Hacker News Reader

I'll assume the parent poster is from the US, where conscription didn't end until 1975. In that case, the authors views are very much shaped by the Vietnam War. See https://libcom.org/history/1961-1973-gi-resistance-in-the-vi... for how the army then was quite different than your military experience:

> For soldiers in the combat zone, insubordination became an important part of avoiding horrible injury or death. As early as mid-1969, an entire company of the 196th Light Infantry Brigade sat down on the battlefield. Later that year, a rifle company from the famed 1st Air Cavalry Division flatly refused - on CBS TV - to advance down a dangerous trail. In the following 12 months the 1st Air Cavalry notched up 35 combat refusals. ... Soldiers went on “search and avoid” missions, intentionally skirting clashes with the Vietnamese, and often holding three-day-long pot parties instead of fighting.

A co-worker of mine, ex-Navy, said in the 1970s there were parts of the ship where officers wouldn't go alone, for fear of being attacked.

I think you can see how that experience leads to different views than yours in an all-volunteer, technology-focused military that isn't sending 10s of thousands to their death in an unpopular war.

> A co-worker of mine, ex-Navy, said in the 1970s there were parts of the ship where officers wouldn't go alone, for fear of being attacked.

>

Apparently they had a real reason to fear attacks. At least 230 American officers was killed by their own troops in the Vietnam War, maybe many more. It become so common that it is even a word for it: "Fragging". Interesting read at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragging .

Since you found that interesting, you may be interested in the link I posted earlier. Not only does it cover fragging, but also near mutinies, strikes, and sabotage. Nearly 1/4 of the crew of the USS Coral Sea signed a petition against going to Vietnam -- something not mentioned on the ship's WP page nor a tribute page -- and the commander of the USS Constellation had to return to port or risk losing control of his crew and ship.

Edit: it's on the WP talk page.

You were downvoted, but my experience (submarine fleet, USN) mirrored yours.

Likewise I wouldn't even know where to begin to describe it, so much of what I learned was tacit knowledge.

Though I wouldn't necessarily use the reserves as an example of what the active component is like, at least in the U.S. If you end up at a reserve unit that never deploys then you'd likely come away with a very different experience than going active duty (or active duty first and then falling back to reserves).

I'd also say that many people could gain a lot personally from what they'd learn with military service, but you have to have a compatible-enough personality. Most team-based constructs do not work nearly as well if the team doesn't have enough 'chemistry', and the military is no different (which is why we weed out recruits who 'fail to adapt').

> You could have taken the squadrons and batteries I was in and put them anywhere in the world and asked them to do anything and we would have made it work no matter what.

That's not necessarily a good thing.

as opposed to country's where the authorities are hopeless? would you really want to live in a failed state?

False dichotomy?

One of the features we generally associate with advanced and stable societies is the rule of law, which is essentially the opposite of being able to tell people under your command to do anything and have it be done.

To take an example from recent history, when told to go to Cuba and torture captured terrorists for information, those people should have refused to do it.

You are totally twisting what they meant to suit your agenda

If I am, I have no idea. If you'd like to explain rather than just point fingers, perhaps we could have a discussion.

He was stating that they could be dropped of in a remote jungle and given an abstract command such as "turn this bundle of sticks into something habitable" and rely on ingrained problem-solving and teamwork skills to complete the goal.

Not that they could be told to napalm a small village and would carry out the order no-questions-asked.

How do you know that? He just says "do anything" without any qualifiers. I gather that you think it's implicit, but how? Is it just an assumption that if someone says "do anything" in that context, they actually mean "do anything good and worthwhile and not evil"?

Of course I meant that.

What I really meant though was that as a group of people there was enough respect, tolerance, humour and self discipline in the group that we could put up with any circumstances that we were asked to.

If you took an office full of the average hackers on here and put them in a mildly uncomfortable situation, they'd be bitching and stabbing each other in the back in days.

Are you allowed to decide what good and worthwhile and not evil when you are in the militar? Do you have much training about when you should not follow orders?

Yes you absolutely do have training on this. In fact it's required that this specific training is refreshed every year.

Every soldier knows that if they are told to do something and they think it isn't right, there is a whole chain of people they can raise this with. If the first person doesn't listen, you can raise it with the next and so on. There are also parallel chains of people (padres for example) if for some reason you can't speak to your commanders. Finally there is a group of people entirely independent from the military who are only a phone call away, if something has seriously gone wrong.

But to honest, I can't even imagine being asked to do anything wrong by anyone I ever worked with. And if I was I'd just clarify with them what they meant. Nobody in the military shouts 'sir yes sir!' like in the movies. You just normally ask people to do something and if they have a question they just normally ask you it.

I don't see the "of course". There are plenty of people in the world who value blind obedience and from what you wrote it seemed you were one. If you're not, fair, but... be more clear about it. :P

The problem is not "how far YOU get with stupidity, submission, lack of responsibility and disregard for people's lives"

The problem is how far SOME OTHER people in the army get with stupidity, submission, lack of responsibility and disregard for people's lives.

you just confirmed what he said.

where do you think? you just follow the same desire to belong by being efficiently obedient. that's exactly what the post you're replying to said.

ironically, the short story starship troopers tried to highlight that same point, and it also is seen as enlistment propaganda because that whole thing is so effective in us humans that while you're reading it you fall prey.

I find your last paragraph confusing. "If you think the military is awful, sign up!" Why would anyone ever do that?

> "If you think the military is awful, sign up!" Why would anyone ever do that?

So they could prove it for themselves, and be able to explain from a position of authority as to why the military is awful.

My experience from the military was far different than what I expected and that's despite having lived my entire childhood with a father who had joined the same Navy I did.

If nothing else it helps to understand better that thing you are criticizing, just like we don't typically hold a lot of respect for MBAs with no tech background who think that coding is easy, programmers are replaceable cogs and IT is just a cost center.

I value not being placed in a position where I have to follow orders or go to prison above adding credibility to my criticisms. I can't understand why you might think it would be the other way around.

> I value not being placed in a position where I have to follow orders or go to prison above adding credibility to my criticisms.

Fair enough, just don't be surprised when people properly reject your uninformed opinions about something that you know little to nothing about.