Abolish the armed forces

[SilentScreams]

Well MAD did a good job of not killing us in a week during the Cold War.

It's an impossibility to abolish the armed forces of the various nations. We are not noble savages. Since the damn of man we've been killing each other. To abolish the armed forces would leave nation states defenseless to protect their interests, their land, and their people. Without standing armies there is nothing to stop a local strong man from taking what he or she wants from the territory surrounding their stronghold. Even if firearms were abolished that would not solve the problem, far more humans have died at the point of a sword then under the barrel of a gun.

It would be counterproductive to dismantle our nuclear arsenal. No matter how much we may wish it that particular genie has been let out of the bottle. Anyone with an internet connection can discover exactly how to make a nuclear weapon. Anyone with enough capital can make one. To dismantle our arsenal would only serve to dismantle our deterrence. Until the current administration the standing response to a strike against us with a WMD was to retaliate with a nuclear response.

Deterrence implies strength. The greatest deterrence is that the person you are thinking of attacking is stronger then you are. It may not be pretty but that is the way the world works.

[Hemingway]

Well MAD did a good job of not killing us in a week during the Cold War.

Barely.

It's an impossibility to abolish the armed forces of the various nations. We are not noble savages. Since the damn of man we've been killing each other. To abolish the armed forces would leave nation states defenseless to protect their interests, their land, and their people. Without standing armies there is nothing to stop a local strong man from taking what he or she wants from the territory surrounding their stronghold. Even if firearms were abolished that would not solve the problem, far more humans have died at the point of a sword then under the barrel of a gun.

I've responded so similar claims before. I think the first thing to point out is that I've never suggested, and certainly no one else in this thread has, that we completely abolish all armed forces. I'm arguing for abolition where it's possible, reduction where it's not.

For me, the most important thing is for supernational organizations to be able to intervene, if necessary with military might, in places where it's necessary to prevent even greater atrocities. That's quite distinct from every country on the planet having an entire army numbering in the tens of thousands ready to invade a neighboring country. It just isn't necessary, and it certainly doesn't make the world a safer place, which is what this is ultimately about.

It would be counterproductive to dismantle our nuclear arsenal. No matter how much we may wish it that particular genie has been let out of the bottle. Anyone with an internet connection can discover exactly how to make a nuclear weapon. Anyone with enough capital can make one. To dismantle our arsenal would only serve to dismantle our deterrence. Until the current administration the standing response to a strike against us with a WMD was to retaliate with a nuclear response.

Deterrence implies strength. The greatest deterrence is that the person you are thinking of attacking is stronger then you are. It may not be pretty but that is the way the world works.

If you're implying that any person with access to the internet can get his hands on the technology required to make a nuclear warhead and a delivery system, not to mention that actual components, including enriched uranium, I think you're underestimating the difficulty of making such a weapon. Especially if you want to do it without attracting attention.

Furthermore, suppose some private entity, some non-government organization, whoever - not the state - gets their hands on a nuclear weapon, and threaten to use it. Given how many people are willing to die for a cause, do you really think they'd hesitate, just because they might get hit back? Do you want to bet your life on that? And if you do, and they still threaten you, are you suggesting we nuke some innocent third party in the hopes we'll get the terrorists at the same time? A small group is hiding somewhere in some city in some wretched part of the world, and you want to kill everyone there, just in case?

Because otherwise I can't see any way nuclear weapons would help in that situation. In other words, no compelling reasons for keeping them, but a lot to get rid of them.

As for some reasons why deterrence simply can't be relied upon, I'll refer you to my previous post.

[Oniya]

Musical interlude time:

[noembed]Who's Next[/noembed]
[noembed]So Long, Mom (A Song For World War III)[/noembed]
[noembed]We Will All Go Together[/noembed]

*coughs*  Lovely thing about satire - it seems to be easily recycled.

[SilentScreams]

There is no barely. Extinction is a zero sum game. Either we survived, or we didn't.

I, for one, am wholly unwilling to put my trust and well being in the hands of foreign masters concerned with running a planet. Slavery is something that humanity has been fighting for millenniums to abolish and to blithely imply that a strong, central international body would have the ability to intervene to prevent "atrocities" is a cunningly concealed argument advocating the enslavement of the human race because we just can't be trusted to not destroy ourselves.

