Again, I dealt with the system myself (would prefer not to discuss details), and based on my experiences, I would be very surprised to see >50% of the weapons, even if just infantry weapons, be measurably unreliable. Can I get an actual source for this? (I am not saying that my word-to-mouth is better than yours, it's not, but that doesn't make yours good enough).

As for lowest bidder, that's how military contracts work. It's standard for the companies interested in the manufacturing of military goods to "outbid" each other with lower bids until the lowest bidder gets the contract. They then jack up their price and delay shipment to earn more money. It's capitalism, it's how it works.

First, it's far from always the lowest bidder that gets the contract. Second, a good portion of the work, especially R&D, is done by national labs, which are not even considered private contractors. Third, again, based on my personal experiences with the system, this is not how it worked.

 

[Volkov]

Could you plz. provide a source that would actually state, though, that the reliability of infantry weapons is noticeably lower than it should be? Ideally not a word-to-mouth one?

I don't know that if I can find an actual source that says, word-for-word that your issue rifle isn't reliable (they are only as reliable as the maintenance you give them) but all our rifles were used before. Some came in poor condition, but most were reliable. Why do you ask?

To verify the original statement I was responding to. Which it sounds like one can't, because based on what you said (and my impressions from a few years back), it seems false.

 

[Greni]

That man was a coward - myself and every Marine I know agree. He took an oath that he then reneged on because he didn't want to go and then he dared to use morality to justify it. For your information, there are laws allowing a soldier - sometimes compelling him - to disobey an unlawful order from a superior officer. Refusing to deploy is not one of them.

Pff. Who needs a moral compass when you have direct orders?
"You do as you are told, soldier! We talked about that 'using your brain' issue."

Seriously, from reading this thread I was starting to think that the army-men weren't brainless bots, then you came along. Good show.

Did...did you read the second part of the paragraph you quoted? I received all sorts of training explicitly telling me that I was OBLIGATED to say, "No sir, I will not shoot that child to win you a 20 dollar bet. I'm sorry, but I think maybe we should go talk to the commander about your needing some decompression time." We do actually think. We use the grey matter for all sorts of reasons, and it takes a pretty disturbing misreading of the text, again, you quoted to see something else.

Sure, that extreme example of the child is all well and good, but to call a man a coward for not going into a fight he does not believe in is incredibly foolish. Going into a fight you do not believe in because some nutter in a uniform says you have to is equally foolish.

Not killing a child for 20 bucks and not going into a battle you think is wrong are both situations where you make up your own damn mind. Repressing one but upholding the other is just as brainless as repressing both.

 

[Xin Baixiang]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt%27s_Manufacturing_Company

They designed the sidearm and M4 that I used. They aren't DoD.

To Greni:

No, that's really not how this works. You don't get to decide that a war is illegal, we have courts for that. And if the courts were saying the war was illegal, I'd be fine with people not fighting in it. As, strangely, the courts have not ruled it illegal, I'm going with "breach of contract for 500 Alex".

 

[StarCecil]

Could you plz. provide a source that would actually state, though, that the reliability of infantry weapons is noticeably lower than it should be? Ideally not a word-to-mouth one?

I don't know that if I can find an actual source that says, word-for-word that your issue rifle isn't reliable (they are only as reliable as the maintenance you give them) but all our rifles were used before. Some came in poor condition, but most were reliable. Why do you ask?

To verify the original statement I was responding to. Which it sounds like one can't, because based on what you said (and my impressions from a few years back), it seems false.

Oh, it was definitely meant to be humorous. It's sort of a running gag to complain about how shitty your gear is. The Marines get the least pay outside of the Coast Guard (but no one makes video games about them, so fuck 'em) and so we have a lot of gear that you can tell has seen better days. Rifles, though, are hard to break and if you do you can be issued another one or have it repaired (but you'll face hell out of time from your CO for it).

 

[Volkov]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt%27s_Manufacturing_Company

They designed the sidearm and M4 that I used. They aren't DoD.

None of the organizations that provide equipment, be it MREs or naval reactors, are DOD, so I am not sure what you meant by that. But did their contracts come from DOD? (Or other defense and national security-related govt agencies?) Sure.

Edit: And my point is that that money could generally be MUCH better spent elsewhere.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Sure, that extreme example of the child is all well and good, but to call a man a coward for not going into a fight he does not believe in is incredibly foolish. Going into a fight you do not believe in because some nutter in a uniform says you have to is equally foolish.

He/she knew that was a possibility when they signed up, though. In any case, if that person doesn't go to that war, various other US personnel still will. Would you let someone else take the risk you've signed up for (admittedly, so has the other person)? I'm not military myself, but I know that you don't let your mates down.

I think we've been discussing this wrong though. I've been saying that having an overwhelmingly strong military has absolutely zero effect on civilians' quality of life, you are saying it has a small positive one, but may not be worth it. I think the latter is a better way of looking at it - what matters is the ratio of increase (assuming it's an increase, which is not actually guaranteed) to quality of life to money invested into the organization. I.e., quality per dollar. I think here you and I agree that the number is far too low to justify investing any more, even if we can't quite agree on its magnitude.

Well, I wasn't saying that it did have a positive effect, only that convincing sounding arguments have been made that it does by people in favour of the military.

Not being a political, economic or military expert, I can't really say one way or the other, only that such arguments exist.

I would say, though, that the people who count themselves experts in such things who make the arguments, who condemn the Democrats and all who vote for them as idiots or traitors, tend to completely overlook any issues about gay rights, racism, sexism and the like.

National security is all well and good, but there are other securities people should be worried about.

 

[Xin Baixiang]

I really can't find a source that shows common statistics for misfire vs. proper fire, I only have what I experienced which is, as anything original research and not really reliable in a statistical discussion.