4 ms·

The point of bootcamp isn’t just for you to learn how to do this or that, it’s also about breaking you of your individualist civilian mentality and molding you

The point of bootcamp isn’t just for you to learn how to do this or that, it’s also about breaking you of your individualist civilian mentality and molding you into a soldier/sailor/marine/airman who can put the mission and their fellow service members above themselves. Being yelled at is negative reenforcement and quickly helps you understand your mistakes. Camaraderie also flourishes when you all hate your drill instructor. When you get out and join the real military, you often think back some drill instructors as the “stern but fair” types. Navy bootcamp was surprisingly easy. You quickly figure out what they can and cannot do, how many push-ups you have to do before they’ll let you up, how long they can make you PT, etc. We still had people who couldn’t handle it and were sent home. It was probably for the best. The military isn’t always easy and it really helps to be resilient. If someone criticizes you for doing something stupid and accept that you did a stupid thing, or you can’t let it go, you may not get very far.

pasabagi 5y ago
I know the logic, it's just, I don't think it makes that much sense any more. Fighting wars has become an increasingly technical occupation in the last couple of centuries. Therefore, a technically capable soldier who is cowardly, individualistic, and occasionally insubordinate would be, in some roles (say intelligence) superior to one who was none of those things, but didn't have the technical skills or aptitude. Realistically, a ship is a big machine, so it would make more sense to prize people that fit the typical 'conscientious engineer' profile, warts and all, even if those people are going to be pretty awful at traditional soldiering. These kind of roles have absolutely proliferated over the years, and it makes zero sense to prize physical fitness and ability to follow orders in a lot of them. Imagine if you were a hiring manager for a gigantic industrial complex with cutting edge technology, producing a delicate and high-stakes product, in a environment that often demands extreme creativity and imposes severe timetables. Except all your hirees have to be able to do twenty pushups and be OK with being shouted at by some guy in a big hat. That's the literal situation of human resources on an aircraft carrier, and it's insane.
- notadev 5y ago
  I think what you wrote makes perfect sense and I could get behind not caring so much about some standards for some positions. What would you propose for the support jobs like “Culinary Specialists” or “Logistics Specialists”?
  - pasabagi 5y ago
    My thinking is that a peacetime military is basically a skeleton that needs to be able to be rapidly fleshed out when it becomes necessary. That's not exactly a novel thought, but I think there's a lot of room to explore when you stop thinking about fighting wars, and start thinking about how to build the machine that builds an army (preferably within weeks) if a war breaks out. European countries can be quite good at this: the whole logic of Finland's conscription system is to have it so that if a war breaks out, you can mobilize the whole nation within a short time, and everybody knows where they fit in. In previous big wars, nations have typically just slashed their standards when the war broke out to meet manpower quotas. It would be better, generally speaking, to build an institution that can, in an emergency, use everyone. That would mean, in peacetime, working out if there are profitable places to put people to use, so when you get a deluge of asthmatic flat-footed civilians signing up because a big war has broken out, you don't waste time trying to make them into infantry. Obviously, my view is informed by being a peacenik. If you want an army to do offensive, expeditionary operations on a budget, there's much less to change. Having a big and capable HR department would be important if you were going to get all the dysfunctional people in a country to fight in an actual war, but it would be better, in a small professional force, to just not induct anybody who doesn't meet a bunch of stringent standards.
    - tekknik 4y ago
      At this point you are just trying to force fit your ideals to the real world. Please stop, you clearly don’t understand. the original post i made is clear, make your army hard. or lose your country. maybe you’re russian…
- CobaltFire 5y ago

pasabagi 5y ago

I know the logic, it's just, I don't think it makes that much sense any more. Fighting wars has become an increasingly technical occupation in the last couple of centuries. Therefore, a technically capable soldier who is cowardly, individualistic, and occasionally insubordinate would be, in some roles (say intelligence) superior to one who was none of those things, but didn't have the technical skills or aptitude. Realistically, a ship is a big machine, so it would make more sense to prize people that fit the typical 'conscientious engineer' profile, warts and all, even if those people are going to be pretty awful at traditional soldiering. These kind of roles have absolutely proliferated over the years, and it makes zero sense to prize physical fitness and ability to follow orders in a lot of them. Imagine if you were a hiring manager for a gigantic industrial complex with cutting edge technology, producing a delicate and high-stakes product, in a environment that often demands extreme creativity and imposes severe timetables. Except all your hirees have to be able to do twenty pushups and be OK with being shouted at by some guy in a big hat. That's the literal situation of human resources on an aircraft carrier, and it's insane.

notadev 5y ago
I think what you wrote makes perfect sense and I could get behind not caring so much about some standards for some positions. What would you propose for the support jobs like “Culinary Specialists” or “Logistics Specialists”?
- pasabagi 5y ago
  My thinking is that a peacetime military is basically a skeleton that needs to be able to be rapidly fleshed out when it becomes necessary. That's not exactly a novel thought, but I think there's a lot of room to explore when you stop thinking about fighting wars, and start thinking about how to build the machine that builds an army (preferably within weeks) if a war breaks out. European countries can be quite good at this: the whole logic of Finland's conscription system is to have it so that if a war breaks out, you can mobilize the whole nation within a short time, and everybody knows where they fit in. In previous big wars, nations have typically just slashed their standards when the war broke out to meet manpower quotas. It would be better, generally speaking, to build an institution that can, in an emergency, use everyone. That would mean, in peacetime, working out if there are profitable places to put people to use, so when you get a deluge of asthmatic flat-footed civilians signing up because a big war has broken out, you don't waste time trying to make them into infantry. Obviously, my view is informed by being a peacenik. If you want an army to do offensive, expeditionary operations on a budget, there's much less to change. Having a big and capable HR department would be important if you were going to get all the dysfunctional people in a country to fight in an actual war, but it would be better, in a small professional force, to just not induct anybody who doesn't meet a bunch of stringent standards.
  - tekknik 4y ago
    At this point you are just trying to force fit your ideals to the real world. Please stop, you clearly don’t understand. the original post i made is clear, make your army hard. or lose your country. maybe you’re russian…
CobaltFire 5y ago