Military service

Originally Posted by Apollo

Sex is fraternization and that is prohibited. I just took this from Wikipedia to explain why it isn't allowed.

Well, I might be ignorant here, but to the best of my knowledge fraternization concerns two people of a different class "fraternizing." If both the individuals are soldiers, how is this precisely fraternization?

I suppose I can understand some of the concerns behind fears of a romantic relationship complicating what would otherwise be normal military conduct. However, would a romantic bond complicate matters in a combat situation anymore than, say, the close bond soldiers develop with one another anyway?

Originally Posted by Apollo

Sex is fraternization and that is prohibited. I just took this from Wikipedia to explain why it isn't allowed.

whether or not sex is prohibited has nothing to do with my question, which is how does sex have anything to do with segregating men and women? Are you suggesting that putting men and women in the same place automatically leads to sex? Can men not have sex with men, or women with women?

Originally Posted by Raptor Buddha

Well, I might be ignorant here, but to the best of my knowledge fraternization concerns two people of a different class "fraternizing." If both the individuals are soldiers, how is this precisely fraternization?

I suppose I can understand some of the concerns behind fears of a romantic relationship complicating what would otherwise be normal military conduct. However, would a romantic bond complicate matters in a combat situation anymore than, say, the close bond soldiers develop with one another anyway?

Again I'm gonna refer to wikipedia here.

Within militaries, officers and members of enlisted ranks are typically prohibited from personally associating outside of their professional duties and orders. Excessively familiar relationships between officers of different ranks may also be considered fraternization, especially when between officers in the same chain of command.

Well that would only be true if everyone is having sex with everyone. So bonds occur that make you have a preference of one person over another.

Normal squad bonds would be of a team more equal presumably.

Originally Posted by Lysis

whether or not sex is prohibited has nothing to do with my question, which is how does sex have anything to do with segregating men and women? Are you suggesting that putting men and women in the same place automatically leads to sex? Can men not have sex with men, or women with women?

If you put men and women together there will be sex. It would require me to believe that these people are super human (or asexual) to think that they wont be having sex in close quarters.

Yes if you segregate them by gender people homosexuals can have sex, but homosexuals are a minority.

Moved to SD, it's looking like this thread belongs there moreso than GCC. :>

Originally Posted by Apollo

Well that would only be true if everyone is having sex with everyone. So bonds occur that make you have a preference of one person over another.

Fair enough. So it depends upon the situation and the governing regulations.

Normal squad bonds would be of a team more equal presumably.

If you put men and women together there will be sex. It would require me to believe that these people are super human (or not human) to think that they wont be having sex in close quarters.

Well possibly, I'm just unsure how a sexual bond would necessarily cause behavioral changes in a combat situation different from, say, an equally close fraternal bond. I really don't know, so feel free to convince me.

Originally Posted by Apollo

It would require me to believe that these people are super human (or not human) to think that they wont be having sex in close quarters.

As an asexual I find this extremely offensive.

"Minority", whatever.

Originally Posted by Tonch

As an asexual I find this extremely offensive.

"Minority", whatever.

I apologize I forgot about asexuals. The intent wasn't to offend. I will rephrase.

Originally Posted by Apollo

I apologize I forgot about asexuals. The intent wasn't to offend. I will rephrase.

To be honest, it should offend a lot more than just asexuals.
It should offend almost everyone.

Maybe if you were in close-quarters with the opposite sex you would have no choice but to ♥♥♥♥, but that's not how everyone is. Especially people that are required to be as disciplined as they are in the military.

EDIT: Also I do love how you just replaced the words "not human" with "asexuals" too

EDIT EDIT: I also didn't notice it was in SD now

Originally Posted by Apollo

If you put men and women together there will be sex. It would require me to believe that these people are super human (or not human) to think that they wont be having sex in close quarters.

I find this to be a ridiculous claim, honestly. If people can refrain from doing other things which are against the rules, I think they can have the self-control not to have sex all the time. Do you have any way to back this up?

edit: let's be honest here, Tonch, asexuals like you clearly aren't human.

wait, is this in SD now? Whoops.

Originally Posted by John

Which is another problem I have: Militaries are very carefully designed to strip soldiers of individual will. I can see why they do it, but it's also something I'm fundamentally opposed to the vast majority of the time. Certainly something I'd never want to happen to myself.

I've never met someone in the military who was just a robot with little individual will that wanted to do nothing but serve their government/country. They could very well be out there though.

Out of curiosity, have you experienced this in people yourself?

Originally Posted by Tonch

To be honest, it should offend a lot more than just asexuals.
It should offend almost everyone.

Maybe if you were in close-quarters with the opposite sex you would have no choice but to ♥♥♥♥, but that's not how everyone is. Especially people that are required to be as disciplined as they are in the military.

