posted
Manpower available for military service: males age 16-49: 375,009,345 females age 16-49: 354,314,328 (2008 est.)
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Manpower fit for military service: males age 16-49: 313,321,639 females age 16-49: 295,951,438 (2008 est.)
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm scared of any country with ICBM nuclear weapons that aren't 100% allied with us. Mostly this means Russia and China. I couldn't care less how many troops they have.
The fact that there is a non-zero chance of nuclear war in my lifetime is unacceptable to me. Especially since I live in arguably THE prime nuclear target (Omaha has both stratcom and Offut airforce base).
Why it isn't unacceptable to everyone else is somewhat confusing for me.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that even if someone thinks it unacceptable, they might think the current state of affairs is among the least unacceptable, and that any attempt to remove the possibility of a nuclear war is more likely to cause one than prevent one.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember my other fear, an easy thing to accomplish, my other fear might cause russia, or another agrressive country near china, or china itself, to premptively strike other countries which could bring china into a large land war. this would require a large number of troops. China can draw upon more troops than are in the US (double our population). All china needs is the techology to stop ICBM from flying, and a leader with the will and want to control asia.
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:All china needs is the techology to stop ICBM from flying
We talking star wars tech here? All currently proposed missile defenses are easily overwhelmed by a massive strike.
quote:China can draw upon more troops than are in the US (double our population)
Large numbers of troops all massed together make wonderful targets for bomber planes. I am not scared of troops so long as our air power is currently so vastly superior to any other nations.
Troops matter a great deal, when attempting to occupy. I have a hard time believing any American leader is dumb enough to try that.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Manpower available for military service: males age 16-49: 375,009,345 females age 16-49: 354,314,328 ...China can draw upon more troops than are in the US (double our population).
Which is a good thing. Eating Chinese just makes Americans end up hungry again a half hour later.
quote:Manpower fit for military service: males age 16-49: 313,321,639 females age 16-49: 295,951,438
See that. 61,677,706males and 58,362,890females already gone due to the influx of American tourists for the BeijingOlympics. Hopefully the host won't be embarrassed by running out before ClosingCeremonies.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keep in mind that "fit for military service" does not equal "in the military." It would take a tremendous amount of funds and time to train and upkeep an army of a half billion people. Plus the fact that most of those that would make up that amount of people would be conscripts. Versus a volunteer force of a fraction the size, a drafted army is much less effective.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
eeerm thats incorrect. The Prussian Army crushed its neighbours using a primarily conscripted army.
Volunteer/Drafted make no difference training and preparation is what is important.
IP: Logged |
posted
Of course training and preparation is most important. Do you take me for an idiot?
There is no military leader that will take an untrained army against a well-trained army and expect success. This principle goes back to the beginning of warfare and is THE integral mindset of nearly every standing military. The principal is so fundamental that it's not worth discussing other than to say that both sides in the debate agree that it IS fundamental.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: eeerm thats incorrect. The Prussian Army crushed its neighbours using a primarily conscripted army.
Volunteer/Drafted make no difference training and preparation is what is important.
Thanks for setting us straight, despite you lack of actual, real world knowledge. I will make sure the US Army is notified that what they have taught, and what the past 30 years experience has shown in actual battle, is completely wrong.
Preparation is usually higher in a volunteer armed force because everyone there is there because they signed up for it, and they don't feel completely forced into service. A conscripted army is better than none, but every military expert I have read agrees with Scott.
What works in a video game isn't always what works IRL, and the motivation of a volunteer armed force is MUCH higher than in a drafted one.
Training is a basic need for all armed forces, drafted or not.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: eeerm thats incorrect. The Prussian Army crushed its neighbours using a primarily conscripted army.
Volunteer/Drafted make no difference training and preparation is what is important.
Thanks for setting us straight, despite you lack of actual, real world knowledge. I will make sure the US Army is notified that what they have taught, and what the past 30 years experience has shown in actual battle, is completely wrong.
Preparation is usually higher in a volunteer armed force because everyone there is there because they signed up for it, and they don't feel completely forced into service. A conscripted army is better than none, but every military expert I have read agrees with Scott.
What works in a video game isn't always what works IRL, and the motivation of a volunteer armed force is MUCH higher than in a drafted one.
Training is a basic need for all armed forces, drafted or not.
