Does the armed forces (US) need rebuilding?

[A. M. Jauregui]

I was talking (she was doing most of the talking) with an aunt of mine about the current state of manufacturing (industrial mainly). The “conversation” lead to a discussion about what if other nations such as China or Israel (?) became involved with the US in drawn out war. She went on to say that the number of aircraft available is not as great as say during WWII and that producing more to replace ones that are destroyed would take longer now then during the war machine days of the past. - Because the US economy has moved away from manufacturing to service and manufacturing skills such as machining (what a machinist would do) are not readily available (?).

I have found some numbers at the web site of Congressmen Hunter:
http://www.house.gov/hunter/defincrisis-title.html
The numbers of weapons does seem down.

Arguments that I gave (halfheartedly for she was not going to listen):

* Production of weapons of war would be stepped up if the need arose.
* Modern weapons of war are more efficient then those of the past so less are needed.
* The US and other countries more then likely do not want to be in a drawn out war, so the possibility of such a war is low.
* The US seems to be have the most powerful armed forces and is coupled with relatively powerful allies, which equates to it being more powerful then other nations on their own.


P.S.
I can see China (as a nation) being able to pose a threat to the US but Israel?

[Kaith Rustaz]

With the decline in domestic manufacturing, as well as the dependence on imported steel, a major world war would be a serious issue for the US. One of my clients during WW2 was majorly involved in munitions building. Now, they are in a death spiral, and will probably be gone by years end. Their plant that only 5 years ago employed 3 full shifts and over 500, is now down to 1 shift, 3 days, of about 24. Other companies in my area tell similar stories. Downsizing, farming out, and converting from building to maintaining are commonplace.

Buffalo, which at 1 time was a major steel town, just lost its last plant, as Bethlaham (sp) is in the final pull out stage.

One of the things I've heard said when I've talked to these guys is that they skills are being lost. No new blood comes in, and as they retire, and die, the knowledge base becomes smaller and smaller. Theres a lot of bitterness there.

[Martin Adil-Smi]

Originally posted by A.M. Jauregui
I can see China (as a nation) being able to pose a threat to the US but Israel?

What about North Korea?
They're spoiling for a fight at the moment!

[Onmitsu]

What about North Korea?
They're spoiling for a fight at the moment!

North Korea is like an old coon dog growling from underneath the porch.:D

[wendy ongaro]

I don't know much about our weapon's manufacturing, but one thing I would like to see is mandatory service for two years of all adults from 18 - 20 years of age. Having watched many kids throw their parent's money away at college, or wander aimlessly through the work world out of high school, I think two years would teach discipline, responsibility, and provide an opportunity to learn valuable work skills and try potential careers, including a military career.

It would also provide the population with basic combat skills should we ever need to raise a militia in defense of our country.

[Striking Hand]

Wendy.

Coming from a country that has national service (6 month only), I think it is a good thing.

Most of the countries that have this also have "refresher" courses every year or two for about 1 week.

Good and not so good points to it.

Cheers.

[Kingu]

I probably wouldn't be the same guy if I hadn't been in national service for 20 months. I learned a lot, not about skills I can use for a job or anything, but about myself. But a lot of youth don't see this period of time as an opportunity, a lot of them arrived idiot and left idiot; this is not the solution to their irresponsibility. The "evil" is hidden deeper in our society.

[Soulend]

I disagree with mandatory service in this country. Having been out on recruiting I have seen and spoken with many young people. To be blunt, there's many I would not want - not that many of these would make it through boot camp anyway.

I really wouldn't like to be in a unit full of people who are only there because they have to be, nor would I want my country defended by such people. It makes for substandard performance and hurts morale. It also would lead eventually to a reduction of standards because the screening process (moral, physical, educational, mental and medical) is a lot more stringent that many know.

Maybe if they created another branch of service specifically for those who are doing their mandatory time. The day that anybody can be a U.S. Marine, well, I reckon it will be time for me to move on.

China, yes, that would be a hell of a fight. Israel's military is exceptional, but come on..we're talking about a country less than half the size of San Bernadino county here. Our forces are somewhere in the region of 1,365,000; Israel's number about 200,000, unless I'm mistaken. They spend about 8.7 billion on the military, the U.S. spends about 291.2 billion. Must of their hardware comes from the U.S. anyway. I don't think we would have a whole lot to worry about.

