/k/ - Weapons

If the American people knew at the time what we now know was going on in Korea, Vietnam, and China, there would have never been any question about it.

We would've nuked out a hundred mile wide radioactive corridor cutting off both peninsulas from the mainland and never looked back.

>>600499

Korea was an odd one. I know of multiple people that signed up for the Army right before that war and all of them failed the GED test. All got told they were too stupid for the Army. All of them got drafted a few months later.

Worked out good for one of them because it launched his career but the other two never made it home. Makes me wonder if they initially drafted stupid farm boys because they knew they had no choice from attempting to sign up prior.

>>600483

Hi FBI.

1) Depends on who we're going to war with, for what reason, the chances of a civil war, and how far to shit the US has turned. Probably "no" since even if it turned to shit, the USA would probably be less shit than my surroundings.

3) War is never justifiable. It's basically always each side fucking with each other until one side finally loses their shit and kicks the other side's shit in, at which point they're "responsible for starting the war" no matter how justified they were in doing so.

>3. If we aren't willing to draft for a war then is the war justifiable?

If you need to draft for a war is it really a noble cause?

>>600530

For self defense maybe? But if men are dodging the draft even in a defensive war, your country was shit, the people are shit or both to begin with.

>>600483

>1. If they gave out amensty for the draft dogers who would rather give up their citizenship than to serve in a war, could we say that the war was not worth it?

No, they should have never issued an amnesty in the first place. You either do a draft or you don't you don't come back on it years after, it sets a terrible precedent.

>2. Was the Amensty really meant to protect the high society dodgers who would one day become a politician?

Yes. Not necessarily "to become politicians" but for connected people families definitely.

People who draft dodge are people with the means to do so. That typically mean an international passport and a sizable wallet, I let you guess which demographics is overly represented in that area.

In the typical average family when a son get drafted, his mom cry because she might not see her son again and even if she does he will be different when he comes back, a real adult free of her, his dad is sad but will kick his ass at the first suspicion he wanted to dodge it's a duty to the community.

Of course in the (((average family))) mom hysterically yell about poor little Vietnamese and how unfair this is and the dad is phoning a cousin in Vancover or Tel Aviv to know if the guestroom is free.

>3. If we aren't willing to draft for a war then is the war justifiable?

Probably not. But then most wars hardly are. Which is why modern politicians prefer contract soldiers.

Mass armies were a french/US revolution idea, it's profoundly democratic at it's core and obviously can only be used sparingly with a real clear and great goal in mind most of the population agrees upon.

Which is why British type "pseudo-democracy" which we have all become always preferred professional armies to wage war nearly constantly under largely false/idiotic pretense but for hidden goals that the elite in control decided, rather than the people.

>>600621

Didn't drafting really only began with the french revolution,and before war was just a rich man's hobby?

Weren't people hoping for a quick war with WW1 so basically they could have a chance for grasping glory & recognition with few causalities/ circle jerk about the war with their buds down at the pub/coffee/tea shop?

>>600623

>Didn't drafting really only began with the french revolution,and before war was just a rich man's hobby?

Spengler-time: the kind of warfare where the mass of people and the superiority of technology dominate first happen when a culture dies and turns into a civilization. Then as Caesarism rises small mercenary armies once again take the stage, and warfare becomes the hobby of the rulers, just like how it was before.

>Weren't people hoping for a quick war with WW1 so basically they could have a chance for grasping glory & recognition with few causalities/ circle jerk about the war with their buds down at the pub/coffee/tea shop?

Yes, it's common knowledge.

>>600626

Was the hopes for ww1 professional sports basically,but instead of sports teams it was nations?

>>600632

What? Everybody expected a short war because everybody was confident that their firepower and mobility will allow them to smash the enemy and march to their capital. What they didn't expect is that the other side will have the firepower to halt their advance. Of course, it led to trench wafare in the western front, because France had the resources and incentive to build up a defensive line. In the Balkans they didn't have the resources, and so warfare was a bit more mobile there. In the eastern front every side lacked both the resources for such a defensive line, and also the incentive, as they were mostly fighting in ex-Polish territories that didn't have anything really important, and so falling back was always an option.

>>600632

>having solidarity among those with whom you share your nation, your race, your culture, and your heritage

>rooting for the uniform of a corporation that has no connection beyond the superficial to you, your home, or your community

<these are morally and practically equivalent, right?

You're the reason the rest of the world hates America.

>>600483

>plebbit format

>conflating wars for jews with wars of defense

>drumph is bad because he didn't want to blow up gooks

Kill yourself, post haste.

>>600623

>Didn't drafting really only began with the french revolution,and before war was just a rich man's hobby?

Yes.

The US revolution too, the main reason the rebels could win against the British army is that there was a shitload of them and for each militiamen in arm 10 people supporting them with food/ammo, etc… while UK could only bring a fraction of their standing army to bear and couldn't forage (which was still largely how supplies were obtained) as they would get ambushed constantly.

One other reason is the real kick off of industrialization, prior to that era it was simply impossible to outfit masses of people (the US being a special case as the US being mostly frontier lot of rebels simply owned their own muskets which is the whole "minuteman" concept).

Now the french revolution is taken as an example because the french revolutionary wars were basically insane with crazy shit like Napoleon fighting the ottomans in Cairo next to the pyramids just because (or possibly because he was going to invade India by land), the French and Russian army playing cat and mouse in Switzerland or French Hussards, yes guys on horseback capturing SHIPS (Netherlands fleet trapped in the ice, night raid riding double with infantrymen on the ice), and can be argued to be WWI (and Napoleonic wars being largely a simple continuation) and saw French revolutionary literally fighting against everyone else at the same time (even the new born US)… Except french revolutionaries almost always won.

It took FIVE international coalitions of basically "the French people VS the civilized world" and 20 years to put a stop to the rampaging french revolutionary armies.

And the main reason was at the first levée en masse by Carnot major empires had at best a couple hundred thousands soldiers. Even the pumped french volunteer revolutionary army was only around 500k.

Carnot in not even a year had managed to outfit arm, train and deploy 1.5M soldiers and could maintain 11 armies at once and therefore fight 11 countries at once typically on 4 or 5 fronts to the horror of everybody else involved.

Add true meritocracy, with officer rising from the ranks because they deserved it instead of inbreed aristocrats that bought/inherited their positions for a yearly salary and you have the basis of modern armies until the collapse of the soviet union.

But mass conscription is tied to democracy as it's the "citizen soldier" concept of old.

>>600637

fuck the rest of the world

>>600483

>3. If we aren't willing to draft for a war then is the war justifiable?

pretty much. if you have to draft to get soldiers, then it shows your war is full of shit.

>>600528

>War is never justifiable

You just don't grasp how privileged you are that you only neighbor two weaklings you completely and utterly overpower one of them being fully emasculated pussies and the other being completely unorganized IQ 85 turdworlders than never won a war, not even against themselves and the closest mudslime-majority nation being two oceans away.

Drafts are bullshit, when there is a legitimate need to fight (like ww2) the military has more volunteers than guns it's only when the general public knows a war is bullshit (like vietnam) that a draft is needed.

TL:DR if it's a war worth fighting people volunteer.

>>600524

The early months of any war normally have the highest casualty rates so you keep your best for later.

>>600536

If the people are unwinning to fight a defensive war they think the enemies government will be better than their own. Sometimes I don't doubt that is the case.

>>600623

I know drafting goes back to lords in England drafting their farmers to fight, I suspect it goes back much further.