Moral Dilemma: Joining the Navy

[weslinder]

Quick backstory: I almost joined the Naval Reactors program 4 years ago when I graduated college. It's basically a nuclear engineering design job run by the Navy. They design reactors for submarines and aircraft carriers. It's by all accounts one of the best-run parts of the federal bureaucracy, and there is no combat required. I didn't, went first into refining then chemicals. I'm really not excited about either of those industries right now. I think that nuclear energy is going to be a huge part of our future, and this is one of the best ways to get into the field.

My dilemma: Should I pursue joining the Navy, even though I strongly disagree with the War and our foreign policy right now? I wouldn't be actively involved in the War, but I would be part of the Defense Department. It would certainly benefit me personally.

[constitutional]

Decide what's important to you: Money or Passion.

[Dr.3D]

It would be a great service to our country and also a great way to get your foot in the door when it comes to nuclear energy. I know another person who went that route and he works in a civilian nuclear power plant now. I'm not sure if it was the same program though. He did it quite a long time ago. Worked with nuclear powered ships and subs and when he got out used his education in the civilian world.

I see no problem with it at all.

[dawnbt]

I would never join forces with the government. They may say no combat, but doesn't mean they won't sucker you. Plus, they will own you and you would be contributing to the war. Just my two cents.

[Kalifornia]

Quick backstory: I almost joined the Naval Reactors program 4 years ago when I graduated college. It's basically a nuclear engineering design job run by the Navy. They design reactors for submarines and aircraft carriers. It's by all accounts one of the best-run parts of the federal bureaucracy, and there is no combat required. I didn't, went first into refining then chemicals. I'm really not excited about either of those industries right now. I think that nuclear energy is going to be a huge part of our future, and this is one of the best ways to get into the field.

My dilemma: Should I pursue joining the Navy, even though I strongly disagree with the War and our foreign policy right now? I wouldn't be actively involved in the War, but I would be part of the Defense Department. It would certainly benefit me personally.

I have faced the same quandry myself. I have always been interested in serving my country, but I am unwilling to give up my personal ability to decide what is right or wrong. I think that for 'professionals' that this is less of a problem (medical, legal, scientific, etc), but it is still a problem.

Consider a JAG who is ordered to represent the DOD in a matter where the DOD is clearly in the wrong. Consider a navy nuke who is required to build a better bomb, or worse, help deliver one.

If I ever do serve, personally, it will have to be with a national guard unit, since they tend to have less agressive missions, and knowing that if I am ever struck with a conflict of conscience, I will have to be prepared to be dishonorably discharged or imprisoned rather than follow what I consider to be an illegal or immoral order.

It is too bad that our military is no longer focused on defense, or in the alternative, offense only when our nation has declared war. If it still was this way, I would have probably tried to make a career in the military. As it stands, we have what we have, and Im really kind of ashamed of some of the shit our military does...

[ItsTime]

They also promised my friend (a doctor) he would not see combat "because he is becoming a doctor and they are usually the last drafted into combat". He joined the reserves when he was in college because he "thought" the government would help pay for college. But he has see a tour or two in Iraq.

[brianewart]

My dilemma: Should I pursue joining the Navy, even though I strongly disagree with the War and our foreign policy right now? I wouldn't be actively involved in the War, but I would be part of the Defense Department. It would certainly benefit me personally.

You don't need to support our foreign policy to be in the Navy, look at Admiral Fallon. You WILL need to follow orders, and if that means you have to go to Iraq, you have to go. Nobody will make you say it is a good idea, or advocate for the action there, but you can't refuse to take part if they ask you.

I've considered the JAG Corps, since I've gotten to law school. My opinion regarding our presence in the Middle East and it's foreign policy issues, doesn't prevent me from considering it.

[Kalifornia]

I've considered the JAG Corps, since I've gotten to law school. My opinion regarding our presence in the Middle East and it's foreign policy issues, doesn't prevent me from considering it.