[william northcote]

Originally posted by wendy ongaro
I think two years would teach discipline, responsibility, and provide an opportunity to learn valuable work skills and try potential careers, including a military career.

It would also provide the population with basic combat skills should we ever need to raise a militia in defense of our country.

My answer to the main question is no. Apart from losses in two countries which has seen many deaths not only on the US and UK sides, but also the opposing forces, there still is a surplus ammount of able hands to do the job.

Yes two years is a good figure. Teach skills on field, urban and skilled combat fighting, but also qualifications that can be carried over into civillian life also. I did two years reserve, enjoyed most of it, hated some of it, but that goes with the job in hand. It will do young people good in the long term employment. For it shows disipline, ability to follow an order, a thinker and a good worker. Charachter traits like that are needed along with skills obtained that will follow you through your life to the end.

But I will say no to the malitia idea. A group of people under self rule fighting to save thier town/city/sewage treatment plant without any governing control will lead to disaster.

If you mean to take up a firearm and fight alonside the military, then you may as well go the whole hog and wear the uniform, salute and draw the pay. But to each is their own. I would take to the streets shooting to keep my mother safe and will not be harmed. For that is the only person I would at the moment fight for, not the government, the queen, country or the house I live in (if you saw my house you wouldn't want to fight for it either). But a malitia? naaa, not good idea.

[Jeff Cook]

As a fellow NCO (US Army, though) I agree with David. Don't give me a platoon full of non-volunteers who are only going to be in for a short duration. If we are to have compulsory service, how about the Peace Corp or some other group like it?

Korea is the country to worry about, folks. Trust me on this one.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[william northcote]

What worries me is any nation stockpiling or refining any part that could be made into a WMD.

Korea is still technically at war, it only agreed to a ceasfire. If you read on thw WWE website of when WCW was about, Eric Bischoff recounts his visit to N. Korea. Well worth reading. Some things in there are worth thinking over.

But anyone nation that has WMD is a threat. Even the USA has some WMD's in storage, so any threat is not one sided. But the US would not use thiers either in attack or counteragression.

The US military does not need rebuilding, just reshaped to fit the needs.

[Cady Goldfield]

Israel is smaller in size than the state of New Jersey, and has a Hebrew-Jewish population of 3 million. It is also a democracy.

No way would Israel ever wage war against the US, even if it had the means to do so. Whatever would make something think that Israel would have such intentions? Without American support, there would have been no Israel, nor would it survive now.

[william northcote]

Originally posted by Cady Goldfield
No way would Israel ever wage war against the US, even if it had the means to do so.

Outright no, in a terrorist way they can. But why would Israel want to take on the USA in the first place?

[Cady Goldfield]

That's my point - why the hell would Israel even want to wage war against the US? It's not even an issue. :)

[Shitoryu Dude]

No other country, or even large group of them, pose a military threat to the US. To start with, only the US maintains a strategic bombing force capable of world-wide operations. We have a larger military force which is better maintained, trained and armed than anyone else on the planet. Our weapon systems are more advanced and more devastating by far. While keeping all these toys in ready condition and up to date is expensive, the US seems quite willing to pony up the cash to do so.

Your aunt is arguing a point from 50, or at least 20, years ago that is no longer relevant. The world changed in this regard but her perception of it has not been updated.

:beer:

[william northcote]

I am not wanting to make a fuss and take part of Shitoryu Dude statment but has the US military solved the problem of trying to shoot down missles with intercept missles or is there still a 1 second delay causing a miss strike?

I suppose we could all go boo/yay over military might, strength, capability and technique to wage, sustain and complete a war, but I still say no, the soldiers are expendable. Cannon fodder if you wish to call it that. Replaice the ones that are fallen with new and fresh units to go into battle. That is why we have the word "draft", to keep the fodder going long enough until one side realises it is hopeless.

After all, you do not wish to die for your country, you want the other side to think that way.:)

[elder999]

Originally posted by Cady Goldfield
That's my point - why the hell would Israel even want to wage war against the US? It's not even an issue. :)

Well, I hope I don't offend you by saying that Israel has conducted an espionage war-somewhat successfully-against the U.S. for most of our lifetimes, Cady.

Fact is, they stole the information that led to the development of their unacknowledged (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) nuclear weapons, as well as special nuclear material from the U.S. The SNM may have been brokered as some sort of black-op, but it was, to all intents and purposes, stolen-before their Demona reactor went on line.

