Millitary talk

Should millitary be obligated upon teenagers? I think age 16 is a good start.
(bonus)
I can't help but think that if the cucks of todays society would experience just a little hardship in their lives.
they would actually change into masculine men after being spoiled by the white man's flawless civilizations built for them.
And JUST in time for them to ruin it with their (((((humane generous sharing to the unprivileged))))))

Other urls found in this thread:

kauilapele.wordpress.com/2016/12/12/benjamin-fulford-12-12-16-khazarian-mafia-still-planning-big-false-flag-events-but-their-defeat-is-certain/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>Should millitary be obligated upon teenagers?
No.

Why? Would a single year of millitary training really hurt their education that much?

I for one can't see the issue at all.

No it wouldn't, but it would be waste of time and money.
"Maning up in a military" is a meme.

I think national service should be required at eighteen.

If you don't want to serve in the military, you can do something else. Men can help maintain roads or start a trade apprenticeship in a field the government identifies as lacking bodies, women can do administrative work or start an apprenticeship in medical fields, etc.

One of the best outcomes of this might be that those pansy anti-war libshits would be severely inexperienced in the case of civil war, while patriots would have an even higher ratio of trained individuals.

This sort of thing would be mandatory in my ideal ethnostate. In this case, having children would count as national service for women.

What haircut is that? Asking for a white friend.

I just save photos and tell my barber to style it similarly.
or just tell him gas kikes race war now he'll understand and get to work on ya.


>In this case, having children would count as national service for women.
Why isn't this a thing for the Swedish family? such a wonderful idea but it really just helps the poverty class muslims getting wellfare for each child they shit out...

Yet they say there's no such thing as white genocide.

>why isn't this a thing for the Swedish family?

We both know why.

They would make you serve at a refugee camp. Not joking.

You see to have done your homework on policy and establishing laws.

What age would be optimal for apprenticeships in fields and national service?

How do you think that would effect the teengares education when they're distracted with early training that's listed above.

Would a such programme take a lot from the governments budget?

yes. younger than that even
9 months military training, don't have to go into Army after but must all become national militia in (present) peacetime
after your training is complete, government support is then available to you for training, employment or further studies

then some foreign legion term for non-citizens to earn their citizenship

The state of our country now? yes

Having memeing 16yo defending your country
How about no.

21 and unemployed on the other hand

At the very least a 12 week bootcamp should be mandatory

I generally think tying it to age eighteen/post high school would work best. Let everyone get their basic education, then they start working, either in direct service or through apprenticeship. That way there's no conflict with said education, and everyone starts on the same page. No one gets to skip it or defer it. That last part's important; national service should be seen as a patriotic duty that every single person must accept, and they know every single one of their peers and elders have had to do the same. I think it would be great for both civic and generational morale.

I don't believe the economic impact (as far as funding) would be a big issue. Most apprentice training is on the job (students would earn an apprentice wage and/or live in subsidized housing), non-military/non-apprenticeship service would work similarly, and military service is its own beast with its own way of dealing with housing/support, which we're already familiar with.

Yes, there would be some outlay as far as subsidizing non-military wages/housing, but I believe the boost to the national economy of having everyone employable in a necessary field would more than offset that investment.

Of course, this kind of system wouldn't really work with our states in their current incarnations. I'm generally speaking of a future ethnostate, honestly.

No.

No yesterday.

No today.

No tomorrow.

Volunteer participation > conscription. Easier to discipline, easier to compel, better morale. The military is not a dad, nor a babysitter.

Military service should not be compulsory.

It should be a prerequisite for voting rights.

Problem with mandatory conscription in the US is that it would create an absolutely MASSIVE standing army, which goes against the Founding Father's ideas about the military. That's not to say that the military as it is today doesn't violate the founder's ideas, but adding many millions would bloat it beyond reason. Not to mention the government overhead and subsequent enlargement as a result of it. Not a good idea, here at least.

Also conscripts are shit soldiers.

I honestly believe that mandatory service is a sign that your society has its priorities fucked. People should want to join the military to serve, just as they should want to volunteer to help their neighborhood. Forcing them to do so is no better than communism and again, signifies the rot within our nation's.

We need a civic awakening not forcing retarded teens into shit they don't want or have the emotional strength to do.

No. Shit's way too expensive.

military training should be from 8 to 18, learn to read and do basic maths from 4-8. at 18 you can join the army, or go to college for whatever interests you if your family has money or whatever you have an aptitude for if they don't.

You should have the option to finish schooling or join the military from 16-18 to pick up vocational skills.

In my city there is a shortage of competent workers in nearly every skilled trade. Lots of bullshit degenerate handymen who never seem to show up or get the job done right.