Who is to judge what these "atrocities" are? Maybe in the short term they are quasi-legitimate but in the long term what is to stop an all powerful international organization from deciding that private ownership of guns, or free expression, or property ownership is an "atrocity"? When it come to governemnt, any government, it will ultimately devolve into an exercise meant to perpetuate its own existence and it will create "emergencies" to justify that existence.

When I referred to the internet and making nuclear weapons I was referring to the technical process, not the mechanical. Although with enough capital someone who be able to build one. Any billion dollar company could build one. They would diversify into mining (not all sources of uranium or plutonium around the globe are guarded, or even know), begin industrial production, it could be done. The remainder of your argument against someone privately doing it is a poorly constructed syllogism.

Terrorists use weapons.
Nuclear bombs are weapons.
Terrorists would use nuclear weapons.

Of course they would. That's a moot point. The people you have to worry about are the ones who wouldn't use the weapon but would have it just to have it, or have it for long range, strategic goals. The most compelling reason to keep them is that other nations, no matter what claims they may make to the contrary, would keep some laying around. Sure, this supernational orginization could do inspections. To what end? That worked so well with North Korea, right? Or would the supernational organization intervene militarily to keep a nation from retaining or producing nuclear weapons? Without an armed forces, or with a drastically reduced one, it sure would be easy for this supernational organization to soon control everything and everyone.

[Hemingway]

Allow me to elaborate, then. We barely, or, if you will, very narrowly avoided a nuclear exchange that would at worst lead to the extinction of our entire species, and at best set us back to a state we could never expect to recover from.

I take issue with "cunningly concealed argument advocating the enslavement of the human race". No more than a state is an attempt to enslave its citizens. I know there are certain groups where any talk of a "world government" is seen as something sinister, but I happen not to be one of those people. I may be critical of some key parts of organizations like the UN and the EU, but I don't see how we can expect to progress as a species if we can't first set aside our essentially tribal squabbles and differences.

I happen to also think that it's possible to agree on certain situations that would fit the description of an "atrocity". A government carrying out a genocide against a part of its own population would be one of those, and we can take it from there.

It seems you've got a few views in common with people and groups like Alex Jones and the John Birch Society. Now, that's fine, I'm not trying to discredit what you're saying on that basis. It just so happens that I find myself, politically, almost as far from those views as it's possible to get. In other words, what you see as major problems simply aren't problems to me, not in the same way. The fact that Russia, for instance, can prevent the UN from acting as a whole, seemingly for completely selfish ends, that's a problem. Governments, in and of themselves, are not.

And, I'm sorry, but you'll have to do better than simply declaring my argument poorly constructed. I'm not going to do your work for you.

When you say the people you need to worry about are the ones who wouldn't use their weapons, I tend to disagree. I'm more worried about suicidal terrorists attacking a major city for no reason other than their faith, their politics or their plain insanity compells them to do it.

Nuclear weapons are funny like that, in that they only work when they're not used. It used to be different, sure, but today using one is tantamount to suicide. You can't use them preemptively, and by the time you need to use them for self defense, you've already lost. Even a limited nuclear exchange would have catastrophic consequences for the world as a whole, and the idea that you can keep a limited nuclear exchange limited is absurd.

As for your final point, it would serve your arguments better to respond to my actual positions. I think I made it clear that the military would not, in any case, disappear overnight. It would be naive, I've already said, to abolish your armed forces and expect everyone else to do the same. But diplomacy works, and it's possible for two states, even ones that are not on very good terms, to negotiate for instance a reduction in their nuclear arsenal. It's possible because it's a situation that everybody benefits from. In an arms race, neither party benefits.

[SilentScreams]

I understand what you are saying but there we reach the crux of the problem. I am unwilling to, in any way, allow foreign masters to lord over me. I have enough of a problem with local government, let alone national or international. In my opinion, government is always the problem and never the answer. Add to that the complexity of an international force in my state or in my town? I'm fighting. I don't care why they are there, it's just wrong for them to be there. Actually, foreign or domestic. But no, I'm not a Bircher and Alex Jones strikes me as a shill for the globalists. He begs you to sign up on his website, to comment, blah blah blah. I don't trust him.

[Hemingway]

I would be remiss not to say that I don't think my proposed solution is somehow perfect or complete. I've just noticed that I, and many others, tend to be critical without giving any alternatives, something I feel I should do from time to time. I created this thread because I wanted my views challenged, because that's the only way of developing a good idea into a workable solution. The one fundamental belief that's the root of this, is the belief, one I think is based firmly in facts and reason, that a world with no nuclear weapons is safer than a world with nuclear weapons. If that's something people agree with, then no matter how idealistic and utopian that view is, I think it's something we ought to work toward. I'm far from an optimist by nature, but I think people who think it's impossible to get a world without wapons of mass destruction are simply not using their imagination.