Israel has also soilicited various U.S. assets to commit espionage on its behalf....

..fact is, in this regard..EVERYONE is at war, with everyone else..:mad:



Korea is the country to worry about, folks. Trust me on this one.

I'd lay even money that we're in Iran first......Korea IS something of a threat-though their weapons systems and nuclear program are inferior, they are functional...


I am not wanting to make a fuss and take part of Shitoryu Dude statment but has the US military solved the problem of trying to shoot down missles with intercept missles or is there still a 1 second delay causing a miss strike?

We don't have to solve that problem.

The Russian threat has been almost eliminated, as far as missiles go, at any rate.The Korean delivery systems are inferior, as are the Chinese, inthat they are liquid propelled, and they are deployed unfueled.

It would take them hours to fuel them, and we'd see this via sattelite surveillance...fueling their missiles is currently interpreted as a "hostile act."

Of course, they have very large armies.....

EDIT: It would take them hours to prepare the missiles targeted against the U.S.; China has shorter range missiles targeted at Japan, Taiwan and India that take less than a half hour to prep..

[Shitoryu Dude]

I'm not up to speed on anti-missile technology, sorry. I can tell you one thing, it won't get any better unless someone busts their ass working on it. Failures are to be expected until the problems are solved.

:beer:

[Cady Goldfield]

Aaron,

Yes, espionage for sure. But who doesn't? We do the same in many, many countries including Israel and the rest of the Middle East.

Heck, I've seen neighbors with telescopes in their livingroom windows -- on an urban street. Spying is part of human nature.

Violence against and intent to destroy or take over another country are another matter altogether.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Cady Goldfield

Violence against and intent to destroy or take over another country are another matter altogether.

What about stealing?

[william northcote]

Originally posted by Cady Goldfield
Violence against and intent to destroy or take over another country are another matter altogether.

Is that in a good way or a bad way?

[Cady Goldfield]

Dunno, Aaron. What have we Americans stolen lately? I mean, when we're not poking around looking for WMDs and Osama connections? :)

William,
Some would make differentiation between violence, pre-emptive military action and occupation for the purpose of self-preservation and survival, and violence and land conquest purely for the sake of conquest -- such as British colonialism, Spanish and Euro conquest of the new world, etc.

[wendy ongaro]

I really wouldn't like to be in a unit full of people who are only there because they have to be, nor would I want my country defended by such people. It makes for substandard performance and hurts morale.

How about in respects to a draft?

Obviously, many of those involved in mandatory service would be unsuitable for combat. However, America has many social problems that could benefit from sheer manpower under the direction of good leadership. Mandatory service could provide that resource.

In terms of the 'militia' issue, it would make a true draft in times of war easier as individuals would already be familiar with the system, and have had some exposure to fire arms, etc. I was thinking more in these terms than your town militia going out and protecting the countryside.

In terms of our next target, I am curious to see what is going to go down with Syria.

[A. M. Jauregui]

Bob Hubbard it really is a shame that a lot of skills have been swept away by changes in the economy and technology. I remember writing a paper on the changes that technology has in modern times - skills are not lost just put on the high shelf. (Which is little consolation...)

Required armed forces service has its pros and cons but I agree with David Craik in that there would most likely be issues with more then a few of the non-volunteers - so it may not be the best move. The same issues that he stated would be prevalent in non-volunteers acquired through a draft as well. Jeff Cook’s idea for compulsory service in the Peace Corp is very interesting. I know a good number of people that joined because of the student loan reimbursement benefits - disciplined soldiers no, no compassionate people yes...

Cady I believe that my aunt’s statement on Israel being capable of posing a threat to the US was based on the notion that they have comparable military technology. And yes everyone does spy on everyone else - fact of life but it does not make it right...

Harvey said, “No other country, or even large group of them, pose a military threat to the US.” This is my thinking as well...

[william northcote]

As a afterthought from the last post, has those missing briefcase sized nuclear warheads been found? The ones that was sold by Russian officers so they could pay their troops?


Harvey said, “No other country, or even large group of them, pose a military threat to the US.” This is my thinking as well...

Hmm I think not. A small group can cause as much damage than a large war in terms of fear. Like that sniper last year, that had people worried enough to not go out into the open. It is not how it is done, but they way you carry it out.

[Martin Adil-Smi]

Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
[B]Failures are to be expected until the problems are solved.



