Universal Military Training and Service Act

I stand by my original comment on this one - --

Don Gwinn - - - No, I believe I wrote it correctly: As commented upon in Ipecac’s later entry,
The "Heinlein model" from "Starship Troopers" does not require military service for citizenship franchise. It merely requires a single term of civil service: anything from mobile infantry to bean counting. The book itself isn't perfectly clear on this point, but Heinlein himself said as much later in several venues, and was a bit peeved that people seemed to glom onto the military aspect of his idea.
Click to expand...
I haven’t read the book in several years, but I recall RAH writing something like, “It doesn’t matter if a person is a blind qudrapelegic, if he wants to serve and earn his franchise, a job will be found, or created, to allow him to qualify.”

Don, I therefore disagree with your re-phrasing of my entry.

And re: Your comment,
For instance, what do you do with homosexuals if you institute Heinlein's model in the present day? Either you have to fix the military so that it will accept homosexuals (which hasn't worked out too well) or you have to decide that no homosexual will ever have a vote!
Click to expand...
I believe this is adequately addressed in the above. RAH’s tolerance of homosexuals in society is not hidden in his later writings. He had a very “live-and-let-live” attitude.

Again--No one FORCED into public service, in any capacity. Only those who wished to be truly enfranchised with the ability to vote and hold office would even need to consider such service.

Best,
Johnny
 
okay, fine

So let's pull the teeth of this proposed legislation by having our high schools do the job the right way. We do elect our own school board members don't we? Might there be any school board members here or at least TFL'ers who've run for school board?

Let's, as noted above, have JROTC in our schools - and basic military training for the rest of the students. Same course of training with history, geography, marksmanship, PT, civics, justice systems (incl. UCMJ), field camps (to replace or augment nature camps), survival skills, parade drill (like band drill), etc. etc.

Instead of bitching about it, change your schools to teach future Americans what YOU want them to know (trapshooting, precision shooting, combat handgunning, and maybe even grenade throwing instead of discus or shotput). If necessary, toss out the whole school board. Not possible in your urban school district? There are not enough volunteers to serve on such boards to capture the objective? Then move to where you can do it.
 
Forgive me if this has already been posted. I only read the first page and a half.

Why does everyone assume that our young men are so bereft of character that they need a good dose of strict military discipline to get them back on track?

Of course their are exceptions to every rule (just like with gun owners) but I think the majority of our young men do have a good head on their shoulders. Of the ones I know personally, 100% would volunteer to serve in the military if asked, and they all seem capable of making sound decisions.

What is so wrong with our young men that some feel the need to force them down the path of military discipline?
 
What's wrong with our youth?

Get out of your cloistered, insular, limited circle and look at all the students in our high schools. Out of any class of 200 you'll be lucky to find a half dozen of those upstanding active citizens of which "DNEAF" speaks of. I can tell you from my experience in trying to win liberty in a war of "only" paper and words that we can count on less than one percent of the electorate standing up for their rights. If it was a war of bullets and bombs, we would see even less. They would be refugees seeking shelter in inland and rural counties and states instead of carrying packs and rifles in the other direction. Okay, maybe one percent would be enough.

As to the arguments of "forcing people to get military training and education" in order to be prepared to defend their nation, keep in mind that any enemies we have will be using force. They won't take a poll and use only volunteers. In such a struggle our people will have very few "voluntary" choices:
1) to take up arms
2) to support those who take up arms
3) to sit back and do nothing (and hopefully that means no collaboration with the enemy)
4) collaborate with the enemy (as Clintons did)
5) take up arms against their own people
6) support those who take up arms against their own people (as the loyalists did in the War of Independence)

Okay, maybe we'll have a few years to get ready and resist and thus have the luxury of time to train a million soldiers. Do you feel lucky?
 
Last edited:
It runs into reality. For instance, what do you do with homosexuals if you institute Heinlein's model in the present day? Either you have to fix the military so that it will accept homosexuals (which hasn't worked out too well) or you have to decide that no homosexual will ever have a vote!
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to everyone, but the military is rife with homosexuals, always has been, always will be. The difference is that while in military service, gay people aren't allowed to identify themselves as such. Heterosexuals who are dating other heterosexual people that they work with are not allowed to identify themselves as such either. To do so would introduce tension that would be devastating to unit cohesion.

