*** Official Putin Started Shootin' Thread ***

[Poopadoop]

I think it's quite relevant. A common misconception that shapes people's opinions when this topic comes up is that everyone or most people in the armed forces are front line grunts. It isn't the easiest thing to calculate, because there are plenty of roles that are edge cases. That said, if you look around, you'll see ratios ranging from 7:1 to 12:1, support to combat roles in a modern military. "Almost entirely" is a bit of a stretch, but not downright hyperbolic at 7:1, but it's at home, comfortable and cozy at 12:1

I don't think it is relevant if the idea is to train everyone to be a "armed forces personnel", be they a rifleman, pilot, medic, clerk, drive a supply truck, guard a latrine, mechanic, cook, etc.. My point is it's a huge drain on state resources to have large numbers of people learn a bunch of skills they haven't chosen themselves and likely won't ever use again once they leave the military (again, with the caveat that I'm speaking of mandatory service in a country with secure defenses here, of which I'd probably include most if not all of the Western Hemisphere, and large asian countries like India, Japan, China, who nobody in their right mind would try to invade.

There's other countries where it would also be silly because even if everyone was trained to the teeth, they'd have no chance if a larger neighbor decided to take them over (e.g., Mongolia is not going to stop a Russian or Chinese invasion on their own no matter how much training their population has).

So if it's a question of security it depends very much on which country you are in. America is certainly very very very very very unlikely to need to quickly field 30 million (or w/e) men and women at short notice. In fact, the list of countries with mandatory service is very small.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service

Pacifism is a bankrupt ideology.

Absolutely. But excessive militarism is a huge economic burden, even if it's done for "good reasons" (and I'll accept that the idea of promoting social cohesion is a good motivation, even if I think there's more efficient ways to achieve it).

It costs $100,000 to train one single US infantryman. It costs more to train specialists like tankers and pilots. They also need equipment to train in. Unless you want an army that trains in cardboard tanks with toy rifles, you're going to need more guns, more planes, more tanks, more ships (and more pencils, PCs, etc. for the clerks). So what you're suggesting is going to cost well above $400bn a year imo. Are you prepared to spend over $1k in taxes a year for this project?