I always had a deep puzzlement with the military as an institution. It’s basically an organization designed to take young people and teach them to run toward a firing machine gun when told to do so. It defies all logic at the individual level, and it scares me.
You seem to have developed an understanding of the military based entirely around a small slice of WW2 movies and video games, and then assumed that has any bearing on the real world.
The way you actually learn to deal with a machine gun (and this was true even in WW2) is find cover, set up suppressing fires, use smoke and terrain for concealment as you advance, and eventually get someone into a position where they can flank and take out the machine gun nest, probably with a grenade so they don’t expose themselves. Most importantly, everything I just described above involves teamwork. You protect each other, you trust each other, you rely on each other.
Safety is paramount. No one is teaching you to run screaming at a machine gun nest with no regard for your own life. That shit barely even happens in movies anymore.
A huge amount of what you learn as a soldier is basically how to keep yourself safe in extremely dangerous situations. Yes, you still have to have a willingness to put yourself in extremely dangerous situations in the first place, but the whole point of learning to do this stuff well is learning how to be the person who can survive those extremely dangerous situations.
You’re claiming “forests” (“militaries treat young, enlisted lives as expendable for unnecessary wars”) exist and then pointing at a cardboard standee of a tree you brought as evidence.
Yeah, you’re right, but you can admit when your attempt at artistry fails your point.
Sorry for the uncalled advice but it’s usually a waste of time to discuss with people who go out of their way to treat a figure of speech as literal, and vomit a huge “ackshyually” about it. Or that lie / assume / bullshit about your emotional state. (Cue to “what is it that disturbs you?”)
Because, like, it’s plain obvious your “run toward a firing machine gun” is a figure of speech.
Because, like, it’s plain obvious your “run toward a firing machine gun” is a figure of speech.
I’m curious what you think OP meant by their statement seeing as they claim my interpretation was reading something that wasn’t there. You’re saying it’s not literal and they’re saying it’s not the idea that war wastes lives carelessly. So how should someone read the statement that the military teaches people to run into machine gun fire? It reads as a critique, although I suppose that could be the start of the misunderstanding.
It’s about teaching people to disregard their own self-preservation, when following orders. That’s why they say “it scares me”.
It doesn’t need to be machine gun firing (part for the whole; “dangers in general”); or literally running towards it (hyperbole; “risking to get harmed”).
You might agree with their point, or disagree with it. However, “le ackshyually to le narwhal bacon’s knee, you’re instructed to take cover lol EDIT WOW THANKS FOR THE GOLD KIND STRANGER!!!” doesn’t address what they said at all. And, like, people get rubbed off the wrong way when others use those “ackshyually”.
It’s about teaching people to disregard their own self-preservation, when following orders. That’s why they say “it scares me”.
Perfectly valid to fear being compelled to move toward danger.
But can we agree that: 1) saying “teaching you to run into machine fire” is negative tonally, and 2) you could make the quoted point illustratively, without phrasing it so reductively?
The most obvious read of the original line is “jarheads being sent to their deaths,” – they told me to, so I’m going to run into machine gun fire – which would obviously receive pushback.
And that’s saying nothing about the actual philosophies of how to deal with danger, vis a vis fleeing it or neutralizing it.
This is for people that will come after (assuming the whole post isn’t randomly deleted).
I think my reading of your comment’s anti-military message was reasonable, certainly not mean-spirited. However, I will admit my first comment was more declarative than inquisitive. A more open dialogue might have been “Then what is the forest?”
When we talk about voluntary enlistments they typically rely on mythology of noble and valiant warriors and honorable deaths, or the military represents a path out of poverty.
It’s really eye opening to read accounts of civil war and WW1 soldiers who found out how brutal war actually was.
This is exactly why WWI is so interesting to me. All over the world (mostly Europe) we had these notions about honor and glory in war. Then after a bunch of people got fed to machine gun fire the collective consciousness of humanity shifts. Obviously there were folks ahead of the curve and already knew this.
But in general for western civilization WWI is the inflection point.
I feel like I hear a lot more about how Desert Storm was the massive shift to the general public getting to see the horror of war. It’s absolutely true that there was a step change! I think it’s valuable to include WWI in this discussion because adding to your point about the machine gun the change in war technology fundamentally changed who was surviving the war and how, and what stories and life changing injuries they brought home.