[Zakharra]

 Safer from nukes? Yes. Safer over all? Not really.  Conventional wars can do a lot of damage and waste lives.  Nuclear weapons just do that in an instant rather than taking days, week or months. You also have dirty bombs (radiological) and biological warfare. It's getting terrifyingly easy to design a custom disease and release it. How long do you think it will be before terrorists are using biological warfare on their enemies in major cities?  Can you imagine what a  fast and lethal version of the bird flu would do to some place like New York City? To London? Paris?  I shudder to think of the carnage.

As long as you have someone willing to force people to believe his way/obey him by force, you will have a need for a military. You can't really say that the leader of Syria would be willing to abolish his military. He needs it to stay in power.

[Callie Del Noire]

Safer from nukes? Yes. Safer over all? Not really.  Conventional wars can do a lot of damage and waste lives.  Nuclear weapons just do that in an instant rather than taking days, week or months. You also have dirty bombs (radiological) and biological warfare. It's getting terrifyingly easy to design a custom disease and release it. How long do you think it will be before terrorists are using biological warfare on their enemies in major cities?  Can you imagine what a  fast and lethal version of the bird flu would do to some place like New York City? To London? Paris?  I shudder to think of the carnage.

As long as you have someone willing to force people to believe his way/obey him by force, you will have a need for a military. You can't really say that the leader of Syria would be willing to abolish his military. He needs it to stay in power.

Yeah.. I'm sure that he's seeing the writing on the wall though. Shooting journalists might curtail reporting in the short term BUT it's definitely a policy to ensure that you will be reported on. In detail. (granted from a safe distance or from flack vested reporters in the field.)

[Hemingway]

Safer from nukes? Yes. Safer over all? Not really.  Conventional wars can do a lot of damage and waste lives.  Nuclear weapons just do that in an instant rather than taking days, week or months. You also have dirty bombs (radiological) and biological warfare. It's getting terrifyingly easy to design a custom disease and release it. How long do you think it will be before terrorists are using biological warfare on their enemies in major cities?  Can you imagine what a  fast and lethal version of the bird flu would do to some place like New York City? To London? Paris?  I shudder to think of the carnage.

As long as you have someone willing to force people to believe his way/obey him by force, you will have a need for a military. You can't really say that the leader of Syria would be willing to abolish his military. He needs it to stay in power.

To say that nuclear weapons do in an instant what other weapons take longer to do is an oversimplification. The most important distinction, so it seems to me, is with conventional weapons there's a chance for retaliation, and for putting an end to conflict before the destruction of the world becomes complete. With nuclear weapons, once they fly, you've essentially annihilated the entire world - assuming there other side is willing to launch their nuclear arsenal as well. But, of course, there are other differences as well. Nuclear weapons are indiscriminate by nature, while conventional ones at least have some measure of precision in who they affect. There's no nuclear fallout. There's less risk of what you might refer to as a nuclear winter.

I fail to see the relevance of engineered diseases here. If you think I'm against nuclear weapons but not other forms of WMDs, you're wrong. If what you're saying is that we have all these other terrible possibilities, so whether or not we have nuclear weapons doesn't matter, that's a complete non sequitur. It's a line of reasoning that could be used to justify inaction in any situation. Take the last invasion of Iraq, and let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that Iraq actually had WMDs and was a real threat. It would be like saying we shouldn't bother invading them, because there are still other countries that have them, so it would amount to nothing. It just doesn't make sense.

The only way the world can be made, to paraphrase you, safer from nukes but not safer overall, is if something fills the vacuum left by the threat of an ICBM carrying a nuclear warhead. The problem with this is that there are really no alternatives that are quite as ( in a very grim way ) reliable, effective and precise. Sure, you could use a virus as leverage, but that has a very large chance of backfiring. How an outbreak of a certain virus would occur and what its effects would be are to a certain degree predictable, but not in the same way the trajectory and blast radius of a nuclear weapon is. There's a reason why deterrence theory is based on nuclear weapons, and not other WMDs. Others would have devastating effects, of course, but they're not quite the apocalyptic weapons that nukes are.

