Hacker News Reader

Comment by braza | Hacker News Reader

More than fair and forces a more real and deep skin in the game for those more hawkish around defend their own land.

::marginally-related:: For the US folks, how you feel with this kind of discrepancy around people hawkish around military involvement but not directly having that kind of skin in the game?

In some point in past I was living in Wyoming and saw all the poles around the main avenue with a lot of young military folks in KIA/MIA pictures as some way of remembrance and at the same time guys in talking heads show asking for more military personnel in the same conflict.

(PS: No horse in the race in this current conflict).

View on HN

The whole ultra-orthodox situation is weird to me - not only did they get out of compulsory military service, they also receive massive welfare benefits that apparently aren't generally available (few of them work - they spend all their time studying). But, I don't know anything beyond what I'm reading in US-based newspapers, so maybe there's more to it.

As for the situation in the US - I definitely hate that hawkish politicians rarely have any skin in the game. I might have a warped view living in DC, but the senior officer corp is often made up of generational military. And the enlisted soldiers are very often from disadvantaged areas. Having a volunteer military is a good thing, but it feels like (no data to back this up) we're well along the path of creating a military "caste" or two. If anybody has data about the family histories of current enlisted soldiers and officers, I'd be interested to see if my thought bares out.

It's worth noting that back in the medieval ages, most of the nobles (sometimes even the king) would be on the frontlines with the peasants, men-at-arms, and everyone in between. The ruling class could win and more importantly lose everything including their lives in an instant every time they went to war.

Contrast now where the politicians declaring wars and the generals commanding them seldom leave their gilded halls and fortified bunkers deep in the homeland.

Wars are easier to wage when you don't have to stick your own neck out. The advent of unmanned warfare will probably make this worse before it can get better.

> ...back in the medieval ages...

You can just go back to the WWII era, and leading American families were pulling strings to make sure their younger sons were serving in the military - with a strong preference for front-line combat positions. Look at Joseph / John / Robert / Edward Kennedy. George Bush Sr. was one of the youngest combat pilots in the U.S. Navy. All four of President Roosevelt's sons served in WWII; as did his only son-in-law. Etc., etc.

There was actually a study in 2017 about this...

"The authors conclude the implications are mixed. On the positive side of the ledger, they report that the United States now possesses a more ready and professionalized military than ever before. On the negative side, this force consists of a dwindling percentage of the population, who are more isolated from mainstream American society than ever before. As a growing percentage of service members and officers are coming from military families themselves, the choice to join the military is becoming more akin to a decision to join the family business. The result is greater divisions between the “Warrior Caste” and the civilian population than the numbers would indicate if taken at face value. "

https://inss.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/1428887/deconstructi...

Thanks! That's super familiar - I'd bet that's what put the notion in my mind!

Bravery gets weeded out of the population by mere definition and natural selection.

without getting a once in a lifetime war - like WW2. Where glory awaits, most wars are a profit mechanism.

hence cannon fodder, will be coming from the unwashed masses. while the Officers and senior brass, come from the 'elite' classes. Getting into WestPoint ain't easy - where most of the generals come from.

so the whole skin in the game - in terms of war - only happens a few times.

now with drone warfare, you don't have to exposed to the carnage you cause.

I heard a great take, that due to low demographics across all developed countries - wars are costly. But also costly in terms of killing people who are about to start family and have kids.

If your country has already sub-replacement birthrates. It makes no sense to send young people to die. its better to send people who already had kids (30-40+). That's why Ukraine doesn't really want to lover the age of conscription.

Russia having never-ending young poor people to die in trenches is a lie, they actually have a demograpic gap in young males.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#/media/...

Also young females are leaving en masse too.

Its going to be a massive problem for russia in 20 years

(i am fully aware putin couldnt give a flying f** about what will happen to russia in 20 years)

The Hareidi parties are actually the least hawkish in the current government, and historically were equally willing to prop up left wing governments.

"Security" related issues are not on their agenda.

You're correct; they are mostly neutral on those issues. But note that "least hawkish in the current government" is an extremely low bar to cross.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com