It’s tragic and world changing if your loved one goes off to war and dies, but that’s also very abstract. Having them come back and either:
re-enter society with visible bodily damage
require constant care for the rest of their lives
seem to be okay in body but come hope deeply changed by the trauma
really change how the people who weren’t there view the reality of war. Even for myself, it was hearing my grandmother sobbing as she recalled atrocities in WWII (she was a child) that really shaped how I view war.
I find it hard to digest that people in north america appear to have become less opposed to wars (specifically the wars of the US) than they did in the 2000s (which are the first wars I have adult memory of). If I had to guess I would say it’s a mix of overwhelm with everything else and that war is back to being more remote. I’m sure the people who are being droned still think it’s horrific.
Also US centric but I went to the Atlanta History Center a few years back. I am not from the states. The way the US Civil war was presented was so different from what I had learned. This makes sense, especially as canada uses the US as a shield for their own atrocities, and likes to emphasize how chattel slavery was outlawed here sooner. What I didn’t expect was the exhibit on how the horror of war left such a mark on the population. It was very enlightening!
Good point about Desert Storm. Because North America has been so insulated from war/ major conflicts we have grown to be more tolerable of waging it. Every 20ish years we have to be reminded that it is something to be avoided.
Also, I hadn’t even thought about how much medicine had changed and that allowed more people to survive but with injuries.
Another thing to point out is that Canada and the USA have only seen imperialist/ asymmetric warfare in my lifetime and this colors how we view the seriousness of it. How many d-bag Seals have podcasts or books glorifying themselves and how their rugged manliness got them through war? In reality they just had better equipment, logistics, and training on their side. But again it feeds into the propaganda machine pushing these societies to go to war.
Not to worry - eventually the industrialization of war will be such that invaders only need to use unmanned craft to decimate their opposition’s home population on their 9-5 shift and then get drinks afterwards. (/s)
I always had a deep puzzlement with the military as an institution. It’s basically an organization designed to take young people and teach them to run toward a firing machine gun when told to do so. It defies all logic at the individual level, and it scares me.
But… It’s not?
You seem to have developed an understanding of the military based entirely around a small slice of WW2 movies and video games, and then assumed that has any bearing on the real world.
The way you actually learn to deal with a machine gun (and this was true even in WW2) is find cover, set up suppressing fires, use smoke and terrain for concealment as you advance, and eventually get someone into a position where they can flank and take out the machine gun nest, probably with a grenade so they don’t expose themselves. Most importantly, everything I just described above involves teamwork. You protect each other, you trust each other, you rely on each other.
Safety is paramount. No one is teaching you to run screaming at a machine gun nest with no regard for your own life. That shit barely even happens in movies anymore.
A huge amount of what you learn as a soldier is basically how to keep yourself safe in extremely dangerous situations. Yes, you still have to have a willingness to put yourself in extremely dangerous situations in the first place, but the whole point of learning to do this stuff well is learning how to be the person who can survive those extremely dangerous situations.
I think you are missing the forest for the trees here.
You’re claiming “forests” (“militaries treat young, enlisted lives as expendable for unnecessary wars”) exist and then pointing at a cardboard standee of a tree you brought as evidence.
Yeah, you’re right, but you can admit when your attempt at artistry fails your point.
Read my comment again. You are reading things that are not there.
Sorry for the uncalled advice but it’s usually a waste of time to discuss with people who go out of their way to treat a figure of speech as literal, and vomit a huge “ackshyually” about it. Or that lie / assume / bullshit about your emotional state. (Cue to “what is it that disturbs you?”)
Because, like, it’s plain obvious your “run toward a firing machine gun” is a figure of speech.
I’m curious what you think OP meant by their statement seeing as they claim my interpretation was reading something that wasn’t there. You’re saying it’s not literal and they’re saying it’s not the idea that war wastes lives carelessly. So how should someone read the statement that the military teaches people to run into machine gun fire? It reads as a critique, although I suppose that could be the start of the misunderstanding.
It’s about teaching people to disregard their own self-preservation, when following orders. That’s why they say “it scares me”.
It doesn’t need to be machine gun firing (part for the whole; “dangers in general”); or literally running towards it (hyperbole; “risking to get harmed”).