EDIT: Also I do love how you just replaced the words "not human" with "asexuals" too

EDIT EDIT: I also didn't notice it was in SD now

Originally Posted by Lysis

I find this to be a ridiculous claim, honestly. If people can refrain from doing other things which are against the rules, I think they can have the self-control not to have sex all the time. Do you have any way to back this up?

edit: let's be honest here, Tonch, asexuals like you clearly aren't human.

wait, is this in SD now? Whoops.

Didn't know how else to rephrase it. Let me be clear I hold no ill will to anyone based on their sexual orientation or lack there of.

Back on topic you two clearly have more faith in the human race than I do. That's all its gonna come down to unless anyone wants find up some reliable stats on the matter.

How do you feel about military service? Would you consider working in the military? If yes, why; if no, why not? What kind of feelings do you get when you hear this M-word: fear, pride, excitement, "don't care", "don't want to have it close to me", what? Etc., etc. How do you feel about people
working there? Do you look at them with some sort of admiration or in the contrary?

When someone says military, I generally associate it with pride. As far as I'm concerned, it takes a lot of guts and discipline to survive in the army. If i know someone who is making it in the military, I accord them respect because of their resilience. Especially if they've joined active duty and decide to put their lives on the line for their country.

I've considered working in the military several times, but in the end its not something I'd do until after I finish my university.

Do you think conscription is acceptable? If yes, why and under what circumstances; if no, why not? What do you think of specific amount of military service that is required from each citizen? Do you think military is sexist? What flaws do you think military has and how do you think they could be improved?

Is conscription acceptable? Of course. I'm a pretty big proponent of social contracts, and as per such I do consider it the duty of the government to employ people to protect the citizens. But obviously, when the very society that the government exists to protect is under threat, then it's the duty of every citizen to defend the country.

I do think the military is sexist, but anything I'd say about that has been said already.

Do I believe in a minimum length of mandatory military service? I've certainly thought about it. I know many European countries do so, and I wonder at the result. At least theoretically, it would ensure that all citizens have a minimum of training in case of, well, dire circumstance. In addition, I'd like to think it would help foster a stronger sense of patriotism and duty to protect, as well as more respect for those who choose to serve longer.

I couldn't do the military.
1. Because I'm an only child and my mom won't let her only child go off to fight an possible get killed.
2. Mostly because I"m a whimp and boot camp would probably make me cry. Not to mention having to be away from your family for so long.

See, where I come from, everyone wants to join the military because they think it's the "easy way out." Yes, if you do do the military, the government will pay for your education, but I feel like you should want to join the military because you want to protect your country and not because there's nowhere for you to go after high school.

It irks me. Granted, there are a few that generally want to join because they want to protect their country, but where I'm from, I hear a lot of "I'm going to join the military because my dad was in the military." or "The government will pay for your college if you join the military, and I can't go anywhere but Sauk (a community college) after high school." (which is completely untrue.)

Most of this is younger kids, but seriously, the military is definitely not the "easy way out" if you're family has financial problems or you got a bad score on your ACT, and I can't wait for the day that they finally understand that.

Originally Posted by Bartimaeus Sex

I've never met someone in the military who was just a robot with little individual will that wanted to do nothing but serve their government/country. They could very well be out there though.

Out of curiosity, have you experienced this in people yourself?

Nah, the military doesn't make robots, but basic training is very obviously designed to break down all previous senses of affiliation and identity and re-brand you as part of the military. What's more, the rigid chain of command and strict discipline (especially during peace times) actively discourage being proactive.

Ask...pretty much any training sargent, really, and you'll be told that the purpose of boot camp/etc. is to melt down the new recruits and cast them into what the army wants them to be. It's much more about mental stuff than physical.

Originally Posted by Great White North

Is conscription acceptable? Of course. I'm a pretty big proponent of social contracts, and as per such I do consider it the duty of the government to employ people to protect the citizens. But obviously, when the very society that the government exists to protect is under threat, then it's the duty of every citizen to defend the country.

What of, then, the USA during, say, WWI or Vietnam? It was under no threat yet conscripted people to fight.

What's more, I also believe in the social contract and, as part of that, I'd argue that no contract can call on me to kill or die for it. I can do so if I choose, but it cannot be required of me.

I do think the military is sexist, but anything I'd say about that has been said already.

Do I believe in a minimum length of mandatory military service? I've certainly thought about it. I know many European countries do so, and I wonder at the result. At least theoretically, it would ensure that all citizens have a minimum of training in case of, well, dire circumstance. In addition, I'd like to think it would help foster a stronger sense of patriotism and duty to protect, as well as more respect for those who choose to serve longer.

The world needs less patriotism, not more.

Originally Posted by Cody

I don't think there's much the US government enjoys more than military spending.

