Post by BD on Jul 17, 2010 23:46:56 GMT -5
Well, in what little time i've had to myself in the past year, i've done a lot of writing; some of this has been for a purpose which I may or may not reveal at a later time, but whatever. Anyways, just before school ended, I did a satire piece in a style similar to Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal", and I feel like for as much work as I put into it (only had to be 1 page; I wrote 4 and researched for it), I didn't get much mileage out of it, so I figured i'd post it on the internet for no good reason. Ignore some of the syntax errors in the paragraphs, my mac doesn't like c/p too much.
A Reasonable Approach to Modern Warfare
Collateral damage and casualties are far from the glorious spoils of war; but, just as the spoils of war, they come as a result of armed conflict. Every day volunteer soldiers are forced to sacrifice their lives in the line of duty; and more follow as the slaughter mills referred to as “training camps” continue to produce soldiers who know very little about what war actually is. In reality, very few of these mass-produced human weapons ever return with a pulse to the country they defender. The point is, why let the unknowing fight battles when we have true soldiers with experience inhabiting this country; why use new resources when we haven’t run out of the old ones.
The soldiers capable of surviving are either discharged or promoted to desk jobs; both of which result in the overall removal from the literal battlefield. Why remove what has proved inexperienced when we can use what’s been proven. Currently, there are approximately 23.2 million veterans in the United States, as opposed to 1.45 million active duty military personnel. That’s 16 armies’ worth of people retired and away from the battlefield, each having survived the perils of war. There’s no reason to continue recruiting or creating new soldiers when there’s enough already created to dwarf the current active army. Simply put, training and funding to new troops should be removed from the federal budge entirely.
Each new soldier costs $150 thousand; current government plans indicate that the military is about to be expanded by 750,000 people. That amounts to nearly $113 million wasted on new soldiers that the government blindly pays without knowing what they are getting, a survivor or a fatality.
The proposition being made is simple: make the military a lifetime commitment. If one is willing to die for their country, it should make no difference whether that death occurs at 19 or 65. Not only would this exponentially increase the size of the current army, it would prevent more civilians from attempting to beat the odds and survive a war. This would allow for the complete removal of the training budget, which can be put to better use by furthering the use of the elite via hiring more contractors. Most contractors use former survivors who are merely interested in higher salaries, so the action merely returns soldiers who see combat as a profession to government control.
` Opposition might imply that certain veterans suffering from old age or a handicap may not be capable of serving; however, this would merely exclude them from the infantry. Physically, this doesn’t disqualify them. For those in wheelchairs or crutches, long-distance weaponry, such as sniper rifles, can be used from over a mile away from a target while safely laying down; those with handicaps in the legs could in theory safely fire and not have to worry about their low agility in combat. Additionally, those who are physically incapable of firing a gun due to muscular atrophy or other debilitating conditions could be used to drive tanks and army jeeps. Additionally, this helps public safety, as people’s feet will no longer be run over or stepped on by wheelchairs and crutches, allowing for a future with a less handicapped nation; and, it improves highway safety by removing slow, unpredictable drivers from the road, resulting in less accidents in an area where collisions are considered a bad thing and more in an area where collisions into enemy fortifications can help tear down opposing bulwarks.
Additionally, opposition may dismiss the idea of further contractual obligations as wasteful. While more expensive, the hiring of career soldiers allows for a division of troops with moral ambiguity to be deployed to situations where impartiality is key, allowing for swift action and negotiation in hostage situations. While the result may not be as expected every time, the soldiers will eliminate the problem regardless of what the exact conditions were, creating a force of true achievers.
Another argument may be that the veterans’ skills have atrophied. In reality, they lie dormant in the inner-workings of the mind. Psychologists regard Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as flashbacks to a time of great trauma. By inducing these flashbacks, it may be possible to fully revert veterans to their former selves. This may be done various ways: exposure to casualties; viewings of roadside bombs; or, for older veterans, exposure to Agent Orange. Using these shock methods, survivalist instincts can reappear, creating an army of adrenaline-filled, survivalist veterans who have seen and understand the cruel realities of war.
Finally, people may argue that it would be inhumane to force the elderly or middle-aged to serve. This can be effectively silenced by the words of the narrator of Chuck Palahniuk’s Fight Club, “On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.” Everyone is going to die; it would be better if those who already had pre-existing conditions gave their lives for something other than themselves. The older one is, the closer to death they are, so why not give those, who already have the highest chance of death, the most dangerous jobs? Plus, lower amounts of seniors would result in Medicare funding being dropped significantly, giving even more government spending room, as those who were covered won’t need anything more than dirt, a flag, and a wooden box to be comfortable with the rest of existence.
Additionally, returning to the mentioning of those likely to die, those with terminal or communicable diseases should be selected above otherwise healthy applicants, as their rates of death are even higher, and the diseases may be given to the enemy, thinning their numbers. Imagine if one man’s sacrifice caused the spread of Human Immunodeficiency Virus across a whole army of soldiers, just because one touched that man’s blood; then, one man’s tuberculosis could infect an enemy army and devastate it; two men, with probable deaths, could change the tides of war by themselves. A whole army weakened because of two sacrifices; wars could be won with ease.