Firstly I was briefly a member of the Canadian Armed Forces so stuff it down your piehole.
And secondly you base this on what? Faerie tales? It is impossible to actually ascertain the difference in moral between a predominantly volunteer force and a predominantly conscripted one, HOWEVER its been shown perfectly clearly that conscripted armies don't "lack" moral or overall effectiveness. The German army in WWII was arguably one of the most effective armed forces in the world even when being pushed back and defeated in 1944-1945, Paul Kennedy points out that with the massive disparities in economic output in terms of war material its a wonder that Germany held on for as long as it did, signifying that German training, organization and operational doctrine was far more efficient and for a lack of a better term as I don't remember his exact words "better" then the Soviet mechanized waves, American enthusiastic forward rushes or the British set piece battlefield order of battle.
All of this despite fielding a (by 1944 anyways) conscripted army. This I think is the best possible example but there are others.
The British Army in the Napoleonic Wars were "All Volunteer" at least in theory but they had their ass handed to them by Napoleon in Spain (General John Moore's Army), the war only turned on France due to a combination of economic exhaustion, a depleting pool of manpower due to a botched invasion of Russia AND nearly all of his enemies utilizing conscript armies in response. Prussia for example fielded 300,000 by 1820 through English financial assistance.
In short while Heinlein would be flattered to see you support his argument for all volunteer army, in reality, you know the real world there is no distinguishable difference between a conscript army and a volunteer army in terms of either effectiveness or moral if given about the same level of training.
A volunteer is just as afraid of dying as a conscript when the bullets start flying.
The historical examples of conscript armies doing terrible can be pathetically easily explained as being a result of bad or lack of training, lack or poor equipment, corrupt or incompetent officer corps and an even worse government, any combination of these factors explains the defeat of any conscript army.
Now I can also find (albeit pre 20th century) examples of the failures of volunteer armies, besides the aforementioned British defeat at Corunna, the American Revolutionary army last I checked was volunteer and it got trashed on more then one occasion heck I think you have more thanks to the French then your own fighting to explain why you won in the end (note, I know there are additional important factors).
I shall also gleefully point out that the American "Volunteer" force in Iraq is cracking at the seems largely I suspect to a lack of adequate manpower to properly cycle combat weary troops, which you geussed it conscription would fix (mostly).
I should 'also' point out a rather surprising discovery, apparently the People's Liberation Army while in theory conscripts everyone of 18 is drafted for military training however such a draft has apparently never been enforced due to a large number of volunteers not surprising considering its military capable manpower of 500,000,000 but surprising in the sense I never knew about it before.
So the point of that is if you had any thoughts of somehow (as the States) as having some sort of imagined qualitative advantage via better moral by having a volunteer force you would be again mistaken as the Chinese Army is also it would seem a volunteer force in practice if not in theory.
IP: Logged |
posted
Woah I just posted a Wall of Text! DOOM!
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Mucus you couldn't have possibly read all of that and thought on it to elicit a "sigh" response in the time it took me to post the WoT post.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Also, Mucus do you have MSN? I understand that we have differences in opinion I do however find that we don't too broadly disagree all that much and would appear to have some common ground, I was hoping I could talk to you on MSN and maybe see if we could reach some more common ground. And since you live (I think) in Hong Kong it would be most helpful in expanding my contacts in China. my msn is blayne DOT bradley AT gmail.com
IP: Logged |
quote:heck I think you have more thanks to the French then your own fighting to explain why you won in the end (note, I know there are additional important factors).
At least you mixed some comedy in there to try and make it more entertaining.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Are you complimenting me or are you dissing me through sarcasm, I actually cannot tell.
IP: Logged |
posted
I served well over six years in my country's military, Air Force and Army as well as a short stint in the National Guard. So, let's leave personal military experiences aside. This is not about who served with what army, when and for how long. While that gives certain perspectives, it does not give anyone the right to claim their opinion as the absolute.
I will quote you here:
quote:The historical examples of conscript armies doing terrible can be pathetically easily explained as being a result of bad or lack of training, lack or poor equipment, corrupt or incompetent officer corps and an even worse government, any combination of these factors explains the defeat of any conscript army.
By this exact same logic, you can explain away ANY defeat of ANY army. Conscript or not. This is the second moot point you have made to prove something very trivial.
