Should i join the military?

[Pericles]

no

Because it makes just as much sense.

Continuously saying that we shouldn't attack other countries who have not attacked us does not seem to get through. Which somehow is what is equated to the position that we have a agreement to defend certain countries if they are attacked. Never said those agreements are a good idea. At one point, NATO made sense - if you are going to get in a fight, better to mess up someone else's backyard rather than yours.

[Acala]

Because it makes just as much sense.

Continuously saying that we shouldn't attack other countries who have not attacked us does not seem to get through. Which somehow is what is equated to the position that we have a agreement to defend certain countries if they are attacked. Never said those agreements are a good idea. At one point, NATO made sense - if you are going to get in a fight, better to mess up someone else's backyard rather than yours.

So you think the NATO treaty, that required us to defend Europe was a good idea?

And the treaty that requires us to defend South Korea is a good idea?

How about the SEATO treaty that pulled us into Viet Nam?

Just asking questions, not making accusations . . .

[Pericles]

Various places in Asia (Korea, ROC, Vietnam) not a US strategic interest.

1945 to 1990 the Soviet Union was a threat and participating in NATO made sense (by the 1980s the ground commitment on the Central Front was Germany 10 divisions, UK 3 divisions, Netherlands 2 divisions, US 5 divisions in place and 5 more on call), so it was like the US was the only country carrying the load. Strategically, having the population of western Europe under Soviet control would allow the Soviet Union to become a bigger threat - so stopping it there made sense.

At this point, threats to the US don't require the commitment of ground forces.

[Acala]

Various places in Asia (Korea, ROC, Vietnam) not a US strategic interest..

Not sure what you are saying here. Does this mean you don't approve of SEATO?
Does it also mean that you DO support US military interventiopn to support US "strategic interests"? Not putting words in your mouth. Just trying to get you to make a clear statement of when you think the US should commit to using its military outside its borders.

I think you are making inconsistent statements. You said this:

"George Washington's advice to avoid foreign entanglements was good advice and I wish that advice was followed."

But then you said this:

1945 to 1990 the Soviet Union was a threat and participating in NATO made sense.

NATO is the mother of all foreign entanglements, requiring us to intervene with our military to defend Europe.

How do you reconcile being an advocate of avoiding foreign entanglements but also being an advocate of NATO (from 1945 to 1990)?

[Pericles]

To paraphrase a line from a German joke about the General Staff - "Officers are supposed to know when not to follow orders. That is why they were made officers."

A general rule may have exceptions when circumstances require it. IMO, NATO was such an exception in that membership was more likely to prevent war, than non membership.

The decision about "strategic interests" isn't mine to make. Congress either declares war or doesn't. The Senate either ratifies a treaty of alliance, or it doesn't. That is the way the laws work. I have an opinion and I have expressed it.

If you don't get the answer you want, it does not mean that there has been no answer given.

As stated by the founders "and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do."

[Acala]

To paraphrase a line from a German joke about the General Staff - "Officers are supposed to know when not to follow orders. That is why they were made officers."

A general rule may have exceptions when circumstances require it. IMO, NATO was such an exception in that membership was more likely to prevent war, than non membership.

The decision about "strategic interests" isn't mine to make. Congress either declares war or doesn't. The Senate either ratifies a treaty of alliance, or it doesn't. That is the way the laws work. I have an opinion and I have expressed it.

If you don't get the answer you want, it does not mean that there has been no answer given.

As stated by the founders "and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do."

I'm satisfied that I have an answer, or at least as much as I will ever get from you. And based on that I conclude that we disagree on the proper foreign policy for this country.

[Flash]

Nah, don't join. I've heard people want to join for the same reasons and they are miserable in the military.

[oyarde]

Nah, don't join. I've heard people want to join for the same reasons and they are miserable in the military.

What type of jobs ?

[heavenlyboy34]

Various places in Asia (Korea, ROC, Vietnam) not a US strategic interest.

1945 to 1990 the Soviet Union was a threat and participating in NATO made sense (by the 1980s the ground commitment on the Central Front was Germany 10 divisions, UK 3 divisions, Netherlands 2 divisions, US 5 divisions in place and 5 more on call), so it was like the US was the only country carrying the load. Strategically, having the population of western Europe under Soviet control would allow the Soviet Union to become a bigger threat - so stopping it there made sense.

