4 ms·

A fair number of people in the US, probably in other countries with similar programs, use the military as a means of funding their education at the uni or post-

A fair number of people in the US, probably in other countries with similar programs, use the military as a means of funding their education at the uni or post-uni level. The govt pays for them, and in return there is a multi-year commitment in some form of the military. It's a good deal for both sides, although the risks were pointed out big-time back when Desert Shield became Desert Storm and a whole lot of EMT...MD's disappeared from neighbourhoods and reappeared in the Middle East. Something about the King's Shilling.

chrisseaton 5y ago
In the UK you typically go to college (university in our terminology) before you join the Army, rather than after, but we do have bursaries to support some technical specialities if they commit to joining after they graduate. You can also do in-service degrees, up to PhD I believe.
- zip1234 5y ago
  In the US, all officers must be university grads. The enlisted ranks do not need a university degree to join. I would assume the same is true of enlisted ranks in the UK.
  - digikazi 5y ago
    Technically you don't need a degree to be an officer in the UK: you only need A Levels (finish high school) to go to Sandhurst and begin officer training. In reality however something like 98% of Sandhurst applicants are university graduates. I don't know the exact percentage of entrants who don't have a degree though, so don't quote me. It has been a while. P.s. as a famous example, I believe Prince Harry went to Sandhurst without going to university first.
namelessoracle 5y ago
The American military is a social welfare program in many parts yes.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  It's not welfare, you put work in, it's a great route for many people. It set my entire family along their career paths. I wouldn't really recommend it while warhawks are in charge, but generally it's a nice route to take.
  - bobkazamakis 5y ago
    it's absolutely welfare. Just because you're working doesn't make it not a socialist policy for the benefit of those who join. You can have a jobs program that pays the civilians to dig the holes and the military to burn shit in them and fill them - just because they all now have jobs doesn't make it not welfare, and you've got 100% employment rate.
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      In a sense federal jobs is socialistic I suppose, which is why you should want limited government. But you do need a military force in the country, and you should give people benefits for their sacrifice. It's not genuine to say military service is a welfare program, it's more of a jobs program.
      - bobkazamakis 5y ago
        > In a sense federal jobs is socialistic I suppose, which is why you should want limited government. Before one spends a trillion that could be going to the welfare of the citizens themselves, yeah probably. >But you do need a military force in the country Obviously, not sure why this is said here. >It's not genuine to say military service is a welfare program, it's more of a jobs program. It's not genuine to say it's a jobs program either - my healthcare money is being strapped to rockets and shipped across the ocean. Are those rockets filing taxes?
        hunterb123 5y ago
        > Before one spends a trillion that could be going to the welfare of the citizens themselves, yeah probably. So your suggested system would be to do away with the jobs and just give the taxpayer money away? That's much more socialist. You need to incentivize people or they won't work. If you do away with the military, you might as well not tax the people as much in the first place rather than taking their money and distributing it in a welfare program. > Obviously, not sure why this is said here. It was said because it wasn't clear what you were suggesting. If you're for keeping the military I'm all for lowering the industrial war complex, but I thought we were talking about military service and the benefits we give soldiers. Salaries make up a big part of military expense but those are jobs filled and livelihoods supported. It's the rockets and money we funnel into the middle east that could be cut, not GI bills. > It's not genuine to say it's a jobs program either - my healthcare money is being strapped to rockets and shipped across the ocean. Are those rockets filing taxes? That's fine, along as we agree that it's not genuine to say it's a welfare program. While I don't agree with a lot (or most) of our overseas ventures, especially Middle East or LATAM, you do need a force to protect freedoms. So I agree overall in the branches, just not the leadership, unless they are reducing our presence in places where they aren't needed.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

chrisseaton 5y ago

In the UK you typically go to college (university in our terminology) before you join the Army, rather than after, but we do have bursaries to support some technical specialities if they commit to joining after they graduate. You can also do in-service degrees, up to PhD I believe.

zip1234 5y ago
In the US, all officers must be university grads. The enlisted ranks do not need a university degree to join. I would assume the same is true of enlisted ranks in the UK.
- digikazi 5y ago
  Technically you don't need a degree to be an officer in the UK: you only need A Levels (finish high school) to go to Sandhurst and begin officer training. In reality however something like 98% of Sandhurst applicants are university graduates. I don't know the exact percentage of entrants who don't have a degree though, so don't quote me. It has been a while. P.s. as a famous example, I believe Prince Harry went to Sandhurst without going to university first.

namelessoracle 5y ago

The American military is a social welfare program in many parts yes.

hunterb123 5y ago
It's not welfare, you put work in, it's a great route for many people. It set my entire family along their career paths. I wouldn't really recommend it while warhawks are in charge, but generally it's a nice route to take.
- bobkazamakis 5y ago
  it's absolutely welfare. Just because you're working doesn't make it not a socialist policy for the benefit of those who join. You can have a jobs program that pays the civilians to dig the holes and the military to burn shit in them and fill them - just because they all now have jobs doesn't make it not welfare, and you've got 100% employment rate.
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    In a sense federal jobs is socialistic I suppose, which is why you should want limited government. But you do need a military force in the country, and you should give people benefits for their sacrifice. It's not genuine to say military service is a welfare program, it's more of a jobs program.
    - bobkazamakis 5y ago
      > In a sense federal jobs is socialistic I suppose, which is why you should want limited government. Before one spends a trillion that could be going to the welfare of the citizens themselves, yeah probably. >But you do need a military force in the country Obviously, not sure why this is said here. >It's not genuine to say military service is a welfare program, it's more of a jobs program. It's not genuine to say it's a jobs program either - my healthcare money is being strapped to rockets and shipped across the ocean. Are those rockets filing taxes?
      - hunterb123 5y ago
        > Before one spends a trillion that could be going to the welfare of the citizens themselves, yeah probably. So your suggested system would be to do away with the jobs and just give the taxpayer money away? That's much more socialist. You need to incentivize people or they won't work. If you do away with the military, you might as well not tax the people as much in the first place rather than taking their money and distributing it in a welfare program. > Obviously, not sure why this is said here. It was said because it wasn't clear what you were suggesting. If you're for keeping the military I'm all for lowering the industrial war complex, but I thought we were talking about military service and the benefits we give soldiers. Salaries make up a big part of military expense but those are jobs filled and livelihoods supported. It's the rockets and money we funnel into the middle east that could be cut, not GI bills. > It's not genuine to say it's a jobs program either - my healthcare money is being strapped to rockets and shipped across the ocean. Are those rockets filing taxes? That's fine, along as we agree that it's not genuine to say it's a welfare program. While I don't agree with a lot (or most) of our overseas ventures, especially Middle East or LATAM, you do need a force to protect freedoms. So I agree overall in the branches, just not the leadership, unless they are reducing our presence in places where they aren't needed.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]