Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NullForceOmega]

Josh is in the U.S., all U.S. soldiers are required to serve a minimum amount of time 'deployed', no exceptions (unless you are female and pregnant.)  Doesn't mean he'd ever actually be involved in a live-fire engagement however.

[Sirus]

Of course, "deployed" doesn't necessarily mean being in a combat zone I'm sure. You could be garrisoning a base in Germany or something, depending on your branch and role.

Or maybe not. I never found myself drawn to military service except when I was desperate for work, and now I'm probably too old and out-of-shape to enlist even if I wanted to >_>

[NullForceOmega]

No, 'deployed' is always to an active theatre, unless you are Navy/Marines, in which case it usually means open water (and is where the bulk of naval service time is spent.)

[Yoink]

Huh. Might be an Australian thing.
I just vaguely remember reading something ages ago about people being disappointed about not being deployed.
Probably when I was looking into enlisting. Still haven't made it past the "don't be a puny weakling" part, sadly.

[NullForceOmega]

*shrug*  We spend a lot more time running around the world shouting freedom with our guns.  So the mandatory deployments are fairly necessary.

[Frumple]

Mm... I wouldn't recommend it much unless you've got a serious personality/ideological inclination towards military service, tbh. Maybe if you're incredibly desperate for support (food, shelter, etc.). Lot of family's ex-military (of which maybe one or two don't have some kind of lasting injury because of it), area I'm in sees pretty heavy enlistment as things go. Fair few come back in decent shape but a good number come back royally fucked one way or another, too. VA's there to try to pick up the pieces but there's some things the kingdom's men can't really put back together again. It's a hell of a commitment and it involves very much serious risks, plus the nature of the thing means you'll have a lot more lives on your shoulders than just your own (other folks'll have you on theirs, too, but that doesn't change too much). If you're at all doubtful, you probably need to find something else to do. Maybe go hunt down some vets to talk to, too, particularly both ones that have reintegrated well and those that are struggling.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Josh is in the U.S., all U.S. soldiers are required to serve a minimum amount of time 'deployed', no exceptions (unless you are female and pregnant.)

So....one exception.

[NullForceOmega]

Yes, it is widely considered the most infuriating thing about females serving in the U.S. armed forces (specifically among soldiers), the rules say everyone who signs up has to pull their deployment time, no exceptions, but then GI Jane gets knocked up and doesn't have to fulfill her commitment.  I'm not being sexist either, this has been a problem for several decades now, and shows no signs of stopping soon.

Edit: This rule is normally so unbreakable that soldiers who are imprisoned for criminal behavior are not discharged after their sentences until they have fulfilled their deployment time, soldiers who are placed in PR units like the Army Band have their terms lengthened so that they can be deployed, ONLY pregnant women are exempted.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

My friend, who is currently training in the army, had recently been really trying to sell me on enlisting. Get in the best shape of your life, get great pay, get great benefits and retirement, travel and adventure and find meaning in life...

And I'm not just hesitating cause I'm a soft marshmallow man, because I am, but I don't want to accidentally obligate myself into doing morally dubious things, like killing or being the hired muscle for whatever corrupt politicians or overemotional reactionaries are leading the country.

He's really enjoying it, so I'm not judging him, but I'm still thinking about it.

Are you comfortable with surrendering some of your civil rights, including the right to refuse to kill another person without extenuating circumstances, the right to choose when and where to live during a military action, the right to speak and associate freely without political connections, and the right to dress as you choose?

[NullForceOmega]

That is almost entirely the truth, but the military is voluntary and temporary, you are paid for your time, provided free lodging, food, training, access to all kinds of resources for little or no cost, there are tremendous benefits for service, and even larger risks.  That is why the US military is all volunteer.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Can't see the benefit. All those resources are for enhancing the utility of active servicemembers. There's a reason why all the hundreds of billions of dollars that go to the military manage to set aside precisely jack shit for the VA and politicians who get elected on a platform of how much they love everybody in the military and making snow angels in the gore piles of America's enemies then proceed to turn around and cheerfully cut every veteran service they can get their hands on.

[NullForceOmega]

That would be the real rub wouldn't it?  Our military is the best funded, best outfitted, one of the best trained, but once you're out you become a problem they don't want to deal with.  I am a damaged ex-soldier, I can't even claim to be a veteran or receive any aid from the VA because they removed me four days before 180, so I'm NOT eligible.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

That is almost entirely the truth, but the military is voluntary and temporary, you are paid for your time, provided free lodging, food, training, access to all kinds of resources for little or no cost, there are tremendous benefits for service, and even larger risks.  That is why the US military is all volunteer.

Indeed.

[JoshuaFH]

Well, thanks for the input everyone. I was already leaning towards avoiding the business entirely, but I guess I definitely will now.

[Neonivek]

Your opinion of the military is also grievously misinformed.  As an ex-U.S. Soldier I can inform you without any attempt at deceit that what you are saying as absolutely categorically untrue of any NATO military, as I have interacted with nearly all of them.  Further, the behaviors you are describing date to one singular conflict that has been blown massively out of proportion, the Vietnam conflict (war in all but name.)

What I am describing wasn't the Vietnam conflict... it was Iraq and Afghanistan. (Two were from... the first time not the second)

You just need a target with a high enough priority and any sort of collateral damage mitigation goes out the window. Of which there are myriads of examples one could give... plenty of targets in populated places where collateral damage was likely or known (OR just a typical military order: "Take that building" or "Fire on that vehicle")

There is quite a bit of stuff that makes me rather grumpy...

Vietnam was horrible... But it was fought as a typical war (to defeat your enemy, defeat its people). Though I put most of the blame squarely on the leadership at the time and the delusion of the general public.

In fact it is usually the leadership...

Though the fact that the military can pretty much hide anything they want from the public and have it written right in there in what they can and cannot do (they are discouraged not to). Makes me wonder if one can overturn military court decisions in normal court after a certain period of time... Since usually some form of oversight is required for such things.

----

In all fairness only in one situation that I am referring to were the people killed due to bullets (and they were just a bunch of civilians killed due to bad info the military was using and they just basically blanket fired the entire area. They likely didn't even look at the people before firing). The most usual cause is missiles, artillery, and stuff like that.