At this point, threats to the US don't require the commitment of ground forces.

What do you mean? Aside from ICBMs, the USSR was either mired in conflict with neighbors or struggling with internal conflict between factions, parties, etc. The Red Army was enough to beat back the Germans, but it wasn't strong enough for a full-on war with the US. The Soviets were simply outgunned. I could be mistaken, though. Correct me if I'm wrong, plz.

[james1906]

I remember feeling this way back when I was 21. I stuck through the $#@!ty jobs, went back to college and toughed it out. Now I have a stable, albeit still $#@!ty, desk job, a wife, some dogs, and my own home.

The military seemed like an easy answer at times, but easy answers usually have the hardest consequences. I also had a friend the joined the Army Reserve to get money for college and his ass was stuck in Kosovo for so long, he never bothered finishing.

[oyarde]

I remember feeling this way back when I was 21. I stuck through the $#@!ty jobs, went back to college and toughed it out. Now I have a stable, albeit still $#@!ty, desk job, a wife, some dogs, and my own home.

The military seemed like an easy answer at times, but easy answers usually have the hardest consequences. I also had a friend the joined the Army Reserve to get money for college and his ass was stuck in Kosovo for so long, he never bothered finishing.

I am familiar with instances like that . On the bright side , there is a chance he learned more about life in the Kosovo than he ever would have learned in school .

[Pericles]

What do you mean? Aside from ICBMs, the USSR was either mired in conflict with neighbors or struggling with internal conflict between factions, parties, etc. The Red Army was enough to beat back the Germans, but it wasn't strong enough for a full-on war with the US. The Soviets were simply outgunned. I could be mistaken, though. Correct me if I'm wrong, plz.

I won't be able to do justice to the subject in one post, and undoubtedly leave out important detail, but here goes.

At the end of WWII, Germany is occupied, as well as Austria, and as part of the Yalta agreement, elections are to be held in all of the countries of Europe. There were no elections in the Soviet occupied territories, and communist governments are installed wherever the Soviet army was, and that started the concern on the part of the US about Soviet post war intentions.

Civil war between the government and communists start in Greece in 1946, and continues until the government wins in 1948. Also, the Soviets explode their A-bomb in 1947 and Berlin is blockaded to prevent access by the US< UK, and France to their sectors of occupied Berlin. These actions led to public perception in the US, that the Soviets were determined to extend communism to the rest of Europe if not further. Thus the Marshall plan, as an effort to rebuild Europe, in order to turn back the gains that the communist political parties were making in west Europe.

Meanwhile, the China civil war is coming to a close with Mao's victory supported by the Soviets. The US appeared to say that Asia (except for Japan) was not in the US sphere of influence (Dean Acheson January 1950 speech), which was later taken to mean that the US would not intervene in the case of war in Korea. The Korean War started 6 months later. US conservatives took this as further evidence of communist expansionist policy toward world domination. This view is pervasive in the US at this time - partially as an understanding of Marxist - Leninist idealogy (the historical trend is of the struggle of the masses to throw off their oppressive economic systems for a international brotherhood of workers).

The election of Ike in 1952 leads to a change in US policy from proxy war to massive retaliation. This tends to keep the rest of the 1950s relatively peaceful for the US. The launch of Sputnik changes the game again, with the Kennedy accusation that Ike was asleep on the job, and there is now a "missile gap" and the Soviets are achieving superiority in nukes. At the same time, Castro has overthrown the Cuban regime, announces he is a communist in 1961, the Berlin Wall is built in 1961, and the proxy wars are back on in Vietnam, Central America, and Africa.

Summary is that there was an attempt by the communist world to expand - and one can debate to what extent it represented a direct threat of military invasion of the US, if any, but there is a political and nuke threat.

In this context, I'd argue that NATO made sense in that the experience of the US public was that twice in 30 years European wars led to US involvement to end them. Additionally, the "America First" non intervention movement had been discredited by being linked to the Nazis, and working to hinder preparedness (trot out Pearl Harbor vets "never again will we be unprepared"). Clearly what had taken place in east Europe was to integrate those countries into a Soviet led bloc that contributed resources to communist abilities. Without a US security guarantee, west Europe would have felt it necessary to accomodate Soviet expansion.

