5 ms·

> Without getting into weeds too much, there's lots of good work happening to make it easy to join the federal government or enlist in the military. Why is it

by jbapple 10y ago

> Without getting into weeds too much, there's lots of good work happening to make it easy to join the federal government or enlist in the military. Why is it good to make it easy to enlist in the military?

danso 10y ago
We have a volunteer corps. For a lot of people, the military is one of the best job options as it also offers paid education via the G.I. Bill.
- jbapple 10y ago
  > For a lot of people, the military is one of the best job options How do you weigh that against the risk of injury, death, or PTSD, as well as the civlian casualties of US wars? To be specific - do you believe Iraq Body Count or the Lancet surveys, and how many civilians would have to have been killed in the second Iraq war for you to think it would be a net ethical negative to make it easier to enlist?
  - danso 10y ago
    That's a question that has no easy answer. In the U.S., the decision to go to war is made by civilians: the President and (ideally) Congress. Below the President, the top military decision-maker/administrator -- Secretary of Defense -- is also a civilian. All the people in the country could sign up and join the military and yet have no authority to actually go to war. But I'm not naive: the decision to go to war is made easier when the commander-in-chief has a capable and willing army to command. I teach a programming class and I like to talk about "real world" algorithms, such as the Vietnam War draft and lottery [0], a tragicomical example of how hard it is to generate random numbers. But the algorithmic thinking is not just the details of the lottery, but why the lottery was the needed algorithm in the first place. The answer: because not enough people want to volunteer for war. And random selection seems to be the only way to raise an army without angering the citizenry. Now that we have a volunteer army, there are new algorithms in play. Such as where to focus recruitment efforts based on demographic makeup of people who currently volunteer. This is all to say that as bad as the draft was, a volunteer army doesn't make things hunky dory. And why should we settle for anything less than the quip, "What if they gave a war and nobody came"? So yeah, I see the rationale for not making the military easy to join. OTOH, I still think that the prospect of war -- and the use of military force in matters of diplomacy -- is a reality we have to live in. Making the military more smoothly administered does not necessarily correlate with an increase in horrors of war. If the military attracts good people, then that means there is the chance of having good people in the chain of command. To go off on a tangent, better military technology hasn't always resulted in more war. The atomic bomb was used to wreak horror; on the other hand, the prospect of nuclear war seems to have stifled the kind of "great" wars we've had since Hiroshima. So to answer your question: I think it's too simplistic to think of a better military as being a net negative, if we accept the realities of the current world. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_lottery_(1969) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_lottery_(1969)
    - jbapple 10y ago
      > Making the military more smoothly administered does not necessarily correlate with an increase in horrors of war. Certainly making enlistment harder will decrease the number of troops (absent a draft) which has a non-zero probability of decreasing military adventurism, yes? Discouraging a single enlistment seems to me like it has the same order-of-magnitude impact as casting a single vote. > If the military attracts good people, then that means there is the chance of having good people in the chain of command. How does making enlistment easier increase the percentage of volunteers that are good people? > I think it's too simplistic to think of a better military as being a net negative Do you think more recruits means a "better" military?
      - matt4077 10y ago
        The military is getting a few more recruits than they need, so they are turning a few away. Discouraging enlistment would therefore not change the troop size until you get to a certain number. Until then, you'd be tightening the freedom of the military to turn people away, which means lowered standards. There is a case to be made that you want the best possible people to join the military. Because you need a certain level of intelligence and moral integrity to, for example, refuse unlawful orders. In fact, that mechanism used to be the top argument for the draft in my country (Germany). "Pacifists make the best soldiers" so-to-speak (although pacifists were in reality exempt from service).
  - bdcravens 10y ago
    I imagine you have to deal with the same ethical issues if you chose to go in to law enforcement (crimes against minorities) or EMT work (you may be called upon to help someone who just committed a crime, say in a DWI wreck or arrest). I have no statistics, but I imagine the combat duty to total enlistment ratios make it a very calculated risk.
  - walshemj 10y ago
    If your a bright kid form a depressed area working in the tail arms to get get an education is probably better than staying.
- shostack 10y ago
  >"the military is one of the best job options" That seems like a problem in and of itself, and certainly a more pressing one.
  - mc32 10y ago
    Many advanced countries require people of a certain age to do a stint in the military. I think a volunteer force is preferable to a conscripted force.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      A volunteer force is definitely superior if you want to limit the concern of the general population about wars and make making war politically easier for the ruling class, which was a major consideration in the US switching to an all-volunteer force.
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        About 80+% of people join the military for money, college, and other benefits. The well-off people don't need the military for that. So, a volunteer military naturally selects for a make up of lower classes to be sent to die overseas to largely protect wealth of upper classes. If there was a lottery, pushback from casualties would come from more people in upper classes that could cause real problems for politicians and generals. Could even be their own kids sent there. Switching to a "volunteer" military in an increasingly-shitty economy sweeps lots of their problems under the rug. ;)
      - mc32 10y ago
        A volunteer professional force is better prepared than one composed of essentially transient members, so casualty rates, should they need to enter battle should be lower than a conscripted military.
  - weberc2 10y ago
    Probably not one the USDS is particularly well-equipped to solve though.

