8 ms·

So one of the things I like about Tiktok is you get exposed to something you normally wouldn't and it can be fascinating. One example of this I had an Air Force

by jmyeet 5y ago

So one of the things I like about Tiktok is you get exposed to something you normally wouldn't and it can be fascinating. One example of this I had an Air Force recruiter pop up on my fyp. This is obviously US-centric (as opposed to the article, which is the UK) but here are some things I've learned: 1. The difference between Reserve and Guard? Reserve is Federal, Guard is State (this was news to me); 2. Signing up for the Guard or Reserve is typically a 6 year commitment; 3. Your commitment begins when you sign up but you can defer your enlistment for up to a year; 4. You can sign up having completed your junior year in high school and defer training until after you graduate (which I think you have to anyway) but that's 1 of your 6 years down already; 5. Reservists get tuition assistance of up to $9,000/year; 6. Assuming a 4 year college degree and early enlistment, you can graudate with 5 years of your 6 year commitment done; 7. For one weekend a month and 2 weeks a year, you typically get $250-300/month (plus active duty pay where appropriate); 8. You also get medical and dental insurance. As ridiculous as the US college system is in terms of cost, I'm happy things like this exist to at least give people more options. If you go to college, the above can amount to $50,000 plus benefits over a 6 year period.

mschuster91 5y ago
> As ridiculous as the US college system is in terms of cost, I'm happy things like this exist to at least give people more options. The only people I want in an army are those who have freely and independently chosen to join the army and who have been psychologically and physically checked to be fit for service. The motivation of a soldier should exclusively be to serve their country, not financial or status (e.g. citizenship) gain. People who have "chosen" because they have no other perspective to rise in life later-on should they survive their service or because they were pressured to do so by their family or friends have no place in the armed forces. An army should strive for excellence - Putin's troops are the current showcase for entire generations to see what happens otherwise.
- yywwbbn 5y ago
  ‘ The motivation of a soldier should exclusively be to serve their country, not financial or status (e.g. citizenship) gain.’ No successful professional military has ever worked like this. Basically you want a an army comprised mainly of fanatical nationalists whose only purpose is to ‘serve their country’ (whatever that means). Hate it to break it to you but such a force would more closely resemble the Waffen SS, rather than the citizen militias of colonial America or ancient Greece. A modern professional military should mainly made up from balanced and educated professionals to be effective. People like this usually have other choices in life and thus need certain incentives to join. Not saying serving you country shouldn’t be a part of it, but for most such people that alone is not enough. For that you either need to decrease the general size of the army dramatically or find other ways of ‘motivating’ new recruits to ‘join’. The second options has not historically resulted in anything resembling ‘ excellence’ outside of ultra-militaristic, jingoist societies.
toomuchtodo 5y ago
This isn't a positive. It is a tragedy that these services (education, healthcare) are difficult to obtain without military service in a supposedly developed country.
- letitbeirie 5y ago
  > This isn't a positive It's a silver lining. It's shameful that the need exists at all, but it's definitely a positive for the people who are getting mostly screwed by the status quo but would otherwise be getting completely screwed.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dogman144 5y ago
  I'd argue it's a positive in that its the only route out currently for people born in certain zip codes, such that with 2 years in active duty, your whole life trajectory can change (free college, "honorable military service" stamp on your resume, so on - I'll spare the recruiting pitch). The local high schools aren't doing it, the government isn't doing it, but the military will. But... The tragedy is that this is the only route available for people born in certain zipcodes. The dynamic of needing to volunteer to discernibly bump up the odds of your own gruesome death in order to get the only decent fair deal on succeeding in the civilian world is everything that is wrong with the US at the moment.
  - micromacrofoot 5y ago
    How can you call something a positive and then immediately call it a tragedy? that's not a positive at all!
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - bitxbitxbitcoin 5y ago
      It is positive on a micro level (that the opportunity exists) but a tragedy on the macro level (that that is the only opportunity that exists).
foldr 5y ago
>You also get medical and dental insurance. This reminds me of a point Michael Moore made in Sicko – that Americans are generally fine with government spending if it's directed at the military. As he put it, America could probably have a national health service as long as the doctors and nurses wore camo.
- zdragnar 5y ago
  It's a pretty lame point. We're fine with spending on members of the military because, at any point, they may have to put their lives on the line for the rest of us. National defense isn't something you can prepare for after you need it. There are valid arguments to be made for society banding together and providing health care for everyone. "but the military gets it" isn't one of them.
  - ahtihn 5y ago
    It's always funny to call it "defense" spending when so much of it goes to wars of aggression.
  - foldr 5y ago
    Still though, government-provided medical insurance is accepted as a perk in this context, where as in other contexts, many Americans express extreme skepticism about the concept.
    - zdragnar 5y ago
      In this context, the government is the employer. Why are you treating it like a different one?
- speed_spread 5y ago
  "We'll fill those cavities (aka teeth terrorists) full of lead!"
- dugmartin 5y ago
  IIRC, Bill O'Reilly wrote about this idea while he was getting his MPA from Harvard. Create a universal national health service run by the Surgeon General where all the doctors wore military uniforms. This would radically reduce any big government scare messaging from financial conservatives.
lm28469 5y ago
> I'm happy things like this exist to at least give people more options. Risking getting killed and having to kill people to pay for your education and being happy about it is up there in the list of "only in America"