The sooner we realize that nobody with an IQ under 115 belongs anywhere near Academia the better. Right now we are wasting trillions of dollars sending the unwashed masses to College where they do nothing but acquire bad drinking habits and poor work ethic and we're having to turn our Universities into Adult Day Cares.

Do you want to protect kikes that run your country and ahmeds that rape your women that bad? None of them or their children will be in army by your side

children learn nothing between the ages of 8 and 16 in the US. nothing. worse than nothing, actually, they're indoctrinated.

the public education system should be fucking DELETED

DELETED OVER NIGHT

NO WARNING

NO EXPLANATIONS

NOTHING TO REPLACE IT

then maybe people would fucking learn something.

> I think age 16 is a good start.
Even before highschool is over. Are you high or something?

For what purpose? Don't feed me this meme that army makes a man out of a boy. It doesn't. And I'm actually from a country with obligatory conscription.

Time is too precious, especially nowadays, to waste it on marching in circles, digging holes and constructing dachas for your commanders for 1-3 (thank God it's only 1 now) years.

Instead of this a man can study or join the workforce and become an actually productive member of society.

MY HS HISTORY CLASS WAS WATCH SPECIALS ON HE HISTORY CHANNEL HALF THE TIME

Riffing off this fine user, I also believe there should be earned, graduation citizenship.

If you're some kind of bum who's never done anything, no vote.

If you completed the bare minimum of non-military national service (in my previously-outlined system, obviously), one vote.

If you're serving in the military in your initial term, one vote.

If you completed your term and either stayed in the military or became the head of a productive household (i.e., husband, wife, children), two votes.

If you're serving past your initial term and are head of a productive household, three votes.

No one gets to help decide the course of the nation just for being born there.

ANYONE WHO SHOULD HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT HISTORY DID THAT WHEN THEY WERE A FUCKING KID ANYWAYS

AND NOW THE HISTORY CHANNEL SUCKS

OVERNIGHT BOOM ALL SCHOOLS ELEMENTARY MIDDLE AND HIGH BULLDOZED

KIDS GET ON THE BUS ONE MORNING AND SHOW UP TO SCHOOL OH NO THE SCHOOLS GONE

Founding fathers didn't have a problem with militia. A year to teach kids discipline, teamwork, weapon training, and core skills might be helpful. Some PT never killed anybody. Might help curb this special snowflake bullshit and gun phobia rampant in America.

Lot of people in america lack discipline. Military instills that.

Fuck off, we already have enough volunteer niggers as it is.

t. Squid

>Lot of people in america lack discipline. Military instills that.

without question, without exception, ALL children of our nation should undergo a decade of mandatory physical training from 8 to 18.

there is ZERO reason why every single 18 year old male should not be jacked from 10 years of athletics and weight lifting, and every female trim and lithe from 10 years of zumba and running.

I think conscription would help solve America's obesity problem and help with the issue of retards going straight into college and getting brainwashed by liberal arts professors then graduating with no marketable skills. Fuck that shit, get some vocational training in the army so you can at least work on cars or something when you realize college is a meme for most people.

>a decade of mandatory physical training from 8 to 18.
I'd also be up for that

Conscription is excellent for countries where it's reasonable. Pretty much every country but USA in my opinion. The US is so overpowered with their professional military already and they have no risk of having to fight a land war for defence, so the benefits wouldn't be maximum.

18-19 years-old though, 16 is too immature to play warfare. They shoot real bullets there you know, and you have to have good trust in others so that they can be equipped with the responsibility of controlling lethal power. Accidents happen too and people have died, that's the reality. That's why it's better to have those teenager hormones settled.

Not a meme in my opinion. If you compare a young man who has got to experience the wide range of ''good experiences'' that they should have recieved during service, with a man who instead decided to skip service and masturbate to anime, the difference is real. Sure you're not going to ''man up'' if you evade all work by playing sick, but a basic recon/jaeger training should carve a man out of boys.

America has so many people trying to get into the military that the pool of applicants is literally flooded. If there ever was a draft again, the military would drain that entire pool first and then send out conscription notices, if any need to be sent out at all.

Anyways, to your point. I think national service is a fine idea after the age of 16. 4 years in the military, a peace corps position, government infrastructure work, etc., those are all good choices for young folks. However, this pushes back the college path for many and means it will take longer to get their degrees. While it WOULD filter out the job market and get people out of college who just don't need to be there, it might cause a delay in getting new applicants in the work force. I'm more interested in figuring out the time frame for an ideal path to take than the exact specifics of that path. To keep a competitive global educated work force there needs to be balance.

Tl;dr there are pluses and minuses but I still think it's an admirable idea

Not for the U.S.

1: We do not need the extra manpower. The U.S. military is short on translators, medical staff, logistics people, IT people, and individuals that have an active desire to be part of the armed forces.