In combat one needs to be able to believe (with an unshakable faith) that one is being sent on the "Mission of No Return" because one is the best suited for the mission, not because one turned down Sgt. Hulka's offer of a date.

Golgo-13
2. The purpose of the military is, as noted conservative icon and windbag Rush Limbaugh says, "to kill people and break things." The military does not exist to provide a one year remedial course that undoes 12 years of indoctrination by the homosexual-communist-NEA cabal and their coconspirators. However dear that notion may be to your heart, it is nothing more than you wanting to point a gun at somebody's head and forcefully accomplish the indoctrination you prefer. How does it feel to be in the same company with the Democrats you despise? They habitually misused the military as a social laboratory, too.
Click to expand...

Since I have said time and again that I am not in favor of forced service, I won't address that aspect of your post. I would like to point out that there is some value in people being conversant with the tools, tactics, strategy, history etc... of the military in general. I think that if this country came under attack, oh say by a 100,000,000 strong ChiCom army, that lots of folks would try to do their "Red Dawn" level best to defend our country, and in doing so last 5 maybe 10 minutes.

A whole lot of people here are right in railing against "Politicos" who use our military for "Meals on Wheels" and other heinous crap. I submit that the majority of those most guilty never served. I submit as my #1 example WJB Klinton. He personally killed more of our troops than any other Prez since Johnson. IMO with a lot less to show for it.

I forget who said it here on this thread, but if you think our seas impassable and our neighbors friendly, think again. Mexico is in the midst of a full tilt "Reconquista" and Kanada spews Arab terrorists into our country at every opportunity. Nearby in the Port of Tacoma the news reports a "container full of undocumented workers" (read that ChiCom infiltrators) every other week or so in the warm months.

Real defense cannot be measured in terms of "reactionary" ability. No MilStrat planner worth their pay is going to put any money on that bet. The old saw that the "Best defense is a Good offense" is as true a statement as I have ever found.
 
DNEAF

I edited my last post for grammatical clarity and to solve that question for you.

Again, as to "force', this is not a libertarian world where every nation has foresworn the use of force. That's been tried and has failed. The appeasers like Chamberlain and Petain saw the results of being poorly prepared and, worse, being unwilling to face the fact that some nations just won't be appeased.

How long would it take to field a combined force of a few million trained soldiers, flight crews, and seamen? Million? You ask. Counting only the US forces: WWI used 4.7 million, WWII used 16.3 million, Korea used 5.7 million, Vietnam used 8.7 million (from the World Almanac). How many new recruits could the present force of 1.1 million be able to train in a reasonably short time (a few months to a year) AND still be able to field an effective defensive force while that training is going on? Waiting until the last minute to realize we need to train up a million more is beyond foolish.

Some here are also overlooking the advantage of having these upcoming generations have basic military training. They could defend our RKBA a lot better than our 80 million gunowners.

REALITY CHECK:
Present military training capacity, if multiplied tenfold, could only give six to nine weeks of basic training to 2 million guys per year (which is the number of guys in each age group, i.e. 2 million guys attaining age 18 each year according to the US Census). During the peak of WWII they must've been giving no more than a month of training in order to field five million soldiers, seamen, and aircrew per year.
 
Last edited:
Solitar,

You are absolutely right! I think that both sides (pro-conscription and anti-conscription TFLers) agree that being trained and prepared and skilled in war-craft is important. Some of us just wonder if the first step towards thatshouldn't be the remocal of all the obstacles in the path of those who wish to learn voluntarily before using force to make everyone learn.
 
Anyone who thinks that we should rely only on volunteers, and permit those who object to the draft to stay home, make money, live the good life, and attempt to seduce the wives of those who are serving overseas is nuts.

Most youth are good and would volunteer? Nuts again.