[Zakharra]

  Part of the deterrent of nukes is, 'if you use yours, we will use ours.'  That also implies that the other side will be sane enough to not deploy them and stick to just conventional (hopefully) warfare.  With some nations and people (Iran and terrorists come to mind), they would either use it as a club and say 'obey me or else' and use it if their demands were not met (their pride would make them use it if nothing else.) or use it to stroke against an enemy. Iran using it against Israel or a terrorist group using it against Israel, the US or another enemy. Terrorists would absolutely love to get their hands on a nuclear weapon. They would use it in a heartbeat.

For the other WMDs, chemical warfare is fairly ineffective, but biological was never really a problem. It took a lot of equipment to make a disease back then. Nowadays, with computer technology and smaller, more efficient equipment for gene splicing and genetic manipulation, it's getting to the point that a terrorist with the know-how could make a disease with a frighteningly high lethality rate. The 'poor mans nuke' is what I've heard that called because it doesn't require anywhere near the amount of equipment, resources or personnel to make. Thankfully it hasn't happened yet, but I'm afraid it will only be a matter of time.

If this biological tech had been in existence 70 years ago, it would have been used as a WMD without question. If not by the US, then by the Germans, Japanese or Soviets. Any of them would have gleefully used nukes or biological diseases if they would have had them. Especially if it leaves the infrastructure intact.

I fail to see the relevance of engineered diseases here. If you think I'm against nuclear weapons but not other forms of WMDs, you're wrong. If what you're saying is that we have all these other terrible possibilities, so whether or not we have nuclear weapons doesn't matter, that's a complete non sequitur. It's a line of reasoning that could be used to justify inaction in any situation. Take the last invasion of Iraq, and let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that Iraq actually had WMDs and was a real threat. It would be like saying we shouldn't bother invading them, because there are still other countries that have them, so it would amount to nothing. It just doesn't make sense.

I'm not sure I understand that clearly, can you clarify it please?

[Hemingway]

The problem with biological weapons - and I thought I made this quite clear - is that they're extremely unpredictable in ways that nuclear weapons aren't. If you actually use it, there's a very good chance the deadly killer virus you've created ends up killing you as well, because viruses spread and mutate in ways that are only partly predictable. The closest thing you get with a nuclear weapon is the radioactive fallout and potentially catastrophic environmental effects, but those are to a much greater extent predictable.

As for terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons, I must ask the following: yes, and? It's not an argument in favor of nuclear weapons that terrorists, many of whom appear to have no regard for personal safety and who wouldn't hesitate to hide behind a civilian population, might get their hands on nukes. Deterrence in that case does not work. It might actually be an argument against it, because they lack the resources to create weapons themselves and so must rely on stealing or buying them, something that, it seems to me, becomes easier the more weapons there are.

I'm not sure I understand that clearly, can you clarify it please?

What you just said is remarkably close to what I wanted to say. What I said was in response to this following quote from your previous post:

You also have dirty bombs (radiological) and biological warfare. It's getting terrifyingly easy to design a custom disease and release it. How long do you think it will be before terrorists are using biological warfare on their enemies in major cities?

Here it appears to me you're saying that because other weapons of mass destruction exist, getting rid of nukes is pointless. Hence my reference to Iraq.

[Strident]

I strongly encourage everyone to go and search on youtube for a documentary made in the 1960s by the BBC called "Wargame".

It's a cinematic masterpiece, and properly shocking even in 2012, let alone when it was made, depicting nuclear war.

I say this to emphasise that I fully understand the horror of what we are talking about here, and yet....and yet....

I think the west should maintain it's nuclear defence. It remains the best hope for peace. Maybe, just maybe, there will come a day when we no longer need it, but we are a long way from that yet.

[Oniya]

I was properly horrified when watching the movie 'Failsafe'.  In that movie, some kind of miscommunication sent bombers going between the US and Russia.  Due to the titular 'failsafes', there was no way for the erroneous bombers to be called back.

[Callie Del Noire]

Right now I'm watching Israel with concern. To date they have stayed pretty quiet about the Iranian nuclear program but there is a data approaching real soon when the elements they are watching with concern will be beyond their reach in hardened bunkers but within reach of US forces. To date they have been happy to stay out of the mix and let the US and allies handle the issue but it's going to come to the point where they will want assurances that if diplomacy fails the US will move to eliminate the threat.