There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of variables that go into every battle. For instance:
-Weather -Morale -Food -Materiel -Landscape -Distance to home -Distance to supply -Support from home -Discipline -Leadership -Loyalty
...and on and on. Each variable has tens or hundreds of sub-variables. One need only read the first few pages of The Art of War to get a glimpse of the complexity.
I don't believe anyone has effectively concluded that an army was successful BECAUSE they were conscripts. Or, for that matter, BECAUSE they were volunteers. There will always be some variable from the battlefield that gave the winning side their win.
However, it has been proven time and time again that certain things are easier in a volunteer force. Such as morale, which is easier to maintain, because the men are there by will not by force. Secondly, the use of the death penalty is almost nil in an army which volunteers for service. Even the United States used the death penalty in both world wars to maintain discipline. There is a famous quote that I've heard dozens of times, "Masses of men cannot be led to death unless the command has the death penalty in its arsenal."
If it were possible to have two armies meet on a battlefield, one drafted one volunteer, where all the other variables were identical (i.e. level ground for hundreds of miles, still winds, identical weapons that never failed, no reinforcements, equal supply lines, etc.) My money would be on the volunteer force every time.
Now Blayne, please make an argument that cannot be disproved by your own logic.
*edited to clarify my hypothetical.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I based my comments on real life training and experience...I was in the Army for 3 years, my aunt was the #1 Marine expert on Rapid Mobilization for Desert Storm and for years after in Quantico, and 4 other members of my family have served in the Armed Services.
Unlike you, I do not base my observations on Heinlein.
What you have to say completely runs against all the training I have received, the officers training in all modern military schools, and every RL example I know of in the past 30 years..
The US Army isn't cracking...it has won every major engagement it has had in Iraq. The reasons for failure there have little to nothing to do with a failure to achieve military objectives.
I never said that conscripts were useless. What I said was that a volunteer armed force is more effective overall because of better morale, better training, and higher expectations. They are less likely to rebel, and are more dependable and usually better trained.
Think what you want (if you can call it thinking at this point), but your attitude and lack of real life knowledge doesn't impress anyone, and your attitude towards others makes them far less likely to listen to any points you try and make.
Shutting my "pie hole" wouldn't make you right, you know. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Firstly I was briefly a member of the Canadian Armed Forces so stuff it down your piehole.
You were a wannabe trainee for a week or two before you realized you couldn't hack it. You may want to back down a bit on the claiming to be a military specialist based on this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not enraged, or angry at all. I just disagree with him, and don't appreciate being told to shut my pie hole by someone who couldn't even make it past basic training.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe we should just try to avoid going to war with China (or for that matter Russia), and not have to face their ICBMs or overwhelming man power. I'm not aware of any particular reason we would be going to war with China any time soon, though I am glad for another hypothetical impending war to freak out over.
So why are we going to war with China in this thread?
Posts: 2332 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: ...don't appreciate being told to shut my pie hole by someone who couldn't even make it past basic training.
Do we actually know if this is true?
Marek, the debate is about the effectiveness of conscripted armies versus volunteer armies. The thread isn't a page long yet, I'd suggest you get caught up.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would join the army if I felt my country was in danger.
If the chinese felt pressure from russia (russia has been more aggressive lately) then a leader could use this to further chinese power.
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did not base anything I have said on Heinlein that is very ignorant of you, Heinlein is of the belief that a country that cannot win a war from volunteers alone deserves to get destroyed for not having a patriotic enough populace. Your views while not this extreme do lean in this direction.
And oh yes continue the logical fallacy of attacking the opponent rather then the argument, so far thats all you've really done Kwea.
Now my argument is not disproved by own logic it is a stretch to do so, when I said conscript armies historically were usually defeated because of X factors this is true and doesn't disprove my argument. May not prove it through your nitpicking but it certainly doesn't "disprove" it.
Now let us look back at your argument assuming all factors are equal you believe that an army that is conscripted will always do worse then an army that is volunteer based.
Now ignoring the simple fact that this is a logical fallacy in of itself and does nor adds nothing to the debate even if true because in real life this would never ever be the case it is just plain wrong even then. Not only that but serves as a convenient ploy to avoid the historical truth that volunteer armies have not proven to be some magic bullet historically or mystically better, a volunteer dies or runs away just as often as a conscript.
