5 ms·

Today's generation is strongly detached from the military, I think that is why. If everyone had a close family member or friend serving they would care more ab

by readme 11y ago

Today's generation is strongly detached from the military, I think that is why. If everyone had a close family member or friend serving they would care more about the security of military operations. Like it or not we have enemies still and need to maintain this secrecy to protect our country.

proksoup 11y ago
The closest thing I had to a friend serving, switched from a barely tolerable racist to a fellow who was proud he was protecting our oil interests by shooting hadjis. Difficult to understand how creating enemies abroad is protecting us here.
- readme 11y ago
  Did he actually serve? It says more about the friends you've kept than the quality of your average service member. The military is huge: there are criminals in it. We have our own justice system for that reason. However I can assure you that is not the case man. I am in the Army and I have never been in a place with as many sane people as this... Extreme beliefs are not even close to being the norm. Most people are just concerned about taking care of their families and are quite moderate politically.
  - proksoup 11y ago
    I didn't keep him. He did serve. I am as skeptical of your anecdotal assurances as you are of mine.
  - serf 11y ago
    >The military is huge: there are criminals in it. We have our own justice system for that reason. Are you talking about the justice systems before or after their tour? The first independent justice system that the service(s) use is a concept from Roman times [0], that predates any form of 'Court of Justice' we have in the states, and is really just there to punish soldiers that rebel, not really anything having to do with a split between civilian and soldier. The second form, post tour 'veteran's court', is really just a way to damage-control dependancy-stricken veterans from causing too much publicity in public courts, and as a way to fast-track such people into lighter sentences than their civilian counterparts.[1] 90 percent completion rate and zero percent recidivism! Remarkable, it must be those values instilled by the service(s).. (the same values that lead them to that court, by the way..) [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/opinion/11castille.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/opinion/11castille.html?_r... [0]: http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1940201,00.html http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1940201,0...
MichaelGG 11y ago
My brother is in the US Army (and so was my cousin). I don't believe that Snowden-like reveals put him in any more specific danger - AFAIK, he's at much higher risk from "insurgent" activity, which the US's actions have created without any help from leaks. Nor is using the word "serving" instead of "working" beneficial to how people think about it. It's a job, he enjoys it, he's fairly well compensated (good credit, benefits, etc.) The military offers all sorts of bonuses and recruiting tactics to hire people, like other companies. You're not forced into the military, and when he joined, the various divisions were actually quite picky and it took a while to find a properly compensating match, just like other employers. (Though in my cousin's case, after suffering severe damage on base, they had no trouble discharging her to a rather miserable life, hey just like other corporations.)
- mpyne 11y ago
  > I don't believe that Snowden-like reveals put him in any more specific danger That's true only in the same way that sending half-rations to your soldiers on the front line instead of full rations doesn't put them in "more specific" danger. Or in a civilian context, refusing to wear seat belts doesn't put people in any "more specific" danger, nor does smoking cigarettes. Yet we understand that statistically speaking across the entire population in question, that it is possible to reduce the risk of harm by taking specific actions that have general impact. In the case of the military, it's always a double-ended question. There is the risk added or reduced for your force in particular, but also the risk added or reduced for the adversary forces. E.g. you put "insurgent" in scare-quotes when mentioning that they actually pose a danger to your family in the military, but without seeming to realize that many of the NSA programs Snowden leaked are directly aimed at those very same insurgents putting your family at risk. Even if we take it as true that the U.S. managed to unilaterally create insurgencies (which is by no means the case), that is not the fault of U.S. servicemembers like your family any more so than any other non-U.S. politician. To loop back to my point about managing general risk, the things that Snowden leaks had disastrous real effects, including second- and third- order effects. Beyond improving the security posture of U.S. insurgent adversaries and terror networks (terror networks that strike against U.S. allies in addition to the U.S. itself, I might add), Snowden's leaks also had the effect of weakening the national intelligence agencies of important U.S. allies, and reducing Western nations to infighting even as they needed to be able to present a united front due to geopolitical changes. It's hard to make statements about past "what-ifs" (though that has never stopped Snowden's supporters from chicken-littling about future what-ifs...), but certainly the joint U.S./E.U. reaction to Russia's invasion of Crimea would be more meaningful without Snowden's actions a year earlier. But just because these risks (for the U.S. and for the possible adversaries or the U.S.) can't be quantified or laid out in short and simple flowcharts doesn't mean that those risks don't exist.
sgnelson 11y ago
While I believe you're very much correct in your first statement, I do disagree with your other statements. Some of us believe that the best way of protecting our service members is by not putting them in harms way in the first place. This also entails after service privileges. We should be spending infinitely more on our service members, not less (in terms of healthcare, education, housing, everything.) Instead, were spending an incredibly large amount of money on corporate welfare for things that will probably be either useless, or worse than useless (in that they are dangerous to our troops, for just one example, the infamous A-10 vs JSF debacle. One is a proven way of saving US lives on the ground, the other is a giant waste of money.) Second, we may also feel that the service members (our friends and family) are here to protect the People, not the Government, and thus enforce the ideals behind the Constitution. This entails protecting our (I would go so far as to say everyone's, but I know that's a rather radical interpretation) freedom, from illegal search and seizure that the NSA has very obviously been violating all of our rights, including our soldiers. Secrecy of communications is one thing, but the NSA (and the military) has shown that they care less about that, than they do in actually spying on everyone. The US military's communications system is such a clusterfuck that you often times have troops that are within a mile (in 3d space, so this very much applies to aircraft), that cannot communicate with one another. Maybe I took your comment out of context, but I believe that we should take care of and protect our troops. But that doesn't mean we subvert the ideals of the country that our troops are theoretically fighting for.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by readme 11y ago

proksoup 11y ago

The closest thing I had to a friend serving, switched from a barely tolerable racist to a fellow who was proud he was protecting our oil interests by shooting hadjis. Difficult to understand how creating enemies abroad is protecting us here.