I have as well. Im fortunate to be in a law school with alot of future JAGs, current JAGs and former JAGs. What strikes me is that many of them are professionally required to make the case for GW, even when they personally find it distasteful. What Im also amazed by is how many of them have blatantly dissented, and openly criticize US policy, while following orders.

Its good to see that a significant number of our JAG officers take their professional responsibility to the rule of law and constitution at least as seriously as they take their obligation to follow orders.

I think that the NG might provide me an opportunity to serve, while minimizing the likelihood of being presented with an order that I cant stomach. Once I get out and in practice (hopefully in a defense oriented .gov job), Ill see what I can find out about getting a direct commission. I dont mind taking a bullet for my country, but I wont sell my soul. :)

[Cowlesy]

I am eternally proud and grateful of our men and women who serve in uniform. I think serving the country in that fashion, by your own personal choice, is a noble thing. Along that line, I think teaching is an equally noble profession. To me, those may be the two most underpaid professions. That is my personal opinion.

All too often on this board people bring up horrible stuff like the puppy-throwing, or the kid chasing the humvee with respect to our military. I'd love for someone to find me an organized group of a half million people that has no bad apples. If it were not for the brave, there would be no land of the free. And yes, free in a relative sense -- let's not make this a theory thread.

[cameronb]

I didn't believe we should have been in Iraq but I went over there anyway and followed orders and did my job. I don't look down my nose one bit on those who refused to go, but just making the point that I agree that you can be morally and philosophically opposed to the mission and yet still serve in good conscience.

My brother and I went as part of the same unit and my other brother followed shortly afterward (JAG).

Another point is that if those of us who believe in real freedom don't serve, then we can't influence those who are serving and thus the military will be fully of mindless flag wavers, servants of the Homeland...
From within the military you can talk with your fellow soldiers, sailors, or marines and educate some of them about what their oath to follow the constitution really means....

[XNavyNuke]

I wouldn't be so worried about seeing action in Iraq proper. xxN's are high value targets (predominantly blue water). Both my wife and I are veterans from GW-1. My efforts were contributed from a SIMA unit stateside. The biggest concern that you should have from this program's standpoint is the fact that (with few exceptions) the only true shore billets are in Training. Therefore, your sea-shore rotation is usually sea-pier rider rotation.

Also, since you have your degree consider being a DIO (direct input officer). I knew some really great ones. They knew their technical stuff inside and out, but would have had trouble becoming actual Ship's Engineers (naval politics & such).

With the exception of career military families, all U.S. troops are mercenarius. Which IMHO is alot better than be a conscript of the state anyway. Also, check out Story of Michael New (http://www.mikenew.com). It can be hazardous to know the Constitution if you can't "just go along."

Hope this give you someting to mull over. PM me if you have more Q's.

XNN

[OptionsTrader]

My dilemma: Should I pursue joining the Navy, even though I strongly disagree with the War and our foreign policy right now? I wouldn't be actively involved in the War, but I would be part of the Defense Department. It would certainly benefit me personally.

A similar dilema is whether or not to accept a job that does work as a military contractor, a weapons manufacturer, or numerous other jobs that are in the gray area. I've seen videos of women in bomb manufacturing plants that rationalize their job as ethical because they do not make the decision to use the bombs in an unethical manner. The same is true for the engineers that design weapons systems. They no doubt rationalize that they are merely designing a black box that performs a function; to use the black box is not their decision. Navy admirals could also rationalize that they are just following orders when commanded to drop the bombs or use the before mentioned weapons. The truth is, a great number of people in America work jobs that have some level of gray area that can be rationalized away with varying levels of self convincing. In my opinion, working for certain media outlets is the most tilted toward dark side on the light to gray to dark spectrum. Working on nuclear power for the Navy is one of the more "defensive" of the things the Department of Defense does, so I'd bless the job as only slightly gray. But, perhaps I am biased since I was in the Navy years ago...

