We Need to Strengthen Our Military. Thoughts?

@beckyromero Its not really pacifist left, just toning it down a tiny amount.

@beckyromero I don't think it is pacifistic, but a little bit of reality. The problem is not just the budget deficit that "we" have now crested by spending so much more. Actually, I read one source stating the increase in military spending, really is nothing more than an adjustment for inflation over the past 10 years plus built in increases in salaries, etc., all of which were planned many years ago.

Having said that, I happen to believe in universal conscription. I believe every citizen should be required to serve in some national fashion for at least 2 years. The all volunteer military has eliminated a certain safety check on the military. I served at the time when #45 got off from serving because of his bone spur. Of course I served as a physician, and not in Viet Nam, I was totally isolated with an assignment in Iceland which at the time was a harsh assignment considered as if on a ship. That was before internet, email, etc. I was away from family, my career was on hold, continuing medical education was limited solely to whatever journals I could get mailed to me. I believe that every citizen should pay back a little for the rights we have achieved. Perhaps having a civilian military would improve it.

I served with enlisted men who had PhDs in political science, history, were the elite, and helped to temper and give goals to those who barely had high school diplomas.

@Burnley123
You think the Democratic Party is the same as it was 14 years ago? You don't think there's been a far left lurch?

@beckyromero
More like a centre-left inch.

@samueltyler2
Aside from the moral arguments against involuntary servitude, you think the country could handle the increased budget? How many personnel would you increase it by?

@Burnley123
Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Dick Durbin

aren't quite like Dick Gephardt, George Mitchell, Hillary Clinton and Sam Nunn.

Not when it comes to matters of national defense and foreign policy.

@beckyromero They don't control the Democrats, they are just a large minority faction. Pelosi belongs on the second line IMO. Don't think we'll agree though and I wish you well.

@Burnley123 🙂

@beckyromero less than the cost of the recent tax cut for the wealthy!

@beckyromero why is there any moral argument about servitude? Don't you believe that you should pay back for being free? You would gain more from service than you probably would give.

@samueltyler2 That's not what I asked. You are proposing conscription. How big will the military be and how will you pay for it?

@beckyromero until recently military service was required and the pay came from taxes, the same way as all federal expenses. I said that service could be either in the military or some other form. Yes, there would be cost for it, but the benefits would outweigh the costs. If we started immediately we would have to find a way to require univetsal service for say 2 years starting at some age. At a nominal cost figure, you could figure out the total costs. By the way, I am calling for females as well as males to serve.

@samueltyler2
I thought the draft ended when Nixon was president. I'd hardly call that recent.


In other words, YOU DON'T KNOW.

Isn't that method of governing on display enough these days?

Why do you need to be nasty? True, I don't know the date mandatory service stopped. What I am suggesting is that all citizens be required to serve in some capacity.

The selective services announced no further drafts as of January 27, 1973 but registration only stopped in 1975. In 1980 registration.was reconstituted and every man 28-25 must register.

@samueltyler2 Not intended to sound nasty. Sorry if it came out that way. I intended it as sarcasm.

Why? Because too often (granted more with the left re: social spending) someone will propose something that will cost a lot of money without saying how they will pay for it.

@samueltyler2

Here are some numbers to ponder regarding your proposal.

The 2016 population numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau estimates there to be 30.8 million people aged 18-24.

So approximately that's 4.4 million 19-year olds.

In 2017, someone at the lowest pay grade in the U.S. Armed Forces, an E-1, would earn $1516.20 per month.

Let's do the math, shall we?

4.4 million X $1516.20 X 12 = $80,055,360,000 per year.

That's without accounting for housing allowances, basic allowances for subsistence, equipment, training and medical costs.

And the 2018 budget that just passed increases military pay by 2.4%, along with increases in housing allowances and subsistence.

In addition, there are associated costs in the future for pay increases at higher ranks, military pensions and Veterans Administration benefits.

And let's DOUBLE all those costs since there's a two-year period of service you are proposing for each high school graduate. (I'm assuming that you don't what the ENTIRE U.S. population to serve a two-year commitment?)

Currently, the annual U.S. military budget is about $700 billion.

Just for personnel PAY costs alone, your plan adds over $160 billion to the existing defense budget.

According to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, it costs about $17,000 a year to properly equip a U.S. army soldier.

(kevlar helmet, safety glasses, night and thermal scopes, body armor, fire retardent gloves, knee and elbow pads, combat boots, M4 modular carbine, close combat optic for M4, and miscellaneous equipment.)

That's about equal to the soldier's annual pay.

So now let's double that annual pay cost to cover their standard equipment too and we're now up to about $320 billion annually.

And we still haven't accounted for housing allowances, basic allowances for subsistence, equipment, training and medical costs.

Nor for pay increases at higher ranks, military pensions and Veterans Administration benefits.

True, some savings will result in that some of those 4.4 million are already in the service. But what about training for all those new recruits?

Oh, yes. Don't forget about Social Security benefits, too.

You forgot to factor in deferments, offset of other costs, improvement in what the individuals do, etc. Before 1973 that was all factored in and the economy was not in as good shape as now even factoring in inflation. I also question the number of 19 year olds anyway. I tried to look that up and couldn't actually find the number. The history of the draft reveals that a certain percentage were not fit, so that decreases the pool further.

In many countries the conscripted is responsible for his/her uniform, but not the fighting equipment. Remember, I never said all would go into the fighting army anyway. Things likebthe job corps, peace corps, etc. Would qualify. The return on investment would also be substantial and boost the economy upon completion of their service. I don't know how to factor that in. The economics of this all is too complex to do here.

But even those not serving in the military would get paid. And jobs like the Peace Corps still involve housing, travel, subsistence, etc. Just not the military equipment costs.

Deferments wouldn't save much since most of those getting one could serve in other ways. They might be unfit to meet military service but qualify to serve in other duties.

I estimated the number of 19-year olds from Census data (as 1/7 of the 30.8 million)
source: https://www.marketingcharts.com/featured-30401

But the main point is that what you propose would be ENORMOUSLY expensive.

And the whole purpose of the Department of Defense is to defend the country, not to improve the economy or act as some social training ground for teenagers.

There also might be Constitutional questions if it wasn't just for military service (which has that underlying physical requirement).

Since you said women would not be exempt in your plan, an argument could be made that a 41-year old mother of three might not be able to get out of serving any more than a 22-year old college kid working part time at the local Dairy Queen.

Social disruption would be extensive. Can't see Congress touching it with a ten-foot pole.

You twist the facts. I never said a 41 yo mother would have to serve. I said that going forward all citizens starting at a certain age would be required to serve on some function. I was allowed to finish my medical training and then had to serve for 2 years. I propose the same. Would it cost more than current, I don't really know if so and how much. It isn't just mathematics. Historically it used to work. Yes some games the system, such as Mr trump, but most of us did get up to the plate and served. If there is a model, look at other countries.

@samueltyler2
No, you never said that - and I didn't say you did.

Only that you said you want women to not be exempt. So [b]I said it as far as age was concerned[/b] - bringing up the question of constitutionality since those beyond military fitness requirements might still be able to serve in other ways.

@beckyromero there are non-military exemptions that existed in the past that would still if universal service requirements were developed. The advantages to all would be great. The financial costs would be worth it.