Movie

[Xavier_Onassis]

Do we actually WANT  our military to be "good Nazis", and obey their superiors, even when their superiors violete the Constitution or the Declaration of Human Rights?

The military is no longer the job of last resort, as it was back when petty thieves were told that they could choose between going to prison ot joining the Army of Marines. People with room temperature IQ's are no longer the average soldier, not even at the lowest level. 

It might be that in days past, the commanding officers wanted their underlings to be unquestioning, mindless droids. But of course, that is hos utter disasters like the Charge of the Light Brigade and the Somme Offensive occurred. The generals in charge were fools, and huge numbers of troops died from their foolishness. The British invasion of Gallipoli, commanded by Winston Churchill  was based on ancient military campaigns in the classical age. Winston did not take into account that the Turks had mortars and machine guns, while the Greeks only had spears, arrows and swords.  Winston did not get killed or maimed like over half of the Aussies and Kiwis, who he thought of as cannon fodder. Winston was not there. And if anyone questioned him, including his generals, they were ignored, because Winston was from the upper class.

Just because the old "tear them down and build them up like robotroops" worked at one time, that does not mean that it is the best way to do it now, ot that it has ever been the best method.

 

[sirs]

Our military obey orders, or there is chaos.  They are also smart enough to recognize what is and isn't Constitutional.  Holding enemy combatants in Gitmo has nothing to do with the Constitution, so there's no "issue" or violation for them to have to figure out

[Xavier_Onassis]

Holding ANYONE prisoner without charges or trial is a violation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

The US signed this, therefore it is law.

Even more so that Iran is obligated by treaty to not build nuclear weapons, which was a document signed by the Shah, who was essentially a US/UK puppet, and no longer rules.

[Plane]

Is humiliation necessary to cause unquestioning obedience?

   That is a delicate and difficult question, if the military does not discipline well then they might as well be a bandit band.

    But making a soldier mindless is very contrary to US tradition.`

     George Washington lead volunteers, so did Sam Huston. John Paul Jones was noted for endorsing a new level of respect for the common sailor.
     For the last four decades all of our soldiers and sailors have been volunteers, which seems good for the mutual respect of the commissioned and enlisted .

      The expectation of humiliation   is a discipline tool , but it can't be overdone if you expect to keep the volunteers, volunteering.

      Bootcamp needs to be stressfull to fulfill its role as a filter and proving ground, someone who cannot stand the stress of bootcamp , shouldn't be given the much higher stress of combat.

      Is the trend of bootcamp to become easier , counterproductive in turning out soldiers who are less hardened? 

[Xavier_Onassis]

If bootcamp is becoming less harsh, I think it is probably due to more women being enlisted, more than anything else. As more women become drill sergeants, new and perhaps better ways of training soldiers are likely to be adopted.

Once we got a gung-ho vet in charge of our scout troop. He was convinced that scouts should learn how to do precision marching. Most of the scouts, including me, precisely marched out of that troop into troop 211. We were  more into camping, singing songs, whittling, earning merit badges and learning dirty words. After about three months, the guy quit. It is hard to do impressive precision marching when you just have six scouts left.

[kimba1]

hmm
now that`s interesting. if bootcamp is easier now and it creates less harden soldiers. could this be a factor of increased mental issues. I say doubtful only because bootcamp is simply just a intro before combat and would hardy make it that much more easier to handle the real thing.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Is getting yelled at three inches from your nose a substitute for combat? Is being told that you are worthless scum  a substitute for combat?  Is getting extra KP duty because a quarter will not bounce off your bunk a substitute for combat? Are shoes shined to a mirror finish an adequate preparation for battle?

There are different sorts of people in the military: those who are not very bright respond well to being treated as children. But now that the draft has ended, truly stupid people are no longer accepted into the military, and the weapons used are much more complicated. A drone is more complicated than a bayonet. Every soldier is now equipped with electronic devices. In WWII, only one person had a field telephone.

Perhaps fear is still an acceptable motivator. I suppose fear makes me a better driver, as I am constantly looking in the mirrors for possible danger from other incompetent drivers. More than once, I have seen some fool coming up fast behind me and vvered out of his lane. On one occasion, a fool passed me and rear-ended the poor soul who had been in front of me.

I am just saying that perhaps some reevaluation of training is needed to deal with smarter soldiers and much smarter and complicated weapons.

 

[Plane]

hmm
now that`s interesting. if bootcamp is easier now and it creates less harden soldiers. could this be a factor of increased mental issues. I say doubtful only because bootcamp is simply just a intro before combat and would hardy make it that much more easier to handle the real thing.