If there is anything the DoD should be doing, it is using the nuclear Navy as a deterrent of war. I think that the right President could use the Navy in the right way and serving in that area of the military would be very rewarding in that scenario.

[weslinder]

Update: I got in touch with the program's recruiter today. The program is full for this year, but they really want me to apply in October. So I have 6 months to mull it over and lose a few pounds. I'm not sure what I want to do, but I'm leaning towards going.

[Kalifornia]

Update: I got in touch with the program's recruiter today. The program is full for this year, but they really want me to apply in October. So I have 6 months to mull it over and lose a few pounds. I'm not sure what I want to do, but I'm leaning towards going.

If you dont, someone else will. Id rather have constitutionalists in .gov jobs than socialists or fascists. Just make sure you wont have to compromise what is important to you.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Sorry to distract from the OP, but as long as this thread is here I might as well put in my own, similar problem.

I want to major in psychology. Corollary to that, I'd like to sign up with the military as a mental health specialist, or something similar. Now, with the Air Force I would be guaranteed to not see combat, though considering the constriction in that field I would most likely end up just working on jet engines, and taking psych courses in my free time. The army recruiter I spoke to, however, claimed I would have a strong chance of getting the job I want (depending on my test scores, which, based on my ACT will not be a problem). This increased likelihood is due to the fact that the Army is expanding, though the reasons for that expansion are obvious. Essentially my dilemma is this: what's the chance that I'll be tossed an M16 and told to go kick down doors in the middle of the night, despite the fact that my job designation has nothing to do with combat?

[OptionsTrader]

Sorry to distract from the OP, but as long as this thread is here I might as well put in my own, similar problem.

I want to major in psychology. Corollary to that, I'd like to sign up with the military as a mental health specialist, or something similar. Now, with the Air Force I would be guaranteed to not see combat, though considering the constriction in that field I would most likely end up just working on jet engines, and taking psych courses in my free time. The army recruiter I spoke to, however, claimed I would have a strong chance of getting the job I want (depending on my test scores, which, based on my ACT will not be a problem). This increased likelihood is due to the fact that the Army is expanding, though the reasons for that expansion are obvious. Essentially my dilemma is this: what's the chance that I'll be tossed an M16 and told to go kick down doors in the middle of the night, despite the fact that my job designation has nothing to do with combat?

Claims of "a strong chance of getting the job you want" is bullshit subjective recruiter speak that should not be trusted. The only thing they can guarantee you is what is guaranteed to you in the contract you sign. Buyer beware, and enlister beware.

[Kalifornia]

Sorry to distract from the OP, but as long as this thread is here I might as well put in my own, similar problem.

I want to major in psychology. Corollary to that, I'd like to sign up with the military as a mental health specialist, or something similar. Now, with the Air Force I would be guaranteed to not see combat, though considering the constriction in that field I would most likely end up just working on jet engines, and taking psych courses in my free time. The army recruiter I spoke to, however, claimed I would have a strong chance of getting the job I want (depending on my test scores, which, based on my ACT will not be a problem). This increased likelihood is due to the fact that the Army is expanding, though the reasons for that expansion are obvious. Essentially my dilemma is this: what's the chance that I'll be tossed an M16 and told to go kick down doors in the middle of the night, despite the fact that my job designation has nothing to do with combat?

So far as I know, and Im no expert, the only 'mental health specialists' the Army has are 1. Army Medical Doctors who are board certified in Psychiatry, 2. Psych nurses, 3. Hospital Orderlies, and 4. PsyOps. You arent going to get #1 without an MD, #2 requires at least 3 years of training, and all are likely to be deployed to the sand box in some capacity.