2: They would be useless in combat, and by useless I mean they wouldn't even be deployed. Nobody wants to see teenage conscripts dying on television (especially the people that rely on getting elected), so the kids would never be used for any military purpose.

So effectively you'd be spending taxpayer money that could go to investing in infrastructure and services on what amounts to a glorified fitness camp that everyone has to attend. I'd rather we just spend the money on muh roads.

men as young as 12 years of age have fought and killed and died on battlefields. children as young as 8 have been pitted against dogs and roosters with knives, to fight for others amusement.

training should begin at 8. thousands of people under 10 shoot at competitive levels in our nation. there's no problem with it.

the ideal age for soldiering is about 15, thats when people's bodies are most able to sustain and repair injury, and they're capable of the greatest violence.

Eh, singapore is doing it fine, so there's that.
You gotta uphold the standard of your citizens somehow, and what better way to do it?

This

I see it like this.
If the US population was in better shape and had some basic military skills and firearm training then we could reduce the size of the rest of our military significantly. Militia should be an important part of our defense.

Military is a great idea.

Don't fall for the EU Army meme, though. It's Merkel's way of making sure no one leaves.

kauilapele.wordpress.com/2016/12/12/benjamin-fulford-12-12-16-khazarian-mafia-still-planning-big-false-flag-events-but-their-defeat-is-certain/

It doesn't sound like you've had military training yourself if you actually think 10-15-year olds are at any way ideal for warfare. Could they survive a 35 mile non-stop march through the woods with 70lbs of gear on them? How about a five-day military exercise in the forest with negative degrees, getting less sleep during the four nights as they usually get during one night? While being physically devastated from the 20 hours of daily work during the exercise. On a caloric deficit. These are just the basic requirements that the lowest common denominator should be able to pull off.

How about understanding small-unit tactics, your role in your fireteam, your squad, your platoon, understanding everything you should know as an infantry soldier. Being able to take the position of a dead higher-up and lead the team. Warfare used to be much simpler, nowadays you're fucking useless without brains.

As you may see by my flag, here military service is a requirement (3 years). It's generally a waste of time for many but those that get to combat or specialty roles (engineers, programmers...) Get a pretty good base for higher education or jobs right after release. Also, country isn't overrun with SJWs and libtards so I guess the service does it's part.

>Could they survive a 35 mile non-stop march through the woods with 70lbs of gear on them? How about a five-day military exercise in the forest with negative degrees, getting less sleep during the four nights as they usually get during one night? While being physically devastated from the 20 hours of daily work during the exercise. On a caloric deficit. These are just the basic requirements that the lowest common denominator should be able to pull off.

once you hit 18-20, your ability to do all these things declines, rapidly.

children have very malleable minds that can absorb information better than older people, as well, making them ideal for training to be soldiers.

there's a reason why all attempts at creating super-soldiers involves training them from BIRTH.

from BIRTH.

literally being training on their first birthday.

I've wondered what the fug do you isrealis do during the three-fucking-years of service? I felt rather 'done' with my training after 6 months.

I don't know what US training is like, but having 15-year olds... it wouldn't work at all in here at least.

Children have easier time absorbing information but they are not smarter and they are emotionally more unstable. A soldier has to have that common logic that simply can't be teached.

>source: your ass

an 18 year old will be marginally stronger than a 14 year old, and after 6 months of training, will be weaker.

a 14 year old has also experienced less public education than the 18 year old, and will be smarter.

if you take a 14 year old, and an 18 year old, the 14 year old will turn 18 someday, and be twice the soldier that the 18 year old is when he turns 22.

this is common knowledge.

does finland even have a military? it's not as if you guys take part in anything, or could resist an invasion by russia, usa, or china for more than a single day, why do you even bother to have more than police?

it's common knowledge.

The other us guy has to be trolling. There is no way someone is that dumb.

Some sort of compulsory national service (not necessarily military) should be instated.

Some go for Officer's courses (~half a year) and serve as commanding roles. Some have technical trainings that can last up to a year and after that can go to R&D or somewhat important jobs. Most people are just on standby and do the daily upkeep/chores while we wait for the inevitable upcoming war/operation/shitshow.

I've got very mixed feelings about conscription.
On one hand, I greatly enjoyed my time in the military and would probably have joined up even if it wasn't mandatory but the fact that it's pretty much that or jail irks me to no end.
I would rather have the government not impose their will on it's people on the threat of imprisonment but we're in a kind of a tough spot when it comes to defending against any possible russian aggression and the amount of manpower we'd have available without conscription.

this guy gets it

kinda like Starship Troopers. Service Guarantees Citizenship.

I served 6 years in the Army, we don't need more kids. The Army is littered with niggers who do nothing, women who bitch about being in the field, and spics who can barely speak English; we don't need some 16 year old here when we can barely handle the niggers and spics. Military duty shouldn't be mandatory, at least not in the Infantry.