by jbapple 10y ago

danso 10y ago

We have a volunteer corps. For a lot of people, the military is one of the best job options as it also offers paid education via the G.I. Bill.

jbapple 10y ago
> For a lot of people, the military is one of the best job options How do you weigh that against the risk of injury, death, or PTSD, as well as the civlian casualties of US wars? To be specific - do you believe Iraq Body Count or the Lancet surveys, and how many civilians would have to have been killed in the second Iraq war for you to think it would be a net ethical negative to make it easier to enlist?
- danso 10y ago
  That's a question that has no easy answer. In the U.S., the decision to go to war is made by civilians: the President and (ideally) Congress. Below the President, the top military decision-maker/administrator -- Secretary of Defense -- is also a civilian. All the people in the country could sign up and join the military and yet have no authority to actually go to war. But I'm not naive: the decision to go to war is made easier when the commander-in-chief has a capable and willing army to command. I teach a programming class and I like to talk about "real world" algorithms, such as the Vietnam War draft and lottery [0], a tragicomical example of how hard it is to generate random numbers. But the algorithmic thinking is not just the details of the lottery, but why the lottery was the needed algorithm in the first place. The answer: because not enough people want to volunteer for war. And random selection seems to be the only way to raise an army without angering the citizenry. Now that we have a volunteer army, there are new algorithms in play. Such as where to focus recruitment efforts based on demographic makeup of people who currently volunteer. This is all to say that as bad as the draft was, a volunteer army doesn't make things hunky dory. And why should we settle for anything less than the quip, "What if they gave a war and nobody came"? So yeah, I see the rationale for not making the military easy to join. OTOH, I still think that the prospect of war -- and the use of military force in matters of diplomacy -- is a reality we have to live in. Making the military more smoothly administered does not necessarily correlate with an increase in horrors of war. If the military attracts good people, then that means there is the chance of having good people in the chain of command. To go off on a tangent, better military technology hasn't always resulted in more war. The atomic bomb was used to wreak horror; on the other hand, the prospect of nuclear war seems to have stifled the kind of "great" wars we've had since Hiroshima. So to answer your question: I think it's too simplistic to think of a better military as being a net negative, if we accept the realities of the current world. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_lottery_(1969) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_lottery_(1969)
  - jbapple 10y ago
    > Making the military more smoothly administered does not necessarily correlate with an increase in horrors of war. Certainly making enlistment harder will decrease the number of troops (absent a draft) which has a non-zero probability of decreasing military adventurism, yes? Discouraging a single enlistment seems to me like it has the same order-of-magnitude impact as casting a single vote. > If the military attracts good people, then that means there is the chance of having good people in the chain of command. How does making enlistment easier increase the percentage of volunteers that are good people? > I think it's too simplistic to think of a better military as being a net negative Do you think more recruits means a "better" military?
    - matt4077 10y ago
      The military is getting a few more recruits than they need, so they are turning a few away. Discouraging enlistment would therefore not change the troop size until you get to a certain number. Until then, you'd be tightening the freedom of the military to turn people away, which means lowered standards. There is a case to be made that you want the best possible people to join the military. Because you need a certain level of intelligence and moral integrity to, for example, refuse unlawful orders. In fact, that mechanism used to be the top argument for the draft in my country (Germany). "Pacifists make the best soldiers" so-to-speak (although pacifists were in reality exempt from service).
- bdcravens 10y ago
  I imagine you have to deal with the same ethical issues if you chose to go in to law enforcement (crimes against minorities) or EMT work (you may be called upon to help someone who just committed a crime, say in a DWI wreck or arrest). I have no statistics, but I imagine the combat duty to total enlistment ratios make it a very calculated risk.
- walshemj 10y ago
  If your a bright kid form a depressed area working in the tail arms to get get an education is probably better than staying.
shostack 10y ago
>"the military is one of the best job options" That seems like a problem in and of itself, and certainly a more pressing one.
- mc32 10y ago
  Many advanced countries require people of a certain age to do a stint in the military. I think a volunteer force is preferable to a conscripted force.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    A volunteer force is definitely superior if you want to limit the concern of the general population about wars and make making war politically easier for the ruling class, which was a major consideration in the US switching to an all-volunteer force.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      About 80+% of people join the military for money, college, and other benefits. The well-off people don't need the military for that. So, a volunteer military naturally selects for a make up of lower classes to be sent to die overseas to largely protect wealth of upper classes. If there was a lottery, pushback from casualties would come from more people in upper classes that could cause real problems for politicians and generals. Could even be their own kids sent there. Switching to a "volunteer" military in an increasingly-shitty economy sweeps lots of their problems under the rug. ;)
    - mc32 10y ago
      A volunteer professional force is better prepared than one composed of essentially transient members, so casualty rates, should they need to enter battle should be lower than a conscripted military.
- weberc2 10y ago
  Probably not one the USDS is particularly well-equipped to solve though.