Hacker News Reader

Comment by adriand | Hacker News Reader

> People are still totally willing to be part of something like that; people are as haphazard and risky as they ever were.

I think people were much more willing to risk their lives (and risk other people’s lives) in the past than they are today. We have elevated the role of the individual. Younger generations are all “me” generations. (I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, it’s true for me as well.)

Case in point is the Western expectation of acceptable losses due to warfare. If we needed to pull off another D Day invasion, I don’t think we could. Generation Z is not signing up to die in tens of thousands and I don’t blame them. The casualty rates that were once seen as the normal cost of war and industry are totally unacceptable today.

View on HN

I think you're partly right here. The ingredients for people to risk their lives is not right. As history has shown us though, that can change very quickly. I hope it doesn't for all our sake.

Prior to Pearl Harbor, most Americans wanted no part in the war. After the attack and growing threat of Hilter, people saw the need to bet our enemies at all costs by taking crazy risks.

People change based on circumstances. While newer generations might be considered "soft" and all about "me" compared to previous ones, I'd say they'd likely rise to the occasion if needed.

This is a somewhat misleading argument. The US did away with the draft so that most people have not had to make this choice. The troops that did go to the Middle East wars have suffered many casualties (6-7K dead, many more wounded, many US contractors dead/wounded, PTSD/suicides/mental health issues afterwards, etc.). [1] All those affected were volunteers.

It's also clear that there are times when virtually everyone in the US has agreed on the necessity of war, the 9/11 attacks being the latest case in point. Conversely, many wars that in retrospect might seem to have been widely supported were in fact quite controversial. The Civil War is a case in point. [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualt... [2] https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/draft-riot...

> The troops that did go to the Middle East wars have suffered many casualties (6-7K dead, many more wounded, many US contractors dead/wounded, PTSD/suicides/mental health issues afterwards, etc.).

That is objectively not "many casualties". Which was also his point (which you apparently did not understand, somehow).

And I find your implication that as long as people volunteer it's fine if they die quite disturbing, although funnily enough a perfect example of the "me"-generation the poster you were replying to was talking about! Who cares what my country is doing as long as I'm not affected right!

It seems you inferred something quite different from what I was trying to say.

Having a small fraction of US society bear the costs of prolonged wars is a terrible policy that brought unnecessary pain to 10s of thousands of American families and many more in countries like Iraq. It also allowed American involvement in those wars to continue unchecked. If we want them to stop the simplest solution is to bring back the draft.

p.s., I was in the volunteer military (USAF).

Besides, they're not just volunteering for dying, but also for killing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com