Now, looking at it from their pov, I'd be very very wary of any empty promise I get from some of the folks in DC. Because, I think there is a lack of intestinal fortitude to follow through with promises on both sides of the party divide. I can see the president promising the world a LOT but doing nothing when the time came. (This current one or another president from the other party).

Why? Because it would hurt the standings of said president. Clinton waffled for a few hours when he was in office and MIGHT have missed Bin Laden because of it, Bush II spent months shopping the public before moving on Iraq (when he should have focused on Afganistan) and I could name more. We got leaders these days who seem more concerned with the opinion polls than anything else.

Ronald Reagan dropped a bundle of bombs on Libyan defense ministry to push a point home. One of the things that had happened months before was a Libyan dissident had been kidnapped from US soil and taken back to Libya where he was executed. Up to that point Kadaffi had done moves all over Europe and beyond, and that was one of the first moves in the US. He didn't do any such things after.

Today.. we'd have to hope that the opinion poll was in favor of such an action.  Political correctness has crippled us.

[SilentScreams]

The bugbear that is the current march to war against Iran is not helpful. If Israel wants to stop it they need to stop it themselves unfortunately, we will get dragged into a war that we can not afford. A useless war that should not even be fought.

On the more general topic, I do believe that the armed forces can be substantially reduced. If we don't go off getting ourselves involved in foreign entanglements we could adopt the Swiss approach where everyone, barring conscientious objectors, reports for a few months of basic training when they turn eighteen and then return to their homes. In the event of invasion, the citizens, who are armed, have had training and have had two weeks of refresher courses every year so that they can defend the nation.

[Zakharra]

 That war wouldn't even be fought if Iran would just shut the hell up and stop antagonizing Israel. The fact Iran has been promising to attack Israel, calling for it's destruction and aiding the terrorist groups attacking it, is not helping the situation at all. Israel is in a catch 22 situation. They can do nothing and come under further attack (Egypt is rapidly becoming a flashpoint by itself) when Iran is ready, or do a preemptive attack in the hopes of delaying Iran's nuclear ambitions and deal with the aftermath in it's own way.  Right now, an armed military are very much needed by Israel.

I'm not sure the Swiss model would work ion the US. The draft has been abolished for what? About 30 years now? Getting it reinstated would be a nasty uphill fight by either party and would, to the Democrats, be a major expansion of the US military. That's something they don't want. They've been trying to reduce military spending for decades.  Not to mention I think a lot of the population would be against such a draft now when there is no obvious need for it.

[Hemingway]

I have a lot to say about Israel, but this isn't really the right place, as it's a different debate entirely. I don't mind that whole situation being brought up in the context of war and peace, and how to avoid war and achieve peace, but I'd appreciate it if we could avoid a discussion on the relations between Iran and Israel in general, as it's not really relevant, and I'd like this to stay on topic.

That being said, I think there's lessons to be learned from Israel. Avoiding the religious side of the issue as much as possible ( religion is another issue I like to debate, but this isn't really the place for that, either ), I think the greatest lesson there is that creating a state is a great deal more complicated than that, at least if you want to do it peacefully. It's essentially a relic of imperialism, so I would imagine there's less potential for that today.

And, honestly, does Israel having nuclear weapons make the region a safer place? Israel, in spite of the propaganda, is hardly a peaceful state that acts only in self defense and to protect itself. Iran is more difficult to understand because of its religious leadership, so it's hard to say where the politics end and the religion begins ( that is, are it's motivations political - protection from Israel and its western allies, or are they religious? ).

[Callie Del Noire]

Agreed, Israel isn't a nice group of people. I got issues with their refusal to stop expanding in the contested areas.. That being said, Israel with the bomb.. how likely is it that Syria and/or other contries haven't gotten adventurous because they might have the bomb. And knowing that if you back them into a corner that they will blow YOU up?

[SilentScreams]

The Swiss model isn't an expansion of the military and it's not a draft. You do your basic training, you serve your two weeks every year to keep the information fresh, and then you go back to your homes. If anything, it would be cheaper. Assault rifles, when produced in huge quantities, are not that expensive. A Colt AR sells for about $1,300. For the price of one M1-A2 Abrams MBT (price: $6.12 million) you could get approximately 4,700 rifles, or for the cost of an F-35 ($122 million) approximately 94,000 rifles.

Before someone else mentions it, our F-18s and, if need by, Tornado Interceptors purchased from Britain, would be more then adequate to protect our skies. There is already enough armor in service to protect our land possessions.