In the overall context of history, the US participation in NATO played a key role in collapsing a system that was hostile to liberty and the US at a reasonable cost (certainly in life), if not money (certainly cheaper than war).

[Acala]

I won't be able to do justice to the subject in one post, and undoubtedly leave out important detail, but here goes.

At the end of WWII, Germany is occupied, as well as Austria, and as part of the Yalta agreement, elections are to be held in all of the countries of Europe. There were no elections in the Soviet occupied territories, and communist governments are installed wherever the Soviet army was, and that started the concern on the part of the US about Soviet post war intentions.

Civil war between the government and communists start in Greece in 1946, and continues until the government wins in 1948. Also, the Soviets explode their A-bomb in 1947 and Berlin is blockaded to prevent access by the US< UK, and France to their sectors of occupied Berlin. These actions led to public perception in the US, that the Soviets were determined to extend communism to the rest of Europe if not further. Thus the Marshall plan, as an effort to rebuild Europe, in order to turn back the gains that the communist political parties were making in west Europe.

Meanwhile, the China civil war is coming to a close with Mao's victory supported by the Soviets. The US appeared to say that Asia (except for Japan) was not in the US sphere of influence (Dean Acheson January 1950 speech), which was later taken to mean that the US would not intervene in the case of war in Korea. The Korean War started 6 months later. US conservatives took this as further evidence of communist expansionist policy toward world domination. This view is pervasive in the US at this time - partially as an understanding of Marxist - Leninist idealogy (the historical trend is of the struggle of the masses to throw off their oppressive economic systems for a international brotherhood of workers).

The election of Ike in 1952 leads to a change in US policy from proxy war to massive retaliation. This tends to keep the rest of the 1950s relatively peaceful for the US. The launch of Sputnik changes the game again, with the Kennedy accusation that Ike was asleep on the job, and there is now a "missile gap" and the Soviets are achieving superiority in nukes. At the same time, Castro has overthrown the Cuban regime, announces he is a communist in 1961, the Berlin Wall is built in 1961, and the proxy wars are back on in Vietnam, Central America, and Africa.

Summary is that there was an attempt by the communist world to expand - and one can debate to what extent it represented a direct threat of military invasion of the US, if any, but there is a political and nuke threat.

In this context, I'd argue that NATO made sense in that the experience of the US public was that twice in 30 years European wars led to US involvement to end them. Additionally, the "America First" non intervention movement had been discredited by being linked to the Nazis, and working to hinder preparedness (trot out Pearl Harbor vets "never again will we be unprepared"). Clearly what had taken place in east Europe was to integrate those countries into a Soviet led bloc that contributed resources to communist abilities. Without a US security guarantee, west Europe would have felt it necessary to accomodate Soviet expansion.

In the overall context of history, the US participation in NATO played a key role in collapsing a system that was hostile to liberty and the US at a reasonable cost (certainly in life), if not money (certainly cheaper than war).

The entire cold war and hot proxy war against communism, to the extent it is believed to be in any way based on a sincere fear of communism and not simply a ploy to arrange an unending justification for pouring wealth into the pockets of banks and military contractors, was based on a fundamental lack of understanding of the fatal unworkability of communism.

Only ignorance of economics could lead someone to believe that communism could actually engulf the world in anything but a temporary fashion. It is a strange twist that the war against communism was based on hatred of communism combined with a lack of understanding of what is really wrong with it. in other words, only hatred based on ignorance could justify fighting communism rather than just standing back and watching it fall of its own weight.

Indeed, having the US actively engaging communist countries in battle gave the leaders of those countries an excuse for their continual economic failure, and our immoral meddling in the nations the communists were trying to convert helped turn the people of those countries TOWARDS the communist countries.

Finally, it is simply not credible to suggest that either the admittedly imperialistic Soviet Union or the relatively non-imperialistic Red China posed a real threat of invasion to an extremely well-armed and nuclear-capable USA. Indeed, it is now known, from documents released by the Soviet Union and obtained from our own government under the FIFA, that the much ballyhooed "missile gap" was a fraud perpetrated by our government. Soviet missile technology during the Cold War was WAY behind ours and we KNEW it as a result of high level espionage.