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Wait, wouldn't a lack of space be a disadvantage to males moreso, who are usually on average taller and larger? Shouldn't men be the ones banned from submarines if they're going to be generalizing?

I agree military spending is WAY higher than it should be. You'd have to convince someone high up that there's a benefit to these programs when SEALs have been all-male for a very, very long time.

And actually, it's not as small as you'd think. Berthing is very open. Due to the military's policy on separate berthing for males and females, they'd have to redesign an entire class of ships. Submarines are not cheap.

---------- Post added at 09:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:55 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Dovahkiin

Submariners have always had to share bunks with people on different watches than them. Obviously this isn't such a great thing for females having to share a bed with some guy.

This depends on the class of submarine. I serve on an SSBN, which is much larger than an SSN. We all have separate racks, however some are forced to berth in ridiculous spaces.

---------- Post added at 09:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 PM ----------

Originally Posted by John

Ah, segregation, chauvinism, and sexism is a big problem in US/Canadian militaries, no idea about others. Probably because our armies have become bastions of ultra-conservativism, so they still hark back to the days when a woman so much as wearing pants was an affront to all right-thinking people and they had to be kept sheltered for their own good.

The idea that if you put a guy and a girl in the same room they must have sex is also insulting to both parties. If the military honestly thinks it can't prevent sex/rape on something as privacy-free as a submarine then they've no business trusting those people with guns.

Believing people won't have sex if put together in a room is ridiculous. And sexual harassment happens EVERY DAY in the military. It's impossible to supervise every person at all times. Bad stuff happens underway all the time. And we have no choice but to have guns.

Originally Posted by John & Great White North

Social Contract & Conscription

I was hoping that somebody would come back to this point, and this is the point I am currently wrestling with--whether or not a government and society tied together by social contract can ever require compulsory military service. I think a compelling argument can be made either way, but I wanted to ask a questions and make a few observations maybe to set a foundation.

The first is: don't governments already confer some compulsory duties upon the citizenry, e.g. taxes, jury duty, etc? So is the mechanism of social contract itself being questioned, or simply whether governments have a right through social contract to compel citizens to serve in an environment whereby they might be killed or might have to kill?

The second big question is if one is simply objecting to conscription based on consequence--e.g. somebody might be killed or have to kill, should it be permissible to conscript individuals into performing non-combat roles for the military? Or alternatively, is there enough agency through even this service that it constitutes participating in killing?

The other issue is that Locke, the father of all social contract theorists, stipulated that two of the three obligations of government was to preserve life and liberty. How does conscription preserve both, or is the argument that conscription might be necessary from a utilitarian perspective to preserve life and liberty in certain situations?

Finally, if conscription is unethical in situations where there isn't an existential threat (I think John brought up the case study of Vietnam), should states ethically be allowed to conscript if they make a showing of imminent harm that would result to a territoriality absent conscription?

These are just a few questions I am going back and forth on that I think might be helpful to answer. I think I'm more sympathetic at present to the idea that military service is "uncontractable," but I'm not sure I'm satisfied in that answer and would welcome anybody trying to make an effective argument to the contrary.

Originally Posted by John

The idea that if you put a guy and a girl in the same room they must have sex is also insulting to both parties. If the military honestly thinks it can't prevent sex/rape on something as privacy-free as a submarine then they've no business trusting those people with guns.

Given that the rape of women in the U.S. military is a massively under-reported epidemic, and given how many bodies of missing servicewomen are eventually found in the U.S. naked and with genitals burned with chemicals, I think it's going to be difficult to trust them with that.

Honestly?

I don't plan to do my Military Service.
Why? Because Mexico sucks. I'm tired of this rotten wasteland. I'll go live to Canada when I grow up.
Why Canada? Because USA is a bit racist with Mexicans.

Originally Posted by John

Nah, the military doesn't make robots, but basic training is very obviously designed to break down all previous senses of affiliation and identity and re-brand you as part of the military. What's more, the rigid chain of command and strict discipline (especially during peace times) actively discourage being proactive.

Ask...pretty much any training sargent, really, and you'll be told that the purpose of boot camp/etc. is to melt down the new recruits and cast them into what the army wants them to be. It's much more about mental stuff than physical.

On the other hand, individual initiative of junior officers and NCOs is what makes western armies such efficient fighting machines. If you really want to see examples of armies actively discouraging it's members being proactive, one only needs to look at the armies of Communist states during the Cold War; North Vietnam, for example, told it's young men that they were being sent to quickly retake their country during the Tet offensive, and sent men in waves to charge the US and Allied firebases, resulting in horrific results (dead men piled a dozen feet high outside the perimiter of the firebases), and Korea, with Chinese troops being sent in Human wave attacks against UN positions, resulting in thousands of Communist dead for just a few dozen UN casualties.