Does that include mistake British fighters for scud missiles?

[Soulend]

Originally posted by wendy ongaro
How about in respects to a draft?
The draft is supposed to be a last resort, a measure taken when we simply don't have enough personnel to continue action. Actually, the state of the military (or at least the Marine Corps) the last time we had a draft (and for a number of years afterward) validates my point. Discipline and morale was zero, evidenced by rampant court-martials, non-judicial punishment, fragging of officers, drug use, and widespread desertion. Experienced NCOs and officers who would have stayed in to retirement got out because they became sick of it.

So yes, if we have 1,000,000 screaming Chinese running through the streets of Poughkeepsie, by all means draft all the folks you can to hold them off - and if the standards must be temporarily lowered so be it. But in the long run unit cohesion will be destroyed, as lack of discipline and morale spread like a cancer, infecting even the volunteers and careerists.


Originally posted by wendy ongaro
Obviously, many of those involved in mandatory service would be unsuitable for combat. However, America has many social problems that could benefit from sheer manpower under the direction of good leadership. Mandatory service could provide that resource.

That's quite true. As Jeff said, perhaps service in something like the Peace Corps, or as I said create a new organization. Or, maybe stick them in the National Guard or something, if a quasi-military flavor is desired.:)

I can't speak for the other services, but the USMC doesn't exist to tackle societal problems nor as some sort of reform school to unf*ck America's wayward youth. The stated mission of the Marine rifle team is to "locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and manuever, and to repel the enemy by fire and close combat". You cannot perform this mission effectively with people who don't want to be Marines in the first place, even if they are physically, mentally, and morally capable of doing so. You perform it with tight, cohesive, and well discipled units of men who chose to be there.

Does that include mistake British fighters for scud missiles?
Don't worry, we shot down at least one of our own too.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Will Northcote
As a afterthought from the last post, has those missing briefcase sized nuclear warheads been found? The ones that was sold by Russian officers so they could pay their troops?


Briefcase nukes….

…more like “suitcase” or “steamer trunk,” though there are some much smaller…..

First off, the U.S has gone on record as losing 92 nuclear devices, in plane crashes, submarines lost…etc.

In the National Atomic Museum in Albuquerque, tourists can reach over the museum's velvet rope and touch the W48, a nuclear artillery shell only 33 inches long and 6 inches in diameter. At 118 pounds, the bullet-shaped explosive is light enough and small enough to be smuggled in a suitcase.
The weapons exhibited in the museum, of course, are empty shells, their inner mechanisms long since removed. But the portable size of some of them makes clear why experts like me lose sleep worrying that terrorists might steal similar weapons, with real nuclear explosives, from poorly protected storage facilities in Russia.

From the 1950s on, the United States built an amazing array of tactical nuclear weapons designed for use on the battlefield, from mines and small rockets to backpack munitions.Near the museum's artillery shells is a Special Atomic Demolition Munition, or SADM, better known as the ``backpack nuke.'' A soldier carrying it could leave it under a strategic bridge, for example, with its timer ticking.

If you look at the first link, it has a picture of the Davy Crockett, first generation,in several configurations. I wish you could see the picture on my desk, of the very last Davy Crockett. It’s essentially a lightweight, tripod mounted RPG. It doesn’t look nearly as cartoonish as those early bazookas…..in fact, if you watched it being launched through binoculars, you might think it was a Stinger…until it hit. 20 kilotons of nuclear BAM! on the back of a jeep.

While we can be certain that the Soviets built similar devices, and while their security was …uh, different, there is no verification of missing, stolen, bartered or sold devices of this type….special nuclear material is, of course, another matter, but they vehemently deny that any of their devices is missing…..which some say they’d do anyway, while others, myself included, say they have no way of knowing.

They have no way of knowing…

The former Soviet republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan—where the Soviets based many of their nuclear warheads—safely returned their Soviet nuclear weapons to post-communist Russia in the 1990s, but all three countries still have stockpiles of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has reported 175 nuclear smuggling incidents since 1993, 18 of which involved highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient in an atomic bomb and the most dangerous product on the nuclear black market, other than a working-order device.
Russian authorities say that in the past three years alone, they have broken up hundreds of nuclear-material smuggling deals. In October 2001, shortly after the World Trade Center attacks, a Russian nuclear official reported having foiled two separate incidents over the previous eight months in which terrorists had “staked out” a secret weapons storage site. In the 1990s, U.S. authorities discovered several al-Qaeda plots to obtain nuclear materials, and CIA Director George Tenet recently told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that Osama bin Laden had sought to “acquire or develop a nuclear device.”

