Military Service as an Occupation

Remove all ads!

We watch people killing each other on TV all the time. There's clearly something to it...

Jokes aside, I've seen firsthand what real combat does to some people, even if they don't end up killing anyone. Joining the armed forces is not a decision one should make on a whim.

 

Panem et circenses.

Neither should we discourage people from joining the forces who are reluctant to kill - and leave them only to those who are trigger-happy, weaponfanatics, sadists (or morons used as scapegoats to protect those who actually gave the orders) like in Abu Ghraib https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse or join to get a citizenship like in the US
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/milcitizens.htm

Personally I felt shocked when Germany decided to postphone/end conscription (under the pretense that it was unfair as not everyone was drafted) and to transform the army into a force of professionals as a force of professionals is more liable to become a tool against the government (as it did before in history) than a force that consists to a large part of drafted citizens. Now it´s neither large enough to defend Germanys borders nor professional enough to even fly some soldiers abroad and back http://www.thelocal.de/20141024/germany-unable-to-fly-ebola-patients-home-bundeswehr

 

Why are you implying that enlisting and standing idling by are the two options available?

 

Why did you imply that enlisting means killing people?

Some people in the armed forces do nothing but bureau jobs for their whole term. Others have jobs similar to those of private security firms, carmechanics or engineers. Not everyone is actually shooting on enemies all the time, not even combat troops. And even those that do the shooting not always shoot to kill. And even those that do don´t always hit what they aim for ;-)

However should you understand "partaking in the killing of people" in really wide and general terms, as that it would be any job in or supporting the armed forces then you do just that by not enlisting too - as you enjoy the protection of and the enforcement of your countries politics by arms if need be and pay for it by your taxes like someone hiring a contract killer but not getting his own hands dirty ;-)

 

Ideally, everyone should be discouraged from enlisting, but that's besides the point. Society hasn't progressed that far yet. Nor has humanity for that matter...

 

Regardless of what you're actually doing in the army the fact remains that the institution's existence is based around military conflict, which generally involves killing people. Of course, I was being somewhat facetious when I wrote the original comment too. Even if I was in engineering, or typing in a spreadsheet, the work I would do facilitates others killing people, and I don't believe in that.

Perhaps you're not wrong in that by paying taxes I am implicitly supporting a government's right to wage war -- I feel like that's a very shaky line of argument though. Anyways, I don't see a way out of that. At least I wouldn't be actively participating.

 

As if it ever would be. Even Science Fiction usually does not away with armed forces of some kind but only moves the conflict from a planetary to a spaceperspective (e.g. Imperial Stormtroopers, Star Fleet). I never shared the assumption that a highly developed civilization at any time would mean no more conflict and thus no more need of armed forces. Si vis pacem para bellum.

 

Correct - you believe that others should do that for you so that you can live in peace and the comfort of a safe state.
A bit like somone buying meat to eat who refuses to work in the meathouse for moral reasons.

Not that I don´t respect a person who refuses to serve with a weapon for being a Quaker or having similar firm beliefs which forbid to kill another human being - however there is the alternative civilian service and not every job somehow connected to the armed forces involves killing humans.

Not only by paying taxes but by enjoying the benefits that others work for your safety. If paying taxes is too far fetched to count as supporting the armed forces - there practically is no job that doesn´t somehow contribute to the states existance and it´s armed forces, be it by producing food (soldiers eat too), providing credits (soldiers build houses too), mining resources or working in electronics (a ship or tank is built not only from steel but contains a lot of extras that are produced by someone).

 

It's arbitrary for you to declare I believe in it, but I don't disagree that, by your reasoning, it's an implicit part of my belief system (the difference here is agency).

Then by those standards I'm no different than anyone else. Of course you can say that if that is your definition of active participation. It isn't mine, though.

I'm curious as to whether you're arguing these as philosophical/logical exercises or if it has some deeper connotations to your political/general worldview?

And maybe this is getting too serious for Random Babbling, but I'm far too lazy to start a thread at the Alley, so I guess I'll continue until someone throws a chair at us.

 

You might not, but it is a natural conclusion. The only thing standing in the way is human nature.

The way I see it, the only question is whether humanity destroys itself before it evolves beyond its aggressive tendencies.

