Insightful Op-Ed piece that explains why we need a draft.
- Thread starter Dave
- Start date
- Status
Wait, you're in favor of a stranger hitting your child
Dave
Staff member
Spanking. Yes. Not beating.
I honestly don't feel that discipline through violence is a good message to give to children. I don't have any kids myself, but I was a kid once, and I was never spanked growing up.
Now that I think about the free college and mandatory reserves a bit more, I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't resolve some of our gun problems - everyone would receive a physical and mental health check. Now these aren't perfect, but they will probably catch a lot more people for issues that would prevent gun ownership than we are catching now.
But, honestly, I don't think it would ever happen. Just making this sort of thing mandatory is going to raise a significant privacy ruckus. "What, the government gets blood samples and fingerprints for every US citizen? Not on my watch!"
But, honestly, I don't think it would ever happen. Just making this sort of thing mandatory is going to raise a significant privacy ruckus. "What, the government gets blood samples and fingerprints for every US citizen? Not on my watch!"
How exactly do you plan on funding this free college?
The same way universal healthcare is being funded, by fairy dust!
A draft is good for establishing a sizeable reserve of moderately trained personnel. A professional/volunteer force can normally be trained to high levels.
What I think it boils down to is what is most useful for the military defence of your country. If the security challenges you face call for a big reserve, a draft is a good option. If you are best served with a high-tech force requiring extensive training, volunteers may be better. Domestic politics and social engineering are very much secondary considerations in my opinion, and best kept as separate as possible from the running of military affairs. The more non-military aspects you saddle the armed forces with, the more you run the risk of ending up with a watered-down compromise military that doesn't fully satisfy any of the requirements.
Or at least those are my initial impressions on the matter.
I must say that my own experience with the finnish conscript military was not quite so bad as yours. Of the conscripts, there were a few people who liked being there, and a few who had significant problems with military life, but the attitude of most of the rest was pretty neutral and something akin to "well, we're here, so let's just get on with it". I personally found discipline and morale to be more of a factor of the leadership qualities of both the professional and conscript military leaders.
What I think it boils down to is what is most useful for the military defence of your country. If the security challenges you face call for a big reserve, a draft is a good option. If you are best served with a high-tech force requiring extensive training, volunteers may be better. Domestic politics and social engineering are very much secondary considerations in my opinion, and best kept as separate as possible from the running of military affairs. The more non-military aspects you saddle the armed forces with, the more you run the risk of ending up with a watered-down compromise military that doesn't fully satisfy any of the requirements.
Or at least those are my initial impressions on the matter.
All the while it does up the numbers while maintaining reasonable costs. Which solution is better depends on the threat environment, I think.
I must say that my own experience with the finnish conscript military was not quite so bad as yours. Of the conscripts, there were a few people who liked being there, and a few who had significant problems with military life, but the attitude of most of the rest was pretty neutral and something akin to "well, we're here, so let's just get on with it". I personally found discipline and morale to be more of a factor of the leadership qualities of both the professional and conscript military leaders.
That's the thing with universal conscription, the troops start off being just as fit and well-adjusted to military life as the average young man on the street. Though I don't remember any truly hopeless cases; those probably went the conscientious objector route.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. Some 80% of finnish men have done their military service, which is one of the few things that they have in common. Whether you are a private or a general, you crawled through the same mud in boot camp, and everybody's neck is on the line if shit gets real. While I imagine the communal spirit is not quite what it may be in more exclusive clubs like the US Marines, I think it still exists, and regardless I believe the time spent in the military does give the conscript a greater understanding of and stake in military affairs.
I agree entirely. If the draft is re-insituted, it should be done for military reasons, not socio-political ones.
If Vietnam taught us anything, it's that those people won't be going to active combat even if there is a draft.
I think this is my primary issue with a draft. Unless you can ensure that the rich and powerful don't get exempt, a draft is just a meat-grinder for questionable military actions.
Sadly as it stands now it's the only viable option for the poor.
I feel like Jonathan Swift had a more efficient solution.
eating the rich is better imo
GasBandit
Staff member
Nah, you get leaner meat off the indigent.
Nothing is quicker and cleaner than a neutron bomb. It will speed up the gentrification of urban areas by seven times...
GasBandit
Staff member
Actually I was very disappointed when I learned that neutron bombs are not quite what had been described to me - a device that kills all life with no explosion to damage buildings or infrastructure - they still cause nuclear blasts, just in the kiloton range instead of megaton.
on second thought, kill me now
fade
Staff member
I don't spank because of personal experience. My dad spanked, my mom grounded. Spanking was scary, but I preferred it because it was done and over with. It didn't feel like much of a deterrent. It didn't have any lasting effects. Grounding though--I wasn't afraid of it per se, but I dreaded it, and I never forgot it.
Firstly, different punishments suit different children differently. Secondly, this also partially applies simply to age. Spanking a 16-year-old is beyond useless, while trying toground a 6 -month-old is equally nonsensical.
There are alternatives both ways; personally, I tend to think that, in a lot of cases, especially with small children, a short sharp rap on the hand or something similar is far and away the easiest way to inform them they're doing something wrong (as in, trying to touch the stove, slap their hand away, feel pain, don't try to touch the stove again). Once they're old enough to reason with (say, 4 or 5), spanking or whatever loses much of its use - and there are always exceptions and extremes both ways.
That said, grounding never felt like punishment to me. I didn't have tv or computer in my room, and occasionally my parents even took away my books and, in the end, my light, and I was still perfectly content to sit in my room all by myself for 8 hours on end. Of course, I may not have been the average kid
GasBandit
Staff member
Spank to firmly, unconditionally get their attention, followed by grounding/timeout to make sure it sticks.
- Status