readme 11y ago
Did he actually serve? It says more about the friends you've kept than the quality of your average service member. The military is huge: there are criminals in it. We have our own justice system for that reason. However I can assure you that is not the case man. I am in the Army and I have never been in a place with as many sane people as this... Extreme beliefs are not even close to being the norm. Most people are just concerned about taking care of their families and are quite moderate politically.
- proksoup 11y ago
  I didn't keep him. He did serve. I am as skeptical of your anecdotal assurances as you are of mine.
- serf 11y ago
  >The military is huge: there are criminals in it. We have our own justice system for that reason. Are you talking about the justice systems before or after their tour? The first independent justice system that the service(s) use is a concept from Roman times [0], that predates any form of 'Court of Justice' we have in the states, and is really just there to punish soldiers that rebel, not really anything having to do with a split between civilian and soldier. The second form, post tour 'veteran's court', is really just a way to damage-control dependancy-stricken veterans from causing too much publicity in public courts, and as a way to fast-track such people into lighter sentences than their civilian counterparts.[1] 90 percent completion rate and zero percent recidivism! Remarkable, it must be those values instilled by the service(s).. (the same values that lead them to that court, by the way..) [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/opinion/11castille.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/opinion/11castille.html?_r... [0]: http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1940201,00.html http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1940201,0...

MichaelGG 11y ago

My brother is in the US Army (and so was my cousin). I don't believe that Snowden-like reveals put him in any more specific danger - AFAIK, he's at much higher risk from "insurgent" activity, which the US's actions have created without any help from leaks. Nor is using the word "serving" instead of "working" beneficial to how people think about it. It's a job, he enjoys it, he's fairly well compensated (good credit, benefits, etc.) The military offers all sorts of bonuses and recruiting tactics to hire people, like other companies. You're not forced into the military, and when he joined, the various divisions were actually quite picky and it took a while to find a properly compensating match, just like other employers. (Though in my cousin's case, after suffering severe damage on base, they had no trouble discharging her to a rather miserable life, hey just like other corporations.)

mpyne 11y ago
> I don't believe that Snowden-like reveals put him in any more specific danger That's true only in the same way that sending half-rations to your soldiers on the front line instead of full rations doesn't put them in "more specific" danger. Or in a civilian context, refusing to wear seat belts doesn't put people in any "more specific" danger, nor does smoking cigarettes. Yet we understand that statistically speaking across the entire population in question, that it is possible to reduce the risk of harm by taking specific actions that have general impact. In the case of the military, it's always a double-ended question. There is the risk added or reduced for your force in particular, but also the risk added or reduced for the adversary forces. E.g. you put "insurgent" in scare-quotes when mentioning that they actually pose a danger to your family in the military, but without seeming to realize that many of the NSA programs Snowden leaked are directly aimed at those very same insurgents putting your family at risk. Even if we take it as true that the U.S. managed to unilaterally create insurgencies (which is by no means the case), that is not the fault of U.S. servicemembers like your family any more so than any other non-U.S. politician. To loop back to my point about managing general risk, the things that Snowden leaks had disastrous real effects, including second- and third- order effects. Beyond improving the security posture of U.S. insurgent adversaries and terror networks (terror networks that strike against U.S. allies in addition to the U.S. itself, I might add), Snowden's leaks also had the effect of weakening the national intelligence agencies of important U.S. allies, and reducing Western nations to infighting even as they needed to be able to present a united front due to geopolitical changes. It's hard to make statements about past "what-ifs" (though that has never stopped Snowden's supporters from chicken-littling about future what-ifs...), but certainly the joint U.S./E.U. reaction to Russia's invasion of Crimea would be more meaningful without Snowden's actions a year earlier. But just because these risks (for the U.S. and for the possible adversaries or the U.S.) can't be quantified or laid out in short and simple flowcharts doesn't mean that those risks don't exist.

sgnelson 11y ago

While I believe you're very much correct in your first statement, I do disagree with your other statements. Some of us believe that the best way of protecting our service members is by not putting them in harms way in the first place. This also entails after service privileges. We should be spending infinitely more on our service members, not less (in terms of healthcare, education, housing, everything.) Instead, were spending an incredibly large amount of money on corporate welfare for things that will probably be either useless, or worse than useless (in that they are dangerous to our troops, for just one example, the infamous A-10 vs JSF debacle. One is a proven way of saving US lives on the ground, the other is a giant waste of money.) Second, we may also feel that the service members (our friends and family) are here to protect the People, not the Government, and thus enforce the ideals behind the Constitution. This entails protecting our (I would go so far as to say everyone's, but I know that's a rather radical interpretation) freedom, from illegal search and seizure that the NSA has very obviously been violating all of our rights, including our soldiers. Secrecy of communications is one thing, but the NSA (and the military) has shown that they care less about that, than they do in actually spying on everyone. The US military's communications system is such a clusterfuck that you often times have troops that are within a mile (in 3d space, so this very much applies to aircraft), that cannot communicate with one another. Maybe I took your comment out of context, but I believe that we should take care of and protect our troops. But that doesn't mean we subvert the ideals of the country that our troops are theoretically fighting for.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]