    That is exactly the point I was trying to make.

      There is a lot of head game in Bootcamp, it is stressful even if less stressful than combat.

       Presumably all those who wash out of bootcamp would not do well in the greater stress of combat, making bootcamp winnow the crop more thoroughly very likely saves problems from later.

Is getting yelled at three inches from your nose a substitute for combat? Is being told that you are worthless scum  a substitute for combat?  Is getting extra KP duty because a quarter will not bounce off your bunk a substitute for combat? Are shoes shined to a mirror finish an adequate preparation for battle?

There is hardly any stress that could really simulate the stress of being injured and watching your close friends being injured in a very noisy environment. People who cannot handle being yelled at rudely should not think that getting shot at is less of a problem.

There are different sorts of people in the military: those who are not very bright respond well to being treated as children. But now that the draft has ended, truly stupid people are no longer accepted into the military,.......

Yes this is true, but the stress is still very high , just as it was when the Musket was the weapon of regiments. Having a weapon that is sophisticated means it requires even more presence of mind  to operate

I am just saying that perhaps some reevaluation of training is needed to deal with smarter soldiers and much smarter and complicated weapons.

 

The smarter soldiers are applying their smarts to this . There is a lot of training that uses video simulation to train at firing complex weapons , so that the simulated shot costs cents rather than wasting a real round on basic familiarization, after a tank gunner has shot hundreds of rounds in simulation , he won't need a large number of real shots to be expert.

  On the battlefields of Europe and America where the regiments were firing muskets at one another , there was sometimes found a musket that had several rounds crammed in the barrel. If the first round misfires , but the soldier is too flustered to notice the lack of recoil, he might go through the motions of reloading several times before he realized he was just making his weapon more and more hard to repair , and if a musket that was loaded six times finally does fire it is a sort of a pipe bomb. Getting good training is not only learning to operate it is also learning to stay calm and operate it well. greater sophistication of weapons does not help with this problem at all.

[sirs]

Being the predisposition our professor has towards war and anyone that carries a gun, its probably a good thing he's not in charge of training our military

[Plane]

Being the predisposition our professor has towards war and anyone that carries a gun, its probably a good thing he's not in charge of training our military

    Well this depends.

    He is an expert on the subject of language and culture. This is nowhere useless.

     The officer corps and the Green Beret especially need this sort of expertise to avoid the kind of misunderstanding that gets the wrong people shot.

      Knowing the enemy well is important , and so is knowing the friends.

     I'll agree that XO doesn't seem to know firearms well, but his professional knowledge would be useful stuff for someone that didn't want to use his firearm inappropriately.

      When I was in the Navy I took a few college courses for free on board ship. The teachers were professors on loan from the University of Florida.

      Oh yes, I would have taken Spanish if that had been offered, we were in Spain often.



I was enlisted of course , but JPJ's words are aspirational.

“It is by no means enough that an officer be capable...He should be a gentleman of liberal education, refined, manners, punctilious courtesy, and the nicest sense of personal honor... No meritorious act of a subordinate should escape his attention, even if the reward be only one word of approval. Conversely, he should not be blind to a single fault in any subordinate.'”


 John Paul Jones quotes (Scottish born American Naval Hero in the U.S. War of Independence, 1747-1792)
 

[Xavier_Onassis]

I have never had any desire whatever to be in the military in any capacity. I have the right to give my opinion about the military, however, because my taxes pay their salaries.

[Plane]

  You have a right to discuss you opinion regardless, and you are welcome to as far as I am concerned.

     Neither of us is compelled to agree, and the disagreement is often the interesting part.

     These professors were licensed to teach , but they were guests , not members of the Navy.

    We had two on my ship, one for history and one for Math, they both got a ride to Spain out of it, but then had to put up with a ride to Djbouti as well.

      The Navy has a lot of education going on that is directly job related, which is good stuff, but this was different I really liked these classes , but on my small ship such opportunities were not common. Large ships can accommodate more special programs.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It makes sense for the Navy to encourage sailors to pursue an education. Math and history are both useful things to know.
Ever sense they have been "reforming" education, they have concentrated on math, reading and writing, and history and geography are barely taught.

[Plane]

    The Navy has a strong requirement for engineering degrees, after all we were all living in a machine.

     But John Paul Jones is not forgotten and he advised knowing language and customs, it is pretty useful to have a language understood if there is some chance to avoid a fight.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I agree entirely. Knowledge is preferable to ignorance. And everyone is born ignorant.