A volunteer army may give the impression of having superior moral because they can claim "I signed up!" the psychological effect of the bullets flying are still the same this is what proper training is supposed to suppress, when you state if all factors being equal the volunteer force will win I say nay, you will get a stale mate because moral is not a decisive factor.
This isn't Hearts of Iron where the opposing army broke and fled because its moral broke first as long as training and leadership are equal you will only get a stalemate.
And considering the United States hasn't had a draft in years I hardly think you can make the comparison and magically claim volunteer forces are better in terms of moral.
IP: Logged |
quote:Not only that but serves as a convenient ploy to avoid the historical truth that volunteer armies have not proven to be some magic bullet historically or mystically better, a volunteer dies or runs away just as often as a conscript.
This is a completely, blatantly and dumbfoundingly unsupported claim. History proves time and time and time again that when you force a man to fight for something he does not believe in, he will abandon the cause the second the opportunity presents itself.
quote: when you state if all factors being equal the volunteer force will win I say nay, you will get a stale mate because moral is not a decisive factor.
First of all moral and morale are completely different things. I will take this argument as if you we're saying "morale." I never once said that morale was the one thing that decides battles. In fact that is completely contrary to my entire point. My point is that there are countless variables that decide battles. I gave morale as an example only, that's it.
At any rate, I tire of this debate. You have unsuccessfully rebutted me three times and have not proven your point. I keep thinking you will shake my foundation, but you've done nothing but cite wars and battles that prove nothing.
So please, in your next post prove to me that you know what you are talking about and that you're not just taking the other side for the sake of arguing.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, people arguing against you haven't called the advantages of a volunteer army a "decisive" factor, but a factor.
They haven't said a volunteer army will magically win because it's made up of volunteers, they've made a logical argument that it has been shown that certain things tend to be better with volunteer armies, and that those things are among the factors that contribute to military succcess.
If you want to show that conscripted armies suffer no disadvantage from the conscription, you'll have to do more than compare how conscripted armies have fared in various battles. You'll have to show that they wouldn't have fared better than they did in those battles if they had been composed of volunteers.
To doggedly rephrase, there's a solid (though deliberately narrowly focused) argument you're ignoring here: that volunteer armies have some differences from conscripted armies, and those differences are factors that contribute to overall success. Can you refute that argument? Your refutation will have to have a similarly narrow focus. (This is why the hypothetical of "all else being equal" was rhetorically useful, and why it was wrong of you to dismiss it.)
(Begging forgiveness if I've misconstrued or oversimplified anyone else's points.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can pitch in as well....while I dislike a draft, there can be things about one that are positive.
Compulsory service means everyone between specific age guidelines all serve...Israel is one of the more famous examples of this...and it means that in some specific situations that Armed Forces are considered more stable. Particularly in cases of civil war, as there would be a cross section of American's serving, for example. The Armed Force would be less likely to attack other American's based on faulty orders.
Also, there is something to be said for everyone serving....economic factors would be less of a driving force than what we currently have. The majority of our armed forces enlisted people come from economically disadvantaged households, and a lot of people wonder if that factors into our national policies at times. Would we be less likely to go to war if the President's sons (or daughters) were forced to serve? Or if most congressmen had been veterans?
Those are just two of many points brought up in favor of some sort of service requirement. I just don't think it outweighs the fact that most required service is of shorter terms than the average enlistment period, malking training more expensive and less intensive on average.....among other factors, of course.
The fact of the matter is that with the US's Armed Forces as they stand now, we have one of the best trained, most highly educated forces in history. People are often surprised how educated they are, actually, and I think that is a very good thing. It means we can be reasonably sure they can learn new skills as needed, and they can adapt of new circumstances.
It also means they have a potential future when they get out. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
First of all I said "morale" if I said "moral" then it is a typo, this should have been understood through my history of not spelling unnecessarily correct 100% of the time.
Next, it is equally and blatantly unsupported that conscripts are somehow unreliable, unreliability in a conscript army is almost always historically due to poor training and lack of discipline in the unit not because they were drafted.
Now your arguing in a circle, yes it is a given that there are many variables I have read the Art of War as well I know this, but morale is not a decisive factor, is a factor but a factor that is easily trivial with proper training, leadership and equipment. Military training instills a sense of teamwork and togetherness into the soldiers of the unit, squad, platoon, company, battalion, brigade and will almost always have the same results regardless of it being a volunteer or conscript formation.
quote: If you want to show that conscripted armies suffer no disadvantage from the conscription, you'll have to do more than compare how conscripted armies have fared in various battles. You'll have to show that they wouldn't have fared better than they did in those battles if they had been composed of volunteers.
