Is my joining the military a bad decision?
Hi, This week I was telling my friends that I was planning to join the military. However one of my friends that's more liberal said that I was making the wrong decision. The reasons I plan to join: -Can't get a job, even with a B.A. -The military will pay for graduate school is I join. (Could anyone confirm if the Army pays for law school, to the best of my knowledge it does) - Considered joining after High School, but did the math. Pay $2,500 for undergrad a semester or pay $30,000 a semester. The latter is better. - E4 Salary 25,000 is not that bad. Especially considering free room and board. -My MOS is more of a support role (68x or 35f) and the risk of mental and physical trauma is less the infantry. Furthermore my friend has said that I should consider somethings before i join: -Some of the job skill I will learn is not transferable to civilian. -May be put into a low unskilled job. -Will be forced to kill. (I could to defend my persons but would prefer not to) -Many soldiers are unemployed. -Some soldiers that contribute to their educational fund can't make it through college. So is my friend right (any first hand opinion) or is she just being a liberal?
If an order in the military is illegal, do soldiers have the decision to not follow it?
Under the UCMJ, esp. 892.ART.92 (1) and (2) … military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.As others have noted, disobedience occurs at the peril of the individual involved since they could well be called upon to justify their actions at court-martial or other legal proceeding. In serious cases the person ordered is entitled to ask for the questionable order to be provided in writing before executing it. This does not work well in real life.
Do you regret your decision to enlist in the military?
If you want to feel a ton of respect everywhere you go, join the military. Yes, you will have those anti-military dummies from time to time, but so far (2 years in) I have never encountered them. But I have been thanked so many times that I can't keep track. Military is definitely a different life style but if you just follow the people above you and listen to them, you will have a very rewarding career in the military. My own personal suggestion though is to join the Air Force. I work with the Army everyday and nine times out of ten, they tell me that they wish they would have joined the AF, but it depends on what you want to do. If you've heard of people calling us the Chair Force, that is basically true in most of the jobs, not all but most. The medical field is a great field to get into though. A lot of schooling but well worth it in the end. The biggest thing that I think about when I think about getting out is the support system they provide you. If there is anything that you can think of that you need help with, they have a resource for it, and its free. Every need is taken care of in the military. Granted the first couple years are the hardest but then you understand how everything works and have some experience. You will also get to travel. If you like to fly, and since you're young, Loadmaster in the AF is a fun career field. A ton of traveling and you will see a TON of stuff!! Anyway, feel free to email me if you have any other questions, I'd be more than happy to answer what I can for you...
Do military UAVs make the decision to kill?
US drones always have a man in the loop making the kill decision. Russian drones (not yet used in combat) are capable of selecting their own targets autonomously -- see Flying Bazooka Drones Are Thing Now This makes them immune to jamming, but creates a few other issues around collateral damage, friendly fire and "Holy **** there are killer robots out there!"
Military vs. Civilian Life?
Awesome motivation, there is nothing more than a purpose and a free-will to make a decision that you're making. I think you'll be a perfect fit for the Army. I'm at the 6 year mark of my second enlistment and I don't regret any experience that I've had so far! With 3 years left in the military, the "get'em" attitude wears off, and soon you'll ask yourself "What would I do without the military?" or "What skill do I have to pursue after I get out or retire?" I ask myself those questions and those are some things you'll have to ask yourself when you're balls deep in the Army. Go in with a plan, because the military won't always be there.
Why do you think Hitler made such bad military decisions?
After his amazing victories of 1940, where for once, he had made mostly the right decisions, Hitler fell into the trap of not only believing he was smarter & more brilliant than his generals, but also having an insatiable desire to prove it.If his generals all insisted on one particular strategy, aim, or tactic, to achieve success, he would instinctively ignore them & look for another way, so that he could claim to be the sole architect of the victory, when it comes.It happened during the planning phase and during the actual battle for Russia. Every one of his generals advised & implored him to make Moscow the prime objective of the offensive, but Hitler, not wanting to share the credit for ultimate victory with anyone else, instinctively ignored them all & forced through his own alternative plan, which ended in disaster.The same thing happened when he was shown the new ME 262 jet. He was told by all that this weapon could change the course of the air war if used as a fighter. But once again he ignored them & ordered that it be used only as a light bomber.After the comprehensive catastrophe of Stalingrad, where he had been so completely outsmarted by his enemies, he no doubt realised at last, that he was not really as smart at the military game as he thought he was.But his solution was not to give his generals more decision making power, like Stalin did, but rather he avoided them or sacked them, knowing by this stage, that the war was lost anyway.He wanted to prove to the world that he was a war winning genius. By the time he finally realised he wasnt, it was too late.
Why do military personnel make the decision to leave their spouse and children to go on an overseas deployment in the armed forces?