In 1994, Czech authorities intercepted nearly three kilograms of highly enriched uranium—15 percent of the mass necessary to make a nuclear bomb—stored in a car on a busy Prague street. Officials suspected that the material had been stolen from an engineering institute southwest of Moscow and arrested the three men in the car—a Czech, a Ukrainian, and a Belorussian, all with backgrounds in the nuclear field. Unlike the Prague incident, most of the 175 nuclear smuggling cases reported by the IAEA since 1993 involved natural, non-enriched uranium, which could not produce an atomic weapon but could be stuffed into a dirty bomb.

In 1994 I participated in the now-declassified Operation Sapphire. You can read about Operation Sapphire here:

http://www.geocities.com/wshingleton/swords.html

Or, you can watch the four part documentary “Preventing Armageddon” on your PBS station, and see me in part 2, which details Operation Sapphire, among other things-I’m told that I’m in it, anyway, though I haven’t seen it. I’m the black guy, though, so I shouldn’t be hard to spot, even with several much darker military personnel around...:p

As for the military, the U.S. is changing them to suit projected future conflicts, and I have to agree with Jeff, David and others about keeping the military voluntary-and motivated.

http://www.active-duty.com/BackPackNukes.htm (The Davy Crockett)


http://www.osti.gov/historicalfilms/opentext/data/0800031.html
(Archival film of simulated U.S. SADM deployment)

[Martin Adil-Smi]

Originally posted by Soulend

Don't worry, we shot down at least one of our own too.

Thanks. That makes me feel so much better.

[Soulend]

Originally posted by Martin Adil-Smi
Thanks. That makes me feel so much better.
Glad to hear it. Perhaps the British military will offer an acceptable substitute? Hmmm...I thought not.

While the loss of friendlies, whether due to faulty weapons systems, miscommunication, misidentification, plain old incompetance, or factors beyond anyone's control is tragic regardless of nationality, it is also unfortunately inevitable. Accidents happen, especially in time of war. What people fail to note is that the Patriot also shot down 9 out of ten incoming SCUDS as well during the Operation Iraqi Freedom, so I wonder how many lives were saved by it's presence? I know I felt a whole lot better seeing them around when I was there. Of course, if we hadn't deployed the system - since they're faulty - you would likely be on here incensed because we allowed scuds to rain down upon coalition heads when we could have used the Patriot system to save them.

Yes, it needs further improvement, as do a lot of systems. While I don't consider even a single life an 'acceptable loss', bear in mind that over 41,000 coalition sorties were flown during this campaign, with a grand total of 13 coalition aircraft being lost to mishaps, errors, and equipment failures. By way of comparison, from March of 1998 to May of 1999 the United States alone lost 55 military aircraft during peacetime operations, with 55 total killed. So don't point the finger too harshly, especially if you cannot offer an alternative system.

[william northcote]

Is it me or does elder999 want us to have nightmares?

Somehow I feel less safe than I did 5 minutes ago

:(

[Soulend]

That's the beauty of being expendible cannon fodder, Mr. Northcote! Such things are no longer quite so scary, as you realize that safety is an illusion. :laugh:

[william northcote]

If someone does decide to go and play "lets do a mini sun thingy over on that area" I would feel uncomfortable. I would, if it came to the crunch, become cannon fodder as I knew where it came from.

[Soulend]

Yep, that makes all the difference. :rolleyes: Of course, the cannon fodder don't always know from where death will come either, only that there are folks out there actively trying to kill them. Perhaps it is time for civilians to come to the same realization, albeit to a lesser degree. You all are fodder too, only to more insidious cannons and less frequently. Just as 'expendible' though! :)

[elder999]

There is only one truly safe place on earth for any human being....the grave.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Will Northcote
Is it me or does elder999 want us to have nightmares?

Somehow I feel less safe than I did 5 minutes ago

:(

I'm just sharing my nightmares....you should be scared.

You were never "safe."

[william northcote]

eep!