 

Really? The chinese were civilized and (for their time) technologically more advanced than anyone else, built the Great Wall - and then the Mongols conquered them.
The romans were civilized people too (for their time) and their idea of living was to conquer their neighbours until they were stopped militarily.
The Achämenid Empire (the old persians) were in some aspects really modern (they did not kill anyone they conquered but allowed the conquered to govern themselves as long as they obeyed) - and it broke apart as soon as the central military force was beaten by a tiny enemy force.

Being a civilized nation means nothing if your neighbour doesn´t agree with you or you can´t coerce him to agree ("speak softly but carry a big stick").

"The only thing" makes that sound as if it was a minor thing easily remedied ;-)

I would assume that conflicts are not limited to humans alone and any civilization (be it fictional or not) which has to somehow govern itself (where never everyone can be content) and to live with limited resources (where never everyone feels to get it´s fair share) will have the same problems that exist since Kain and Abel.
Even the Romulans/Rihannsu split away from the Vulcans despite their achievements in being civilized and controlling that "human" emotions that drew them to violence.

That is unless we speak of a civilization where everyone is mindcontrolled to be content or some 1984 Big Brother makes life double-plus-ungood.

A humanity where everyone is content to the point that no conflict exists will have stopped to be human because the struggle to overcome problems or to make the best of limited resources is part of human nature and a basic part of any system involving capitalism. If people stop wanting more it wouldn´t work anymore.

 

Oh, not *active* participation. I just expanded the conditions of "supporting" the armed forces wider than the already general approach of yours (any job in the army means partaking in killing even if you never fire a shot ).

Heavens no, I´m not advocating a world like in Starship troopers where only those have a vote that served in the forces
http://scifi.stackexchange.com/ques...ly-militaristic-if-not-fascist-society-of-sta

We got hit by a whole lot of furniture it seems as we´re in a different place

 

I never said anything about civilized societies, we were talking about ultimate development and evolution of civilization. It's not something that can be solved while humanity is splintered and in vastly different stages of development. The need for armaments and war is a symptom of the underlying issues.

It's very easily remedied. In fact, it's so simple, it's getting done all on its own. All it takes is time.

You say that as though capitalism is a desirable economic system in a perfect, or indeed any, society. But I do agree that getting past the human condition inevitably means that such a society couldn't be considered human anymore. Not as we see ourselves now anyway.

None of what was said changes the fact that that is where we're heading. Unless we start devolving, which is also a distinct possibility aside from self-annihilation.

 

Interesting, I have always had the exact opposite opinion. I consider the military the only social welfare program that works. It gives people a job, security, discipline, and useful skills for when they get out of the military. Personally, I would do away with welfare and unemployment benefits and force all of them in to the military. I can name at least four people that I know that were aimless in life until they decided to enter the service. All four of them changed for the better and when they left the various services they had skills which have kept them employed for decades ever since.

 

Military organizations certainly have their virtues, but you don't need the military to have all that. That's the same as people arguing for religion and its good sides.

I do also think that most western societies are enabling certain people's worthlessness all too much these days, but I don't see forced military conscription as an appropriate solution.

 

Why do you assume humankind/civilization as a whole is evolving/progressing to some better future?

I completely agree with ConjurerDragon that humankind will always have conflict. Any cursory glance at History will teach you this fact. You seem to imply that humanity will automatically get better as time goes on and naturally form into one cohesive group. In my view, any great group of mankind will have to be reconciled by military force, which is rather against the point if you think it'll lead to demilitarization.

 

History only repeats when we fail to learn its lessons. The outlook may seem rather bleak, but I do think humanity as a whole is progressing past many of the basic issues that divide us.

The way I see it, the biggest obstacle still in the way of cohesion is greed. Conflict equals profit and humans are nothing if not greedy, materialistic whores.

But the majority of humans also inherently crave order, and not just the kind imposed by fear. While sitting on a ticking time bomb does bring some order, it also stands in the way of progress.

 

I don't want to get into my personal life but the military ain't always a one-way path to happiness and self betterment. It really just depends on your experiences, prior character, and whether you choose to maximize your opportunities. The military can leave you mentally broken. Definitely not a replacement for welfare. Maybe job/skills training or something.

I think it's too early in the history of civilization to say whether we can survive without organized mass murder or not. Certainly not for the foreseeable future. But as the world becomes more connected and cultural barriers weaken over thousands of years it's not a stretch to think we could have developed a better form of conflict resolution between groups of non-psychopaths.