by jmyeet 5y ago

mschuster91 5y ago

> As ridiculous as the US college system is in terms of cost, I'm happy things like this exist to at least give people more options. The only people I want in an army are those who have freely and independently chosen to join the army and who have been psychologically and physically checked to be fit for service. The motivation of a soldier should exclusively be to serve their country, not financial or status (e.g. citizenship) gain. People who have "chosen" because they have no other perspective to rise in life later-on should they survive their service or because they were pressured to do so by their family or friends have no place in the armed forces. An army should strive for excellence - Putin's troops are the current showcase for entire generations to see what happens otherwise.

yywwbbn 5y ago
‘ The motivation of a soldier should exclusively be to serve their country, not financial or status (e.g. citizenship) gain.’ No successful professional military has ever worked like this. Basically you want a an army comprised mainly of fanatical nationalists whose only purpose is to ‘serve their country’ (whatever that means). Hate it to break it to you but such a force would more closely resemble the Waffen SS, rather than the citizen militias of colonial America or ancient Greece. A modern professional military should mainly made up from balanced and educated professionals to be effective. People like this usually have other choices in life and thus need certain incentives to join. Not saying serving you country shouldn’t be a part of it, but for most such people that alone is not enough. For that you either need to decrease the general size of the army dramatically or find other ways of ‘motivating’ new recruits to ‘join’. The second options has not historically resulted in anything resembling ‘ excellence’ outside of ultra-militaristic, jingoist societies.

toomuchtodo 5y ago

This isn't a positive. It is a tragedy that these services (education, healthcare) are difficult to obtain without military service in a supposedly developed country.

letitbeirie 5y ago
> This isn't a positive It's a silver lining. It's shameful that the need exists at all, but it's definitely a positive for the people who are getting mostly screwed by the status quo but would otherwise be getting completely screwed.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dogman144 5y ago
I'd argue it's a positive in that its the only route out currently for people born in certain zip codes, such that with 2 years in active duty, your whole life trajectory can change (free college, "honorable military service" stamp on your resume, so on - I'll spare the recruiting pitch). The local high schools aren't doing it, the government isn't doing it, but the military will. But... The tragedy is that this is the only route available for people born in certain zipcodes. The dynamic of needing to volunteer to discernibly bump up the odds of your own gruesome death in order to get the only decent fair deal on succeeding in the civilian world is everything that is wrong with the US at the moment.
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  How can you call something a positive and then immediately call it a tragedy? that's not a positive at all!
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - bitxbitxbitcoin 5y ago
    It is positive on a micro level (that the opportunity exists) but a tragedy on the macro level (that that is the only opportunity that exists).

foldr 5y ago

>You also get medical and dental insurance. This reminds me of a point Michael Moore made in Sicko – that Americans are generally fine with government spending if it's directed at the military. As he put it, America could probably have a national health service as long as the doctors and nurses wore camo.

zdragnar 5y ago
It's a pretty lame point. We're fine with spending on members of the military because, at any point, they may have to put their lives on the line for the rest of us. National defense isn't something you can prepare for after you need it. There are valid arguments to be made for society banding together and providing health care for everyone. "but the military gets it" isn't one of them.
- ahtihn 5y ago
  It's always funny to call it "defense" spending when so much of it goes to wars of aggression.
- foldr 5y ago
  Still though, government-provided medical insurance is accepted as a perk in this context, where as in other contexts, many Americans express extreme skepticism about the concept.
  - zdragnar 5y ago
    In this context, the government is the employer. Why are you treating it like a different one?
speed_spread 5y ago
"We'll fill those cavities (aka teeth terrorists) full of lead!"
dugmartin 5y ago
IIRC, Bill O'Reilly wrote about this idea while he was getting his MPA from Harvard. Create a universal national health service run by the Surgeon General where all the doctors wore military uniforms. This would radically reduce any big government scare messaging from financial conservatives.

lm28469 5y ago

> I'm happy things like this exist to at least give people more options. Risking getting killed and having to kill people to pay for your education and being happy about it is up there in the list of "only in America"