Jerry
 
1) one year of remedial education and training by non-liberal professionals to mitigate the rotten K-12 indoctrination
Click to expand...
Bad politician! No slushfund for you!
NOT the job of the Army!
Hey, one of McNamera's many, MANY sins was trying to use the draft to edumacate the, ahem, less able. "McNamera's 100,000." A major source of disciplinary trouble.
DON'T DO IT!!!!

2) to introduce everyone to military basics to prove that "it is not as bad as the liberals make it out to be" AND so upcoming generations have a better idea of what they are voting about regarding military.
Click to expand...

OK, so we ramp up Junior ROTC in every high school. That's what it exists for...

3) to be recruiting and screening program from which good volunteers will come forth in larger percentages than the present method which draws from the public schools.
Click to expand...
See response to #2 above.

4) to give the nation a universally trained cadre which can be drawn upon for defense when (not if) TSHTF.
Click to expand...
See # 2 above.
As a retired former First Sergeant, yeah, I want to see as many citizens--and permanent resident aliens, too!--trained as possible.
Also as a retired former First Sergeant, I am really, really, really leery of politicians coming up with great military ideas...:barf:
See earlier comments about McNamera...
 
Last edited:
Ipecac:
The "Heinlein model" from "Starship Troopers" does not require military service for citizenship franchise. It merely requires a single term of civil service: anything from mobile infantry to bean counting. The book itself isn't perfectly clear on this point, but Heinlein himself said as much later in several venues, and was a bit peeved that people seemed to glom onto the military aspect of his idea.
Click to expand...
Actually, RAH was quite put out, and kept insisting that it was stated explicitly in the text that qualifying Federal Civil Service was not necessarily military service. He may have been too close to his text, here, because every time I re-read it I still can't find where it says that, unless you read between the lines.
Of course, I can't find the neo-nazi stuff, or the--what was the Phillkip K. Dick line? Oh, yea, "Swaggering Leather Boys", I've never been able to find that, either. Or war-mongering and militarism, for that matter, it's about as militaristic as All Quiet On The Western Front.
I also think Alexi Panshin should be shot, and Spider Robinson should get the Congressional Medal of Freedom... ;)
 
I edited my last post for grammatical clarity and to solve that question for you.
Click to expand...

I still see an error. DNEAF <--I'm not sure what that means.

There's no arguing with your logic about military preparedness. I agree. I'm fully prepared to stipulate that the possible consequences of an all volunteer force during a major war could be very bad. Those are consequences I'm willing to live with in order to be true to my belief of not initiating force against anyone except in cases of self defense.

You're practicing situational ethics unless you're willing to admit that you believe it's ok to initiate force in every situation where you would like someone to perform in a certain way at your behest.
 
What if Military Training was implemented as part of High School PE classes?
Click to expand...
It's called Junior Reserve Offiers Training Corps. It is considered as PE, and completing three years gets you the privelidge of enlisting as a PFC/E3 equivalent.

My high school had DEWAT M14s for drill, and Remington 513T and 40X .22s to shoot in the basement range. They were taken away after goblins broke into the armory in one of the other HSs in Detroit and made off with their rifles; I'm not sure there was a practical way to "Re-WAT" the M14s, but...

Once upon a time 2 years of Senior ROTC was required of all males in college--see "Animal House." ;-) FWIW, the ROTC @ Eastern Michigan University in the 70s was more like the Delta House than the ROTC at whatever college that was...

Anyway, yeah, give everyone--NOT just males--2 years of JROTC, plus 2 years of SROTC if they attend college, and, with a slight re-design of the cuirricula, I think the requirements here are met. (There are arrangements that can be made if your school doesn't have an ROTC dept; you can actually attend classes at a local school that does.)
We might want to make "field trips" opitonal for extra credit or something. "Yes, we are going to be running around the woods with paintball guns learning small unit tactics. You do not have to attend, but you will be required to perform the following to meet the requirements: (xxx hours supervized of community service, etc.)"

Some people will still object. Some people don't like having ROTC on college campuses now, when it's entirely voluntary, and brinign in $Big $Fed Dollar$ to the school.
Nowdays, the Army has begun contracting out the instructor positions for SROTC, looking for former captains and above.
Unless there has been a change, the JROTC insturctors are mostly retired (I almost typed "retread" :p) NCOs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top