You might agree with their point, or disagree with it. However, “le ackshyually to le narwhal bacon’s knee, you’re instructed to take cover lol EDIT WOW THANKS FOR THE GOLD KIND STRANGER!!!” doesn’t address what they said at all. And, like, people get rubbed off the wrong way when others use those “ackshyually”.
Perfectly valid to fear being compelled to move toward danger.
But can we agree that: 1) saying “teaching you to run into machine fire” is negative tonally, and 2) you could make the quoted point illustratively, without phrasing it so reductively?
The most obvious read of the original line is “jarheads being sent to their deaths,” – they told me to, so I’m going to run into machine gun fire – which would obviously receive pushback.
And that’s saying nothing about the actual philosophies of how to deal with danger, vis a vis fleeing it or neutralizing it.
Sorry, I was trying to think of a more reasonable alternative than your literal statement that didn’t make sense.
Can you please explain what you meant by
Such that you think someone who explained that the statement is false is missing the forest?
Read back your comment. Does it sound like an honest, good faith effort at dialog?
I’m blocking you now and I’m not going to think twice about this exchange.
This is for people that will come after (assuming the whole post isn’t randomly deleted).
I think my reading of your comment’s anti-military message was reasonable, certainly not mean-spirited. However, I will admit my first comment was more declarative than inquisitive. A more open dialogue might have been “Then what is the forest?”
OK. So elaborate. What is it that disturbs you?
it teaches them that the cause is more important than their individual life.
the cause is usually some politician getting more power… so yeah, lots of brainwashing needed
The rich need cannon fodder.
When we talk about voluntary enlistments they typically rely on mythology of noble and valiant warriors and honorable deaths, or the military represents a path out of poverty.
It’s really eye opening to read accounts of civil war and WW1 soldiers who found out how brutal war actually was.
This is exactly why WWI is so interesting to me. All over the world (mostly Europe) we had these notions about honor and glory in war. Then after a bunch of people got fed to machine gun fire the collective consciousness of humanity shifts. Obviously there were folks ahead of the curve and already knew this.
But in general for western civilization WWI is the inflection point.
It’s so interesting!
I feel like I hear a lot more about how Desert Storm was the massive shift to the general public getting to see the horror of war. It’s absolutely true that there was a step change! I think it’s valuable to include WWI in this discussion because adding to your point about the machine gun the change in war technology fundamentally changed who was surviving the war and how, and what stories and life changing injuries they brought home.
It’s tragic and world changing if your loved one goes off to war and dies, but that’s also very abstract. Having them come back and either:
really change how the people who weren’t there view the reality of war. Even for myself, it was hearing my grandmother sobbing as she recalled atrocities in WWII (she was a child) that really shaped how I view war.
I find it hard to digest that people in north america appear to have become less opposed to wars (specifically the wars of the US) than they did in the 2000s (which are the first wars I have adult memory of). If I had to guess I would say it’s a mix of overwhelm with everything else and that war is back to being more remote. I’m sure the people who are being droned still think it’s horrific.
Also US centric but I went to the Atlanta History Center a few years back. I am not from the states. The way the US Civil war was presented was so different from what I had learned. This makes sense, especially as canada uses the US as a shield for their own atrocities, and likes to emphasize how chattel slavery was outlawed here sooner. What I didn’t expect was the exhibit on how the horror of war left such a mark on the population. It was very enlightening!
Good point about Desert Storm. Because North America has been so insulated from war/ major conflicts we have grown to be more tolerable of waging it. Every 20ish years we have to be reminded that it is something to be avoided.
Also, I hadn’t even thought about how much medicine had changed and that allowed more people to survive but with injuries.
Another thing to point out is that Canada and the USA have only seen imperialist/ asymmetric warfare in my lifetime and this colors how we view the seriousness of it. How many d-bag Seals have podcasts or books glorifying themselves and how their rugged manliness got them through war? In reality they just had better equipment, logistics, and training on their side. But again it feeds into the propaganda machine pushing these societies to go to war.
Not to worry - eventually the industrialization of war will be such that invaders only need to use unmanned craft to decimate their opposition’s home population on their 9-5 shift and then get drinks afterwards. (/s)