Western armies encourage being proactive, a junior officer or NCO who just wants to sit and wait for orders is going to get him and his men killed. And I don't need to tell you that is a bad thing.

What of, then, the USA during, say, WWI or Vietnam? It was under no threat yet conscripted people to fight.

The US was under threat in WW1. The German policy of unrestricted Submarine warfare was killing a LOT of Americans, and the Germans offering the Mexicans to join the war to reclaim territory lost to the US was just the final straw in America. Sure, it's survival was not threatened, but the US government could not stand idly by while it's citizens, and the citizens of other neutral nations, were being killed by German submarines.

And Vietnam was so important to the US because they thought (although they were mistaken, but it is unwise to use hindsight in these matters) that if Vietnam fell to Communism, then all of Asia would fall to the influence of Moscow and Beijing. Then their very survival WAS threatened. If the USSR someone got a clear advantage in the Cold war, the US and it's allies would not be able to unhinge them from such a position peacefully. And I think we can all agree it is only in the realms of fiction that a Cold War going hot would not lead to a general nuclear exchange.

What's more, I also believe in the social contract and, as part of that, I'd argue that no contract can call on me to kill or die for it. I can do so if I choose, but it cannot be required of me.

The argument could be that all the things you get provided for you would stop if your country fell (your nice free health service, your lovely low taxes, your great police force, your very educational schools, your freedom from being arrested at 3AM and never seen from again), and so you have a duty to protect the things you take for granted. While I have already said I don't agree with conscription, I do think it has some great effects on social issues:

1)Gives the youth a respect of authority (something which is quite lacking in many circles)
2)reduces unemployment- people who would have otherwise been a drain on the economy are now getting a sizeable wage which they can spend on things, thus improving economic growth.
3)Especially for those who drop out of education, those who join get top class qualifications which certainly help the workforce as a whole. A skilled workforce is a productive workforce, which helps the economy a great deal. Generally, compulsory military service lasts at most 4 years, and afterwards (if they decide to leave), people who go through it would have a great set of skills that will help them greatly in future life.

And then the usual stuff of helping with national unity and whatnot. This latter reason is why Switzerland still has conscription, Switzerland does not have a single unitary culture or language, and this lead to a civil war in 1847 (although, the war was almost comical in that it was so peaceful. By bringing it's people together for a single reason- to defend their national home -the divisions have been healed. A country like the US, that has regional differences in culture, would benefit from a system like Switzerland. Instead of National Guard units being tied to a state, there should be a reserve force (that does not get deployed overseas, as a compromise) made up of recruits from all over the country, and deployed away from their home state. That would help foster a great deal of national unity.

But for those who didn't read my first post in this thread, I am against using conscripts for combat. You can keep your "people shouldn't be forced to die" arguments, but conscripts are less of an effective fighting force than volunteer troops and should be kept away from the front lines due to this reason.

The world needs less patriotism, not more.

No. The world is sorely lacking in it. One only needs to look at the England riots last year to see the effects of people with a lack of morals and love for their country.

The first is: don't governments already confer some compulsory duties upon the citizenry, e.g. taxes, jury duty, etc? So is the mechanism of social contract itself being questioned, or simply whether governments have a right through social contract to compel citizens to serve in an environment whereby they might be killed or might have to kill?

It's whether or not governments have the right to compel people to serve in the military that's being questioned. I'd argue that they do.

The second big question is if one is simply objecting to conscription based on consequence--e.g. somebody might be killed or have to kill, should it be permissible to conscript individuals into performing non-combat roles for the military? Or alternatively, is there enough agency through even this service that it constitutes participating in killing?

Never.

If we decided that even though we're going to conscript, and people that don't want to fight can just lurk at home, there'd be no point. Further, everyone would want to stay home, and then the war front would collapse. Conscription is, or at least should, only be instituted when there is a dire need of soldiers. And it's always better to fight on foreign ground then on your own.

The other issue is that Locke, the father of all social contract theorists, stipulated that two of the three obligations of government was to preserve life and liberty. How does conscription preserve both, or is the argument that conscription might be necessary from a utilitarian perspective to preserve life and liberty in certain situations?

Locke is the father of social contract theory.

That doesn't mean everyone has the exact same view on what constitutes it.

Finally, if conscription is unethical in situations where there isn't an existential threat (I think John brought up the case study of Vietnam), should states ethically be allowed to conscript if they make a showing of imminent harm that would result to a territoriality absent conscription?

I don't think so.

The whole point of conscription should be simply as the "final measure". Or at least final measure before nuclear strikes. If you're off slugging in some other country fighting some other country's war that really won't result in causality or the collapse of your own country, than you shouldn't be conscripting. Even if you lose.