In addition, billions would be saved in salaries, foreign wars, and healthcare, and benefits. Our carrier fleet would be maintained, perhaps even expanded, but with a savings generated by the above cute/reductions. Our ability to involve ourselves in foreign adventures would be greatly curtailed while the homeland would be safer then it is now with both more weapons, and more people with training, available should we ever be invaded.

[Zakharra]

The Swiss model isn't an expansion of the military and it's not a draft. You do your basic training, you serve your two weeks every year to keep the information fresh, and then you go back to your homes. If anything, it would be cheaper. Assault rifles, when produced in huge quantities, are not that expensive. A Colt AR sells for about $1,300. For the price of one M1-A2 Abrams MBT (price: $6.12 million) you could get approximately 4,700 rifles, or for the cost of an F-35 ($122 million) approximately 94,000 rifles.

Before someone else mentions it, our F-18s and, if need by, Tornado Interceptors purchased from Britain, would be more then adequate to protect our skies. There is already enough armor in service to protect our land possessions.

In addition, billions would be saved in salaries, foreign wars, and healthcare, and benefits. Our carrier fleet would be maintained, perhaps even expanded, but with a savings generated by the above cute/reductions. Our ability to involve ourselves in foreign adventures would be greatly curtailed while the homeland would be safer then it is now with both more weapons, and more people with training, available should we ever be invaded.

It is an expansion of the military and it is a draft if every one is expected/required to do it. While in boot camp, you have to pay them a salary, you have to feed and clothe them and there are literally millions of people who would be in the boot camps  every year. You'd have to reopen and expand them to take the influx of new recruits. Then you need to equip them. Uniforms and by your model, give them all M-16s?

You'd also need to pay then for the two week annual training as well. Then there's transportation, medical costs, housing, and insurance. The cost to the military with this model would only go up. The bureaucracy would have to expand with the influx of recruits (medical and service records). Unless you mean that the citizens and the military would be expected to do this all for free...   Talk about throwing money away then.

And that's not even mentioning the draft dodgers

[Hemingway]

the Swiss approach where everyone, barring conscientious objectors, reports for a few months of basic training

I think that should clear up a lot of your questions, Zakharra.

That being said, it's not very different from the system we have here. I do think it has issues, though. It might be a workable solution for defense of a country with a very large population, but it hardly seems efficient. I would think that a smaller but highly trained and well-equipped force would be much less expensive, much less of a burden on the population, and certainly a better tool for defense of the country's allies.

[Zakharra]

I think that should clear up a lot of your questions, Zakharra.

That being said, it's not very different from the system we have here. I do think it has issues, though. It might be a workable solution for defense of a country with a very large population, but it hardly seems efficient. I would think that a smaller but highly trained and well-equipped force would be much less expensive, much less of a burden on the population, and certainly a better tool for defense of the country's allies.

Nope. It doesn't clear up my questions.  There would be more than a few conscientious objectors, and remember, many of the people who hated the military in their youth (60's and 70's) are not in office.  The US has a population of over 300 million. That is a hell of a lot more than Switzerland. Switzerland has what? A few million? Ten million?

The US military downsized the number of bases it has in the US and reduced the boot camps to just a few. To handle the new recruits for even a 2 month training regime, would mean they would have to open up a lot more. That means more training staff, more base staff, you have to have uniforms, medical checkups, bureaucracy to handle the records, equipment and gear.  In all ways it is a fairly large gearing up of the military when the government is in the process of  reducing the military. With 300+ million citizens, I can't see how you would have less.

Also. would people be required to go into the Army, Marines, Navy or Air Force?  Would they be able to choose or would that be picked for them? If I remember right, boot camp is different lengths for the different services and it's at the most, a basic training, more or less to get you physically fit and see what you are qualified for. (and anyone who has been in the military lately please correct me if I'm wrong) The schools after boot camp is what makes you as a service man. There you get more advanced training in your rating, on the machines you will be using and what not.

It would be nice if something like the Switzerland model could be used, but getting it enacted by Congress and paid for would be a massive uphill battle.

[Hemingway]

I was referring specifically to it being a proper draft, since you made reference to that, and to draft dodgers.

[Zakharra]

 Ah. Well, I'm not sure how the Swiss model deals with draft dodgers. I do not here in the 60's and 70's, it was almost an art form and a popular sign of rebellion against the government to try and avoid the draft.  Does the Swiss model have women as well as men in it?