In conclusion, our involvement in NATO was not necessary for the security of this country.

[Pericles]

The entire cold war and hot proxy war against communism, to the extent it is believed to be in any way based on a sincere fear of communism and not simply a ploy to arrange an unending justification for pouring wealth into the pockets of banks and military contractors, was based on a fundamental lack of understanding of the fatal unworkability of communism.

Only ignorance of economics could lead someone to believe that communism could actually engulf the world in anything but a temporary fashion. It is a strange twist that the war against communism was based on hatred of communism combined with a lack of understanding of what is really wrong with it. in other words, only hatred based on ignorance could justify fighting communism rather than just standing back and watching it fall of its own weight.

Indeed, having the US actively engaging communist countries in battle gave the leaders of those countries an excuse for their continual economic failure, and our immoral meddling in the nations the communists were trying to convert helped turn the people of those countries TOWARDS the communist countries.

Finally, it is simply not credible to suggest that either the admittedly imperialistic Soviet Union or the relatively non-imperialistic Red China posed a real threat of invasion to an extremely well-armed and nuclear-capable USA. Indeed, it is now known, from documents released by the Soviet Union and obtained from our own government under the FIFA, that the much ballyhooed "missile gap" was a fraud perpetrated by our government. Soviet missile technology during the Cold War was WAY behind ours and we KNEW it as a result of high level espionage.

In conclusion, our involvement in NATO was not necessary for the security of this country.

So the US made the right call in standing on the sidelines and watching in Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968?

I realize that by your standards i am an interventionist, but I don't believe in standing by and watching my neighbors get murdered, raped, and burgled.

[Acala]

So the US made the right call in standing on the sidelines and watching in Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968? .

Yup. But you really need to look back in history to get to the roots. If we had not intervened in WWI there is a a good chance the Commies would not have prevailed in Russia to begin with and a good chance that WWII would not have happened. And if we had not intervened in WWII and AIDED the commies, there is a good chance the Nazis would have crushed them. Would Nazis have been better than commies? Don't know. But I know it would not be our problem unless we MADE it our problem. It isn't our job to try and fix the world. It always fails. You knock down one mole and another pops up.

I realize that by your standards i am an interventionist, but I don't believe in standing by and watching my neighbors get murdered, raped, and burgled.

YOU don't have to. YOU can do what you want and I won't try and stop you. But what you are talking about is making ME pay to push YOUR values on the world. That is not right.

[Pericles]

Yup. But you really need to look back in history to get to the roots. If we had not intervened in WWI there is a a good chance the Commies would not have prevailed in Russia to begin with and a good chance that WWII would not have happened. And if we had not intervened in WWII and AIDED the commies, there is a good chance the Nazis would have crushed them. Would Nazis have been better than commies? Don't know. But I know it would not be our problem unless we MADE it our problem. It isn't our job to try and fix the world. It always fails. You knock down one mole and another pops up.



YOU don't have to. YOU can do what you want and I won't try and stop you. But what you are talking about is making ME pay to push YOUR values on the world. That is not right.

If some entity threatens your freedom, then you don't expect any aid from anyone else? Its entirely on me as to whether to assist or not?

Hope you are more proficient in the use of arms than everybody I know - I don't like having to fight badly outnumbered.

[Acala]

If some entity threatens your freedom, then you don't expect any aid from anyone else? Its entirely on me as to whether to assist or not?

Hope you are more proficient in the use of arms than everybody I know - I don't like having to fight badly outnumbered.

My freedom was not threatened by the Soviet Union or Red China. And it is not now threatened by anyone in the world (except my own government). So to the extent you felt, or now feel, the need to protect Europe, or Southeast Asia, or the Middle East from somebody, that is YOUR affair and not mine.

On the other hand, if this country is being attacked, you can sign me up and although I have no formal training and am not a young man anymore, I do know how to shoot, will show up with my own gear, am reasonably fit, and can follow orders from people that know more than I about tactics.

[Pericles]

Fair enough.