To reiterate the previous comments. Listen to none of what you hear from a recruiter, and less than half of what you read.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

So far as I know, and Im no expert, the only 'mental health specialists' the Army has are 1. Army Medical Doctors who are board certified in Psychiatry, 2. Psych nurses, 3. Hospital Orderlies, and 4. PsyOps. You arent going to get #1 without an MD, #2 requires at least 3 years of training, and all are likely to be deployed to the sand box in some capacity.http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjobs/a/68x.htm

[Kalifornia]

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjobs/a/68x.htm

Cool, get it in writing. Still a chance of sandbox duty though, Id think.

[SeanEdwards]

Essentially my dilemma is this: what's the chance that I'll be tossed an M16 and told to go kick down doors in the middle of the night, despite the fact that my job designation has nothing to do with combat?

Anybody that signs up for active duty as an enlisted soldier had better be prepared to pull a tour in a war zone. Every contract that enlistees sign has a clause that says something to the effect of, "I will perform duties for the good of the service as required by my superiors." Which basically means your contract and training don't mean jack. Once you are in, you will go where they tell you to go.

They have got people trained to drive submarines guarding convoys in Iraq. Think about it.

Edit: Also keep in mind that whatever your recruiter tells you is largely irrelevant. The details of your contract get finalized at MEPS, which is this process/facility where new recruits get a physical exam, complete their contract, have the swearing in ceremony, etc.

[wd4freedom]

Quick backstory: I almost joined the Naval Reactors program 4 years ago when I graduated college. It's basically a nuclear engineering design job run by the Navy. They design reactors for submarines and aircraft carriers. It's by all accounts one of the best-run parts of the federal bureaucracy, and there is no combat required. I didn't, went first into refining then chemicals. I'm really not excited about either of those industries right now. I think that nuclear energy is going to be a huge part of our future, and this is one of the best ways to get into the field.

My dilemma: Should I pursue joining the Navy, even though I strongly disagree with the War and our foreign policy right now? I wouldn't be actively involved in the War, but I would be part of the Defense Department. It would certainly benefit me personally.

I am a former submariner. Went through Navy Nuke program in 89-90. Toughest program in the world, but have no regrets- currently work as civilian in nuclear research and radiation sciences. Nuclear Navy is THE Best program currently existing in the federal government system because it was deisgned away from the the typical congressional / pork barrel type of typical military industrial programs.

Highly recommend you pursue- and you are right , the future of nuclear energy is pretty incredible because it is the only economical solution to the transfer to a hydrogen economy- which will be our energy future (if we don't blow it first).

[Cinderella]

If I ever do serve, personally, it will have to be with a national guard unit, since they tend to have less agressive missions

hate to break it to ya but my little brother is out in iraq (hes a national guard) hes done his second tour (if all goes well he will be back home end of this month or first week of may) hes been in the red zone, hes done numerous house raids, he patrols the streets and god knows what else hes doing there....but dont for one second think that national guard gets easy jobs...when ur life is on the line there is no such thing as a "less aggressive mission".....he wrote me an email the other night telling me not to worry that his base has been under attack and there have been more riots and violence going on, but that hes ok and cant wait to come home........excuse me while i go cry now......i miss my little bro....hes turning 23 in may

[dirknb@hotmail.com]

The Freedom Message needs to be spread in the military more than anywhere else. Biggest drawback is you no longer own your life.

[Andrew-Austin]

I think that if you want to serve your country, your better off battling the very real threats we have here at home, instead of the largely imagined threats in Iraq. Thats putting it politely.

[weslinder]

I am a former submariner. Went through Navy Nuke program in 89-90. Toughest program in the world, but have no regrets- currently work as civilian in nuclear research and radiation sciences. Nuclear Navy is THE Best program currently existing in the federal government system because it was deisgned away from the the typical congressional / pork barrel type of typical military industrial programs.

Highly recommend you pursue- and you are right , the future of nuclear energy is pretty incredible because it is the only economical solution to the transfer to a hydrogen economy- which will be our energy future (if we don't blow it first).

Thanks for the information. Like I said, I'm leaning towards it. I think it will be a smart financial solution long term, hydrogen economy or "battery" economy.