On the American Armed Forces & Militaries in General

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Lady Sabine, Apr 10, 2014.

?

What is your stance?

  1. pro-military & pro-war

    1 vote(s)
    9.1%
  2. pro-military & anti-war

    5 vote(s)
    45.5%
  3. anti-military & pro-war

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. anti-military and anti-war

    2 vote(s)
    18.2%
  5. Uncertain

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Meaningless button for people who just want to push a button.

    3 vote(s)
    27.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I had a rather interesting discussion with the rest of my JROTC (a military training class offered to 14-18-year-olds in public high schools) unit the other day. A disparaging comment was made about "anti-war hippies", or something of the like, and to the surprise of everyone else I defended the viewpoint. Apparently, it's unusual to be pro-military but anti-war.
    This really shocked me, I have to admit.
    I come from a long military tradition. Both grandfathers served- my opa was an Airman, drafted for the Korean War and sent to Greenland; my PaPa was a Lt. Colonel in the Army, drafted twice for Vietnam before he went career. My boyfriend is a Petty Officer 3rd Class in the Navy, stationed in Pearl Harbor as we speak. I've been in JROTC myself for four years now, though I don't intend on enlisting or being commissioned post-university. I am very much pro-military. These are also some of the reasons I am very much anti-war.
    War is Hell. War is violent, expensive, and often futile. War is the worst thing for any military, and one of the worst things for a country. I think that, 99% of the time, war is not the answer.
    Some people seem to think that these two opinions must conflict each other. I disagree. I am pro-military because of the 1%, because if we need it I want us to be completely and utterly prepared. And I am pro-military because war is just one of many functions a military can serve. Recently, navies from around the world came together peacefully to search for the missing flight 370. The American Armed Forces are often the first on scene in major disasters such as tsunamis, earthquakes, and hurricanes. Having a well-trained and well-equipped unit of physically and intellectually prepared service members is important for so much more than just war.
    One thing, however, confuses me. Even for those who believe that a military's primary (and perhaps only) function is combat, how can that opinion coexist with being pro-war? You can't be pro-steak and pro-cow, pro-savings and pro-spendings.

    Am I the odd one out here? ;_; My entire platoon thinks I'm insane now; what about you guys?
     
  2. It depends on the situation; I'm definitely pro-military because countries need to be defended

    But the cause of a war, how it is waged, how it is funded, all of these things are variable

    Personally, I think applying absolutes (X is always bad, Y is always good) is a fairly ignorant approach to sensitive subjects like this.
     
  3. Personally, I think it's ignorant to assume that generalizations = absolutes, but what do I know? XD Unfortunately, covering every single instance on a case-by-case basis is impractical for a debate thread.
     
  4. I think that you can be very pro-military and anti-war.

    Let's look at World War I, also known as 'The Great War' (because back then, nobody really guessed that there would be a second one), and what it cost the world.

    You are looking at an estimated $18.6 billion. What that is divided by all the countries involved I am not sure, but war isn't a cheap thing to invest in. that being said, the world, or at least some of it's countries, can really afford to wage it anymore. I sure the hell know a couple of countries that are suffering debt wise since the first world war. And that is just saying the financial issues that war brings; nobody tells you about the loss of businesses, or how the people turn out after the war (or even during it) has ended.

    This does tie into the financial part of it, but in a different way. Debt brings taxes, so there's less money in the pockets of citizens. And for some, that's all it takes to sink in the poverty line. No kidding the people that war destroys; the homes and every lovely thing that follows (by lovely I mean terrible). Being in the military doesn't mean that you want war to happen, it's a job. without the military, other things like disaster relief and peacekeeping. many soldiers are anti-war themselves.

    That's my two cents.
     
  5. I apologize if I hurt your feelings, my comment was not intended as a personal attack, or as an attack at anything. I just meant that this subject goes deeper than 'x is bad and y is good', and that it is wise when discussing such matters to give heed to the gray areas and variables.
     
  6. Precisely! You look at the cost alone, and you can get a whole lot of diplomacy done for that much money. Hell, it's cheaper to bribe than fight, and that's if you consider human lives absolutely valueless. In a modern world, though, the loss could be so much worse. With offshoring and outsourcing, most first world countries are no longer capable of fighting total wars as we once knew them. The UK of 1914 could produce most of what it needed for the war; the UK of 2014 couldn't make a quarter. The USA is even worse; Japan worst off of all. Like everything else, Made In China would likely be stamped across the bottom of millions of items vital for the war effort. Heaven forbid anyone went to war with China- even if they could produce all of their own combat & support materials, the consumer markets would founder overnight. Wal-Mart would be more screwed than any character Sean Bean plays. Wal-Mart is estimated to have saved tens of millions of dollars for American below the poverty line. If prices of simple consumer goods rose just 10%, the bottom part of Western civilizations would go from crawling along to completely stalled.
    The metal collection drives, war bond sales, lack of tights & hose, rations... 1940's citizens sacrificed a lot. It would be nothing compared to a total war of the same scale fought today. In a way, perhaps, nuclear ultimatums are a blessing. No one dares start an invasion-level war with the thread of ICBMs making retaliation easy and potentially the end of all human life.




    No feelings hurt. I hope you don't mind that I used your same vocabulary. ^^
    While there are obviously a thousand shades of grey, I wouldn't consider it overly simple to say that most people either like or dislike most greys. For example, most vegetarians are either OK with other people eating meat or oppose anyone eating meat, but most would consider medical necessity/strong cultural values/type of meat to be extenuating factors. In principle, however, it's reasonable to say that they are either pro- or anti- meat.
     
  7. Well, ignoring the need for off-shore plants and production centers, I don't really think people understand just how little munitions a country has out of a major-scale conflict. If there were to be a WW3 - excluding WMDs - I don't believe anyone would last longer supply-wise after one engagement similar to the Battle of the Bulge. Wars just aren't built like that anymore. Shock-and-awe, war-winners, and other techno marvels and lightning war are what drive the modern environment for what determines winning and losing. I actually got interested in that with World War Z, in which a portion covered that human warfare was two factions tugging for the emotional and physiological breaking point. And that's relatively true today, it's just faster and all more "impressive".

    Next is the national support to drive a full war-drive like there was in WW2. I doubt any nation (let alone America) is willing to go back into full war-drive production, let alone another draft. And even if a nation did possess both the national resources and the means to make them into tanks and bullets and rifles, they're simply harder to make now. Soldiers in the 40's did not rely on cruise missiles, helicopters, jets, and other technologies we have today. So even if there was a mass-scale conflict, it would be slow to start up, if it would even drag beyond the first few punches.

    But excluding that, I am torn between the need for war or not. There is absolutely a need for the military, because if nothing else, it can get a wayward college student into a schedule and into mental shape. It allows for disaster aid, general defense, and a sense of protection that may not even be needed. But war, in all its terror and general hellishness has had its better moments. WW2 dragged the world out of a recession, brought about the United Nations, and brought down the idea of imperialism. The Napoleonic Wars expanded education and infrastructure to all of the areas Napoleon conquered. Good is capable of coming from it, but the main question is "Is it worth it?" And to that, I can't honestly say.
     
  8. I can't say I'm extremely religious, but I do value Buddhist philosophy and in an ideal world I would be anti war anti military. I do think that you should treat everything with kindness, yet I am also accepting. If someone wants to just fire rounds in other peoples bellies all day then so be it, I won't be offended. Since this is not an ideal world, however, I understand the need for a military, especially in a country like the United States.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.