I have to do no such thing, this is a fallacy and faulty reasoning.
The argument is "volunteer forces do better then conscripts" my counter argument is "any difference is negligible in any real world conditions"
This in actuality is indisputable just as your argument is unsupportable. There IS no factor that actually proves that volunteers have greater success rate because historically there isn't one, there has never been an even fight between a conscript army and a volunteer force on equal terms in at least training, equipment, and leadership. Never.
The argument of "well in even conditions..." STOP this is faulty as it has never happened and never will happen unless Russia and USA fight or Germany and USA.
I am not saying that an volunteer force is less suitable for combat I am saying that a conscript force does just as well and an oversimplification to state that conscript armies are somehow inferior to a volunteer army.
IP: Logged |
quote: First of all I said "morale" if I said "moral" then it is a typo, this should have been understood through my history of not spelling unnecessarily correct 100% of the time.
I don't know you, I know very few people's routine spelling mistakes, those are: my boss, my wife, and myself. It is a courtesy to spell things correctly, especially if the misspelling of the word you are using changes the meaning of the word.
quote: Next, it is equally and blatantly unsupported that conscripts are somehow unreliable, unreliability in a conscript army is almost always historically due to poor training and lack of discipline in the unit not because they were drafted.
You agree that you made an unsupported claim. That's a start.
quote: Now your arguing in a circle, yes it is a given that there are many variables I have read the Art of War as well I know this, but morale is not a decisive factor, is a factor but a factor that is easily trivial with proper training, leadership and equipment. Military training instills a sense of teamwork and togetherness into the soldiers of the unit, squad, platoon, company, battalion, brigade and will almost always have the same results regardless of it being a volunteer or conscript formation.
I agree, but that training will be accomplished in very different ways in the different armies, and will take hold in different ways.
quote: I have to do no such thing, this is a fallacy and faulty reasoning.
It is not fallacy to demand a person defend their arguments with factual reference.
quote: The argument is "volunteer forces do better then conscripts" my counter argument is "any difference is negligible in any real world conditions"
Be careful when you quote people. Especially when you get it wrong. I said, "Versus a volunteer force of a fraction the size, a drafted army is much less effective."
You quote yourself of something I'm seeing for the first time. Bad form.
quote: This in actuality is indisputable just as your argument is unsupportable. There IS no factor that actually proves that volunteers have greater success rate because historically there isn't one, there has never been an even fight between a conscript army and a volunteer force on equal terms in at least training, equipment, and leadership. Never.
I agree, in fact I made that same point earlier.
quote: The argument of "well in even conditions..." STOP this is faulty as it has never happened and never will happen unless Russia and USA fight or Germany and USA.
This is not faulty and has been defended independently. Plus, a war between US and Russia/ Germany will not ever give the results you specify.
Blayne, there is nothing new in what you just posted. So I'm done. Thanks for the mild comedy.
posted
This was done long ago, you just refused to listen.
Firstly, the training of a drafted army and a volunteer force is nearly always the same.
Secondly, what factual evidence are you demanding? So far you have provided none to support that a volunteer force has or could done better then a equivilently trained and equipped conscript force.
quote: Be careful when you quote people. Especially when you get it wrong. I said, "Versus a volunteer force of a fraction the size, a drafted army is much less effective."
Name me one circumstance where this has been correct where the training, leadership and equipment were of equal calibre. Name me one historical circumstance to prove this.
Next, Russia and germany both have drafted armies, decent equipment, and top notch training and leadership, theoretically it would give the results in theory.
You are done because there is nothing you can say.
IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't done because you said so. You don't know what you are talking about, and it gets more and more obvious each time you claim victory without providing substance.
At this point it is a moot point. It because one once you claimed that two or three weeks in the Canadian Armed Forces made you some sort of expert....despite the fact you were a wash-out.
Once again...you claiming something...or claiming expertise in something even...isn't the same as it being true. Repeating it doesn't clarify, or prove your points.
It just makes people less likely to take anything you say seriously.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: If we went to war with China, who would make all our stuff?
Silly girl, why would we stop buying our stuff from them and why would they stop selling? They like our money just as much as we do. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
