4 ms·
How many people do you think are in the military? It’s way below one percent in the USA. In the last war we fought, we lost barely any soldiers compared to the
by ok_dad 2y ago
How many people do you think are in the military? It’s way below one percent in the USA. In the last war we fought, we lost barely any soldiers compared to the number deployed. It’s bad that we lost any, but your argument is logically null. Women aren’t just baby machines, in any case. Nothing is being “reversed” it’s just more equal if everyone is registered for selective service.
- brianwawok 2y agoWw2 killed 3% of the earths population. Our bombs are much worse now.
- Dylan16807 2y ago> Our bombs are much worse now. Are you under the impression that we're still doing trench warfare, though? And any big nukes won't be aimed at soldiers.
- xkqd 2y agoTo everyone’s surprise, we still are engaging in trench warfare. Maybe the USA isn’t currently involved in a war where they’re digging and in the trenches, but Eastern Europe right now is proving that trenches aren’t going anywhere.
- hughesjj 2y agoCome to think of it, I'm unaware of any war over the last 100 years between conventional forces that didn't involve trench warfare. The biggest difference/innovation as of late is inverting the trench, bringing the dirt/sandbags above ground instead of the soldiers below ground https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesco_bastion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesco_bastion
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> I'm unaware of any war over the last 100 years between conventional forces that didn't involve trench warfare Anything involving modern combined-arms warfare. Iraq, for example.
- hughesjj 2y agoI'm being a bit unfair in that I'm counting hesco as a kind of trench warfare, but you're right in that that doesn't exactly apply on 'patrol' Still, I believe earthen barriers are still used to solidify the 'frontlines' if you squint a bit Afaik the Iraq Iran war was still doing straight up trench warfare (at points) and the Syrian civil war + Afghan theater were using caves (in some areas). Same with Korea and Vietnam. Then again you're right in that I don't think sudan etc have used trench warfare (in the first civil war, apparently the second one has on a post edit search: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-65962771 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-65962771 ) You're completely right on the second Iraq war, I don't see any sources for trenches, minus hesco. I think what I comes down to is trench warfare is popular for the same reason earthworks are popular in civil engineering. Cheap, locally sourced, and effective in its purpose.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> the Iraq Iran war was still doing straight up trench warfare (at points) and the Syrian civil war + Afghan theater were using caves (in some areas)Same with Korea and Vietnam Static versus combined arms. The U.S. military is deadly not only because it is big, but also because it practically invented and then mastered modern combined-arms warfare. (It’s why we put so much emphasis on air superiority over e.g. armour.)
- Dylan16807 2y agoAre you defining trench warfare as "has a trench"? Because I meant the system of long lines under fire for weeks/months and high-attrition infantry attacks across the narrow no man's land to take slivers of territory.
- jeltz 2y agoWhat rock do you live under? There is trench warfare going on right now.
- WalterBright 2y agoIn WW1, so many French young men died in the battles that the average height of the French soldier declined by over an inch in WW2. It became popular for French and German women to marry old men and foreigners after both wars. By preserving the women, society can bounce back from a catastrophic loss of young men.
- ok_dad 2y agoLuckily here in America we have hundreds of millions of men and women to give up to the altar of democracy, right? We’re not France in 1915 or 1939. Not only that, but maybe you want to consider more modern war’s attrition rates.
- WalterBright 2y agoUkraine is now drafting old men.
- ok_dad 2y agoUkraine doesn’t have 350 million citizens and the world’s 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 7th largest air forces, ten times more aircraft carriers than the next country, the worlds most effective military training, and a total military budget of more than the next 15 or 20 countries. If we sent troops to Ukraine, Russia would be out within weeks, and we’d have less casualties than Iraq and Afghanistan, assuming Putin didn’t start nuking.
- lukan 2y ago"If we sent troops to Ukraine, Russia would be out within weeks, and we’d have less casualties than Iraq and Afghanistan, assuming Putin didn’t start nuking." Big assumption. Other options are also North Korea sending troops. Or Iran. Or while the US engages there, China uses the opportunity to take Taiwan. Geopolitics is complicated. No one wants a nuclear war, but at some point there is no more rationality, when a side feels pushed over the limit.
- mc32 2y agoTake a look at Ukraine. They're running low on conscripts despite "modern warfare"
- dralley 2y agoThey aren't running low on conscripts. They ran low on people they could conscript using the previous set of conscription laws that were extremely "leaky". Then they changed the law, and now they're not really low on manpower anymore.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- red-iron-pine 2y agoUkraine is running low on conscripts because they're not drafting 18-20 year olds. their national birthrates, just like in the rest of Europe, are low, and losing 20-40% of the 18-25 year old cohort means population collapse. Russia is in a similar place, and is generally only drafting from ethnic minorities, far eastern locales, and prisoners, plus a hearty dose of mercenaries. that said, they have 3x the population and can just pull way more people. in both countries the average of a trooper is like 38-45.