One of the military strategies is defeat in detail, in which you try to pick of one opponent at a time of a coalition, so you leave the decisive battle for the last, when the strongest opponent has no more allies.

Looking at the balance of conventional forces in the Europe central front (Germany) it looked like this ca. 1980.

Group of Soviet Forces Germany

# 1st Guards Tank Red Banner Army, Dresden

* 9th Tank Division (Riesa)
* 11th Guards Tank Division
* 20th Guards Motor Rifle Division

# 2nd Guards Tank Army, Fürstenberg/Havel

* 16th Guards Tank Division
* 21st Guards Motor Rifle Division
* 94th Guards Motor Rifle Division
* 207th Guards Motor Rifle Division

# 3rd Shock Army, Magdeburg

* 207th Guards Motor Rifle Division
* 10th Guards Uralsko-Lvovskaya Tank Division (Altengrabow)
* 12th Guards Tank Division
* 47th Guards Tank Division

# 8th Guards Order of Lenin Army, Nohra

* 79th Guards Tank Division
* 27th Guards Motor Rifle Division
* 39th Guards Motor Rifle Division
* 57th Guards Motor Rifle Division

# 20th Guards Red Banner Army, Eberswalde-Finow

* 35th Guards Motor Rifle Division
* 6th Guards Motor Rifle Division
* 12th Guards Motor Rifle Division
* 90th Guards Tank Division


Northern Group (Poland)

6th Motor Rifle Division
20th Tank Division


Central Group (Czechoslovakia)

15th Guards Tank Division
18th Guards Motor Rifle Division
30th Guards Motor Rifle Division
31st Tank Division
48th Motor Rifle Division

Southern Group (Hungary)

13th Guards Tank Poltava Division
19th Guards Tank Division
93rd Guards Motor Rifle Division
254th Motor Rifle Division

German Peoples Army

1st Motor Rifle Division
8th Motor rifle Division
9th Armor Division

4th Motor Rifle Division
11th Motor Rifle Division
7th Armor Division

Czech Peoples Army

5 Armor Divisions
5 Motor Rifle Divisions

Polish Peoples Army

We didn't count them as the Soviets considered them unreliable politically (Poland just can't get over the Katyn forest massacre)

On the NATO side we had

Netherlands

2 Divisions

British Army of the Rhine

3 Divisions

Canadian Forces Europe

4th Canadian Mechanised Brigade

Bundeswehr (Federal German Army)

10 Divisions

US Army Europe

5 Divisions in Europe


So, stationed in the battlespace are some 46 Warsaw Pact divisions and 20 NATO divisions (US and German division are larger than their Soviet counterparts - a Soviet tank division has 273 tanks, while a US armored division is the largest such division with 348 tanks).

This is an approximate 2 to 1 advantage for the Warsaw Pact, which also has more reserve units (Soviets maintaining active duty strength of over 4 million).

Without US troops in Europe the advantage for the Warsaw Pact would have reached the 3 to 1 ratio which is considered needed to mount a successful attack. Or, without US support, the Soviets would have easier been able to intimidate some of western Europe into submission, and add to the strength of the Warsaw Pact.

I take a purely military view, which is (A) not to fight if possible (B) if conflict is probable, conduct operations to minimize the risk to my units. This is why the decision on alliances and whether to go to war is left with Congress - the political will of the citizens should be the determining factor, even if it means increased loss of the lives of citizens when war is declared. Military guys want to eliminate potential threats early while they are of smaller dimension, even if not realistic politically. Incidentally, this is why a 1st class intelligence service is vital. Not having an accurate threat assessment ensures bad decisions.

From my point of view, being able to maintain a balance of power until the forces of economics and demographics could tear apart the opponent was critical.

I was stationed in Germany while the Iron Curtain was falling, and our intel was very poor. We had no idea if it was going to end with a whimper, or with a desperate last gasp gamble on the part of the Soviet Union. Fortunately for all concerned, Gorbachev was able to keep the Soviet military in line as the balloon emptied. If the Soviet military had thought there were greater odds of military success they might have tried it.

One may argue that the US doesn't need Europe, and if current trends continue, in less than 50 years we will test the truth of that concept (assuming the US is still a viable source of freedom at that time).