I wasn't a part of the military, but I can answer your question directly.When I deployed to Iraq with the Department of Justice to train their civil police I had been laid off from my sheriff's office because the newly elected sheriff fired the existing command staff. (I was the lieutenant in charge of our training division.) I was one of 288 American peace officers selected for this mission.My wife and I talked about my going, and prayed about it without pause. We decided that the people of Iraq needed every advantage in order to get their government standing on its own two feet, and having a professional police department was an essential part of that advantage.And, admittedly selfishly, I needed the opportunity to serve my country. Though I had been a paramedic, firefighter and police officer for 30 years, I had passed on the chance to join the military when my EMS career took off, and I always felt remorseful about not serving. Going on this assignment went a long way to reduce this regret.My oldest son was in college, and my youngest son in high school, and they both supported our decision. Our middle son was on active duty with the US Army 4th Infantry Division Aviation, and was soon due to be deployed to Operation Iraqi Freedom. (We were stationed together at Camp Taji when I moved to the Iraq Highway Patrol Academy from the Baghdad Police College.) I had the complete endorsement of my entire family.It was a long year for all of us, but we knew that the Lord would watch over all of us. And none of us had or have any regrets for my taking this opportunity.
What do military historians think of the tactical decisions made during Battle of the Bastards by Jon Snow and Ramsay Bolton?
It was so stupid it hurt.First they devise a plan to use an encirclement trap on the Boltons. Sansa even warns him that Ramsey's not that bloody stupid, that Rickon is as good as dead and that whatever he does he should not dance to Ramsey's tune....and then Jon goes and throws it all out the window.He falls for Ramsey's trap, hook, line and sinker.He fails to advance his bowmen to just outside the range of Ramsey's bowmen. They even had conveniently placed distance markers. (That's what the flayed and burning people were. Psychological warfare...and distance markers.) So Jon's archers were pretty much useless, as they could - at best - fire on their own people.He fails to give Wun-Wun a bow. You know. One of the big ones the giants used when they attacked the Wall. Basically a portable ballista. The thing that can manage to shoot all the way up the kilometer-high Wall and still manage to skewer multiple people. As soon as Rickon started running he could have just had gone "Yo, Wun-Wun! Would you please put one of those small trees through that asshole taking potshots at my brother?" *Meaty thump* "Thanks, buddy"And why the fuck doesn't he have a shield with him?But the most bloody stupid decision they made was to meet the Bolton's forces in open combat. If you have less then half the manpower of your enemy, and most of those skirmishers, to boot, you don't meet the enemy in open battle.So what to do instead? Why, Guerilla warfare, of course! You take your Wildlings (sorry, "Free Folk") who are supposed to be good at raiding, ambushes, living off the land in winter and generally being stealthy and have them pick at the enemy whenever they find him in the open.Holding Winterfell doesn't mean a bloody thing if you can't leave it without loosing men.Now, I admit it would be hard to out-Ramsey Ramsey, but you could listen to your damn sister and use his cruelty against him. Incite revolts. Make Ramsey look weak and afraid. Go after the traitor lords one by one, starting with Karstark. Show the people who really rules the north.Edit: I have an addendum on this. Everyone, myself included, was irritated at Ramsey's decision to shoot his own cavalry.But the thing is...they likely weren't his cavalry. They were Stannis' men. The ones that deserted him after he burned his daughter. Getting rid of them - or at least not caring about their lifes - is somewhat understandable.
What good tactical decisions did Hitler make?
None spring to mind. He lacked the capacity to see the big picture and unify the various battle strategies into a coherent war plan. He consistently underestimated the Soviets, and refused to accept the advice of the General Staff on Operation Barbarossa. Similarly he refused to hear dissenting opinions once he made up his mind that the Allies would invade France at a point further east, and left the Normandy area poorly defended. He recklessly commanded generals to race forward during attacks thus leaving them strung out and vulnerable, under-equipped and out of reach of supplies and reinforcements. He developed and pursued delusional operations -- e.g. using the Azores as an airbase for attacks on the U.S. and Canada using imaginary long-range bombers. His initial blitzkrieg attacks in Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland were successful because they were against largely 19th century armies too ill-equipped to repel them. Polish cavalry, for example, were horse-mounted while German cavalry were armoured. Once he engaged the Soviets in 1941 after two years of relatively limited warfare (sitzkrieg) the writing was on the wall. Operation Barbarossa failed and the Soviet counter-attacks first stopped, then undid German advances by 1942. Within another year the Soviets were advancing almost unchecked, the Allies were pushing them out of Africa and Italy, and the American-British alliance was preparing the D-Day invasion. His last-ditch counterattack, known as the Battle of the Bulge, expended hundreds of thousands of soldiers for little gain, and even that was quickly pushed back. Hitler was a politician who could convince people wet was dry and black was white, but he was no tactician.
Should the army be free to make decisions in war-like zones?
We all elect our leaders because they can serve us and improve the situations that are dangerous to our country's security.If the army and all other security forces working in an area which is hostile to terrorist attacks are free to make any decision they want, then the situation will only get worse.Let me take the example of Kashmir. If army is free to make any decision, that means that harsh measures will be taken and anybody against the army can even die as they then become the obstruction in the army's tasks. And seeing the situation in Kashmir these type of measures will not only worsen the situation but also people will lose faith in army.A democratic government is there to take such decisions as it is well equipped and has a vast amount of experience with it. To solve any problem, you need to consider the interests of every group and society. Army doesn't do that.So, in short army should not be free to take every decision in it's own in a war like situation. On the other hand, politics also should keep itself away from the things in which the army specialises.