posted
steven, you're making little enough sense that I'm not going to respond until you restate your questions clearly and succinctly. Sorry. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
kqueen--my first point in your general direction was about law enforcement being somewhat like enlisted military employment. Is that not a separate category in the study you are citing?
My second point was that you really haven't done your population research. the 1970's were a population bust in the US. There hasn't been a real boom since then. There really aren't many people to draft. You'd have to draft some people with college degrees, kids, and full-time jobs to get much of a force. Vietnam only happened as a campaign because of the gigantic Baby Boom in the US in the 1940s and 1950s.
Prostate Massage. (OK, now I'm just being silly)
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For one thing, they wouldn't be able to get away with a male only draft this time. That's probably one of the reasons they're so hesitant to restart it without a really good reason.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a draft during the Civil War, as well as during both World Wars. Does your population boom theory work there, too?
And I only had the abstract, which said mostly that birth order did not seem to have much effect on employment in males or females. In males, family size didn't have much impact. In females, women from large families were more likely to work early in life (16-21) and less likely later on (22-27). Women from small families, the reverse.
quote:My second point was that you really haven't done your population research. the 1970's were a population bust in the US. There hasn't been a real boom since then. There really aren't many people to draft.
quote:a conventional tanks-and-planes takeover. Again, not likely. This didn't work for the Japanese, either, and they took us by surprise.
The only time the Japanese took us by surprise was a complete cheap shot with aircraft and maybe a few small subs (the verdict is still out on the latter). No tanks in the surprise.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
scott--I of course know you aren't being particularly malicious. However, I gotta nail you on the "no tanks" comment. Unless you are a military expert, it's really not wise to debate me on this issue. I have two close friends who went to the academies (West Point, Annapolis) and I have had to get my butt whipped in arguments with one of them about just this sort of thing many times.
Now, exactly HOW would the Chinese get their tanks across the Pacific? throught Alaska? By boat? By plane? Exactly how would that go down again? Refresh me.
Are you still asking me to prove the population issue? That was a side note. You can look all that up at www.census.gov
There are world population statistics elsewhere, if you want the link I can dig it up.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
steven, it's customary on Hatrack to link to your supporting information directly whenever possible.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That always bothered me too. Especially the thing about Anton because of how many relationships like that have failed, especially with children involved. Sadly, there is no gay switch that can be flipped to make a person straight. It's agonizing for both the gay man and his wife who may want a husband that is whole-heartedly attracted to her. As for the babies thing, it would often come on sudden and would be a bit jarring to me...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:scott--I of course know you aren't being particularly malicious. However, I gotta nail you on the "no tanks" comment. Unless you are a military expert, it's really not wise to debate me on this issue. I have two close friends who went to the academies (West Point, Annapolis) and I have had to get my butt whipped in arguments with one of them about just this sort of thing many times.
steven, you argued that their were tanks in the Japanese surprise attack. There were no tanks. Just because you know a person that says they are a military expert doesn't mean squat. YOU don't know about the military. You even said "I have had to get my butt whipped in arguments with one of them about just this sort of thing many times" which tells me YOU are no expert.
Is this West Point guy the same guy that dropped out?
BTW, I tend to think I know more than most on military issues. I'm not sure why, just a hunch.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think steven is trying to argue that the Japanese Imperial Army had tanks, not that they were used in the Pearl Harbour attacks. If so, he has a remarkably unclear way of getting his point across. Of course, I could be mistaken; maybe he believes that Heinlein's 'Sixth Column' was real history. He certainly has enough wacko opinions otherwise.
As for the Vietnam war being about reducing population : Sure, the ~50000 casualties of that war would make a huge difference to the 250+ millions of the United States. I mean, this is just ridiculous.
Finally, certainly the USSR was bankrupt. So what? Just because a liberal democracy like the USA wouldn't be able to wage war in those circumstances, doesn't mean an authoritarian state like the USSR couldn't. Look at what the Nazis accomplished in 1944-45, operating on a shoestring budget and no petrol; by any rational (at least in the West) standard they were defeated and should have sued for peace, yet they managed to stand against odds of three to one in personnel and far worse in heavy equipment, for two years. The thing about being a dictatorship resting on bayonets is that you don't actually have to pay your troops, or the people who make ammunition; you just have to keep them fed just enough to keep them alive, propagandised just well enough to fight (and this is not difficult, just look at Germany again) and policed just well enough that a large-scale revolt cannot be organised. Even the most impoverished society has enough luxuries that a small ruling elite and their immediate storm troops can be kept happy; even people living in mud huts can be bribed with a bigger mud hut. Particularly if they get the biggest damn hut in the village. It's true that the USSR wasn't going to be invading the Americas, or even Britain; but there was a very real and genuine danger of their marching to the Bay of Biscay and acquiring by far the larger part of the world's industrial potential.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ilodlean: Holy shoot!!! As soon as I saw your thread title I knew what it was about. IT WAS SO ANNOYING!!!
Posts: 161 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I found it! I found where the thread got off track! I win, right guys? .....Guys?
Yep, I think you've got it right there! Man, this thread's gone on a bit of a rollercoaster ride! And now, my futile attempt to redirect back on topic
quote: Originally posted by Ketchupqueen: Is it any surprise that we had a child as soon as we got married, and wish to have many more, and that I have worked in child care? I don't think so. And I think Petra could justifiably have the same drive to have children.
I guess my objection isn't with whether or not Petra would want to have children,but rather the manner in which the generalised 'Make babies not war' message was put forward - e.g. too blatantly and far too much.
quote: Originally posted by Synesthesia: As for the babies thing, it would often come on sudden and would be a bit jarring to me...
Exactly. The fact that it felt so jarring and out of place is what accentuated the somewhat (and this isn't the right word to be using but I can't think of a different one to use!) inappropriate conveyance of the theme. It just didn't 'feel' right to have it in there.
quote: Originally posted by TheSeeingHand Ilodlean: Holy shoot!!! As soon as I saw your thread title I knew what it was about. IT WAS SO ANNOYING!!!
Thanks for that, good to know I'm not alone!
quote: Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Then I guess you're doing it wrong.
Darn... do you know where I can get an instructional video or book on tape?
I'd comment on the military argument, but would be WAY out of my depth, so I won't.
quote:Darn... do you know where I can get an instructional video or book on tape?
That is the funniest thing I've heard in a long time-- a book on tape on the subject of the right way to make babies. Oh, so many joke possibilities...
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Sure, the ~50000 casualties of that war would make a huge difference to the 250+ millions of the United States. I mean, this is just ridiculous. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
