*** Official Putin Started Shootin' Thread ***

[Poopadoop]

You know that only a small percentage of the military is fighters, right?

It's almost entirely logistics and support groups - clerks and middle management types.

Not sure about "almost entirely." I think there's a significant proportion of people actually doing the shooting and getting shot at.

Not that that's relevant to any other argument here.

Sure, they all went though boot camp, and were trained how to properly use a gun or few types of guns. The vast majority of them will never see "front line" action. They will never be put in a position to kill or be killed.

You're not selling it here....

Frankly, IMO, every human should be trained in self-defense including how to kill another human before they kill you, should that be their goal.

Glad I don't live where you do lol.

But let's say they should. It doesn't take two years of your life to learn those skills, and the other clerking and middle management skills or whatever else you're being made to do.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Glad I don't live where you do lol.

Oh?
So what planet are you on?
and with what species do you commune?

Earth and humans?
Yeah... you live in the same place I do.

smartass.
lol

But let's say they should. It doesn't take two years of your life to learn those skills, and the other clerking and middle management skills or whatever else you're being made to do.

It takes more than 2 years to learn any martial art I know of.
Learning to defend yourself from violent humans isn't something you can accomplish in a 2-week crash course.

I wish we lived in a world without violent humans who want to hurt and/or kill others.
As long as we do live in that world, let's be frank about it, and practical about it.
If trusting the police and other state agencies to protect you provides you with a sense of security to be happy and productive, then great.
For many people, that is not enough. They want a sense of personal security that comes from not relying on outside agencies to provide and maintain that security. That's fine and great, too, IMO.

Being trained in self defense, up to and including how to defend yourself against murder, including how to kill before being killed if that's what it comes to, is a practical life skill.

Just look at Ukraine. You can only rely on the state to protect you until you can't anymore. Then you must act to protect yourself.

It's a harsh world, but ignoring the harshness doesn't make it go away.

[boost]

Not sure about "almost entirely." I think there's a significant proportion of people actually doing the shooting and getting shot at.

Not that that's relevant to any other argument here.

I think it's quite relevant. A common misconception that shapes people's opinions when this topic comes up is that everyone or most people in the armed forces are front line grunts. It isn't the easiest thing to calculate, because there are plenty of roles that are edge cases. That said, if you look around, you'll see ratios ranging from 7:1 to 12:1, support to combat roles in a modern military. "Almost entirely" is a bit of a stretch, but not downright hyperbolic at 7:1, but it's at home, comfortable and cozy at 12:1

[Poopadoop]

I think it's quite relevant. A common misconception that shapes people's opinions when this topic comes up is that everyone or most people in the armed forces are front line grunts. It isn't the easiest thing to calculate, because there are plenty of roles that are edge cases. That said, if you look around, you'll see ratios ranging from 7:1 to 12:1, support to combat roles in a modern military. "Almost entirely" is a bit of a stretch, but not downright hyperbolic at 7:1, but it's at home, comfortable and cozy at 12:1

I don't think it is relevant if the idea is to train everyone to be a "armed forces personnel", be they a rifleman, pilot, medic, clerk, drive a supply truck, guard a latrine, mechanic, cook, etc.. My point is it's a huge drain on state resources to have large numbers of people learn a bunch of skills they haven't chosen themselves and likely won't ever use again once they leave the military (again, with the caveat that I'm speaking of mandatory service in a country with secure defenses here, of which I'd probably include most if not all of the Western Hemisphere, and large asian countries like India, Japan, China, who nobody in their right mind would try to invade.

There's other countries where it would also be silly because even if everyone was trained to the teeth, they'd have no chance if a larger neighbor decided to take them over (e.g., Mongolia is not going to stop a Russian or Chinese invasion on their own no matter how much training their population has).

So if it's a question of security it depends very much on which country you are in. America is certainly very very very very very unlikely to need to quickly field 30 million (or w/e) men and women at short notice. In fact, the list of countries with mandatory service is very small.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service

Pacifism is a bankrupt ideology.

Absolutely. But excessive militarism is a huge economic burden, even if it's done for "good reasons" (and I'll accept that the idea of promoting social cohesion is a good motivation, even if I think there's more efficient ways to achieve it).

It costs $100,000 to train one single US infantryman. It costs more to train specialists like tankers and pilots. They also need equipment to train in. Unless you want an army that trains in cardboard tanks with toy rifles, you're going to need more guns, more planes, more tanks, more ships (and more pencils, PCs, etc. for the clerks). So what you're suggesting is going to cost well above $400bn a year imo. Are you prepared to spend over $1k in taxes a year for this project?