03-16-2017, 10:13 AM
(03-16-2017, 03:35 AM)Dill Wrote: People make the same point regarding the all volunteer military we now have.
Military actions should not be taken lightly, and we would make them more responsibly if we still conscripted the military.
I don't disagree with that. I'm all for it, to be quite honest. I like the model of, say, Switzerland. And if you can't physically serve in the military, well, some other civil service for you. But, I'd also like to shrink the size of our active military forces for a number of reasons, so there is that.
(03-16-2017, 03:35 AM)Dill Wrote: But if the US has to take military action against a legitimate threat, then concerns about "cowardice" should not incline us to greater risk to maintain our manliness or whatever. Everything should be done to minimize casualties on our side and civilian on the other.
I don't disagree that we should do everything we can to minimize unnecessary deaths, but I draw a line at removing man from the battlefield unless we are removing all men from the battlefield. We can settle our differences on robot wars.
(03-16-2017, 03:35 AM)Dill Wrote: Our B2 pilots were never much at risk in Iraq or Afghanistan. They might be in Syria now, with Russian SAMs on the ground.
Not at much risk is still risk. It is still more risk than sitting in a bunker in CONUS.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