[wendy ongaro]

Somehow I feel less safe than I did 5 minutes ago

Hang out with one of the specialists on forensic identification (i.e. dental records) in the armed forces for lunch (like I got to do today), and look at lost of lovely pictures of what folks look like after colliding aircraft, crashing aircraft, crashing automobiles, exhumed bodies, digested parts of children killed by dogs, etc. Not only will you feel much less safe, you'll feel nauseous.

And I've done my fair share of trauma in the ER! pardon me while I go puke.

It really brings home reality when you get to look at it. Violent death is horrible.

[Jock Armstrong]

Forgive me for being anal but the term "cannon fodder" refers to those who are useless and can be thrown away without regret. I was a professional soldier and believe you me, none of us were cannon fodder. I suggest you never use that term to a green beret, a marine or anyone in the Australian army. Martial artist or not you'd better be good or you'll be spitting out teeth. Modern volunteer armies such as the US, British and Australian services are composed of highly trained [not to mention expensively- its estinated that a modern grunt costs about a million bucks to train]. As for reform, they need to train troops for deployment to foreign parts in such aspects as liason with local forces [this includes training police so that the current embroilment in Iraq situation doesn't happen- our guys are out of there once the locals are ready- and this way they're ready soon after the main hostilities are over], recon and surgical raiding ops. The Green Berets and the Aussie SAS did this extremely well in Afghanistan.First however, you'll have to overcome the disdain for special forces that permeates the upper command level "heavy metal" generals. Forgive the ravings of an old man. Topics like this get me going...... :beer:

[william northcote]

Hang out with one of the specialists on forensic identification (i.e. dental records) in the armed forces for lunch (like I got to do today), and look at lost of lovely pictures of what folks look like after colliding aircraft, crashing aircraft, crashing automobiles, exhumed bodies, digested parts of children killed by dogs, etc. Not only will you feel much less safe, you'll feel nauseous.


NO need to, I just go to rotten.com and look there. :D


Forgive me for being anal but the term "cannon fodder" refers to those who are useless and can be thrown away without regret.

And history has been full of them. I used the term to say that all are expendable, even the higher echelons of the military, for there are always replaicments.

The American civil war was full of "cannon fodder". As was the British in WWI. It is the mentality of saying go forward walking towards the enemy lines and try and not get killed.

As a military the US have great capability to wage war against lesser nations. The technology is superior against any other nation, so they can have a good war with minimal loss of life so it does not need mass deaths on thier hands. But it is only when it comes to FIBUA and ground, they have no overall fighting skills. But, and I do mean this in a positive way, they are adapting to street fighting and learning how to conduct FIBUA in a better way.

[Soulend]

OK, then, who in your estimation is good at urban warfare(had to look up FIBUA, we don't use that term)?

As to "cannon fodder", we haven't fought that way in ages, though the Chinese did as late as the Korean War, and probably would again given their numbers. I don't think you're being anal at all, Mr. Armstrong. It's a pretty offensive way to refer to men who fought and died so that Mr. Northcote and others aren't posting in German today. But, it gave me a nifty idea for a signature!

[william northcote]

No one is good at street fighting in military terms, they still lose people in the fight on either side.

I use the term to say that every soldier is expendable, regardless of rank or social status. One dies, another takes over. It would be pointless to keep on fighting if one by one you were taken down to nil. So replaicements are brought in. During Vietnam, the draft ensured replaicement, even though some of the young soldiers did not wish to be there, they had a job to do.

It is for every soldier to be expendable, but it is on thier head to come out alive from the fight. For they know the risks and go into the fray knowing that they may or may not come back home. The original question was do the armed forces need rebuilding? Since the USA has been in two countries fighting they have lost a minimal ammount of combatants compared to the overall number of active soldiers stationed and currently working in the military. How many has been lost in relation to the number of active service personnel? How many have joined to replaice and/or make a career or show pride in thier country? These are the questions that should be said. For in my estimate for one soldier dying in the two conflicts, Afghanistan and Iraq, another 3 or 4 in my estimation has taken their place.

It was the same with the Falkland war in 1982. A sudden rise in active members in the military, part time Territorial Army and full time Army. When I was in part time I saw thae plaque on the officer's drinking quarters showing 150 joining the company alone due to the Falkland war. They all volunteered to take up a rifle to fight if needs be. As would have I if I was old enough.

So here is my question, not for the people who serve in the armed forces that are subscribed to this thread, how many of you would join if the draft happened? How many of you would take it upon themselves to rebuild the military?