If over two centuries ago, the founding fathers of America defeated the British army with little more than farmers and assorted supplies, then why can’t America take the same approach now? Sure, the army may not march the best with wheelchairs, walkers, crutches, and prosthetic legs; however, they still would outnumber the opponents and have the most battle experience. It doesn’t matter how pretty an army is; war isn’t pretty; so the army should be as the war: ugly, battered, and causing destruction.
A Reasonable Approach to Modern Warfare
Collateral damage and casualties are far from the glorious spoils of war; but, just as the spoils of war, they come as a result of armed conflict. Every day volunteer soldiers are forced to sacrifice their lives in the line of duty; and more follow as the slaughter mills referred to as “training camps” continue to produce soldiers who know very little about what war actually is. In reality, very few of these mass-produced human weapons ever return with a pulse to the country they defender. The point is, why let the unknowing fight battles when we have true soldiers with experience inhabiting this country; why use new resources when we haven’t run out of the old ones.
The soldiers capable of surviving are either discharged or promoted to desk jobs; both of which result in the overall removal from the literal battlefield. Why remove what has proved inexperienced when we can use what’s been proven. Currently, there are approximately 23.2 million veterans in the United States, as opposed to 1.45 million active duty military personnel. That’s 16 armies’ worth of people retired and away from the battlefield, each having survived the perils of war. There’s no reason to continue recruiting or creating new soldiers when there’s enough already created to dwarf the current active army. Simply put, training and funding to new troops should be removed from the federal budge entirely.
Each new soldier costs $150 thousand; current government plans indicate that the military is about to be expanded by 750,000 people. That amounts to nearly $113 million wasted on new soldiers that the government blindly pays without knowing what they are getting, a survivor or a fatality.
The proposition being made is simple: make the military a lifetime commitment. If one is willing to die for their country, it should make no difference whether that death occurs at 19 or 65. Not only would this exponentially increase the size of the current army, it would prevent more civilians from attempting to beat the odds and survive a war. This would allow for the complete removal of the training budget, which can be put to better use by furthering the use of the elite via hiring more contractors. Most contractors use former survivors who are merely interested in higher salaries, so the action merely returns soldiers who see combat as a profession to government control.
` Opposition might imply that certain veterans suffering from old age or a handicap may not be capable of serving; however, this would merely exclude them from the infantry. Physically, this doesn’t disqualify them. For those in wheelchairs or crutches, long-distance weaponry, such as sniper rifles, can be used from over a mile away from a target while safely laying down; those with handicaps in the legs could in theory safely fire and not have to worry about their low agility in combat. Additionally, those who are physically incapable of firing a gun due to muscular atrophy or other debilitating conditions could be used to drive tanks and army jeeps. Additionally, this helps public safety, as people’s feet will no longer be run over or stepped on by wheelchairs and crutches, allowing for a future with a less handicapped nation; and, it improves highway safety by removing slow, unpredictable drivers from the road, resulting in less accidents in an area where collisions are considered a bad thing and more in an area where collisions into enemy fortifications can help tear down opposing bulwarks.
Additionally, opposition may dismiss the idea of further contractual obligations as wasteful. While more expensive, the hiring of career soldiers allows for a division of troops with moral ambiguity to be deployed to situations where impartiality is key, allowing for swift action and negotiation in hostage situations. While the result may not be as expected every time, the soldiers will eliminate the problem regardless of what the exact conditions were, creating a force of true achievers.
Another argument may be that the veterans’ skills have atrophied. In reality, they lie dormant in the inner-workings of the mind. Psychologists regard Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as flashbacks to a time of great trauma. By inducing these flashbacks, it may be possible to fully revert veterans to their former selves. This may be done various ways: exposure to casualties; viewings of roadside bombs; or, for older veterans, exposure to Agent Orange. Using these shock methods, survivalist instincts can reappear, creating an army of adrenaline-filled, survivalist veterans who have seen and understand the cruel realities of war.
Finally, people may argue that it would be inhumane to force the elderly or middle-aged to serve. This can be effectively silenced by the words of the narrator of Chuck Palahniuk’s Fight Club, “On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.” Everyone is going to die; it would be better if those who already had pre-existing conditions gave their lives for something other than themselves. The older one is, the closer to death they are, so why not give those, who already have the highest chance of death, the most dangerous jobs? Plus, lower amounts of seniors would result in Medicare funding being dropped significantly, giving even more government spending room, as those who were covered won’t need anything more than dirt, a flag, and a wooden box to be comfortable with the rest of existence.
Additionally, returning to the mentioning of those likely to die, those with terminal or communicable diseases should be selected above otherwise healthy applicants, as their rates of death are even higher, and the diseases may be given to the enemy, thinning their numbers. Imagine if one man’s sacrifice caused the spread of Human Immunodeficiency Virus across a whole army of soldiers, just because one touched that man’s blood; then, one man’s tuberculosis could infect an enemy army and devastate it; two men, with probable deaths, could change the tides of war by themselves. A whole army weakened because of two sacrifices; wars could be won with ease.
If over two centuries ago, the founding fathers of America defeated the British army with little more than farmers and assorted supplies, then why can’t America take the same approach now? Sure, the army may not march the best with wheelchairs, walkers, crutches, and prosthetic legs; however, they still would outnumber the opponents and have the most battle experience. It doesn’t matter how pretty an army is; war isn’t pretty; so the army should be as the war: ugly, battered, and causing destruction.
