Agreed to all points you put.

And here I was hoping for disagreement :-)!

Sorry..........(LOL)

I can give you a little bit of disagreement. I definitely agree with themes 1 through 3. Especially 2, in these days when the air force is glorified no end. However, in 4, you say ?All combat arms soldiers of the future will have to be as intelligent, well trained and motivated as special ops is today to take full advantage of the force multiplier value of technology.? I think it depends on how far in the future you are thinking. In Starship Troopers, the entire planet is under one government. With that sort of population base, it is much easier to create a large force with the same quality of personnel and training associated with the American Special Forces, British SAS, etc. without dumbing down the requirements. If you don?t have enough people, you won?t have enough of that rare type of resourceful, determined man who is Special Forces material. In the book, I get the impression that the Mobile Infantry is not too large, even with the entire population of Earth behind it. Sorry if I?m nitpicking. Please let me know your views on this.

On the theme of future combat arms soldiers having to be elite. I think, based on reading ST and on commentary from those who knew Heinlein well, that he was trying to say that a small, elite force equipped with the very best technology and equipment was a better choice than a large army with lower levels of technology. This was a reaction to WWII and Korea most likely, since the book was published in 1959. If you look at the trend, the most successful military forces since then have been small, all volunteer long service forces. Specifically the American conscript army of Korea and Vietnam and the Soviet/Russian conscript army of Afghanistan and Chechnya show the opposite side of the argument. Alternatively the American and British performance in Iraq in 91 and 2003 and Australian performance in Timor shows just what relatively (compared to their population potential) small volunteer forces can achieve. It's an interesting argument. One of the arguments being made very subtly is that a free society should only be defended by those willing to volunteer to defend it. That conscription is in fact immoral. How about that concept? Do you we think that free society's should only be defended by those who volunteer to defend it?

My one word answer: No. I do agree that volunteers make the best soldiers and that volunteer forces are the most effective, but I don?t think that we should rule out the use of conscription. It is not desirable, but it is sometimes necessary and it does have its good points. When every man in a country has had military service, it increases the feasibility of a quick mobilization (advantage is somewhat lessened in this time of gadgets of ever-increasing complexity) and should make a prospective invader think twice. Of course, there are disadvantages: conscripts are often unmotivated or under qualified. And it is harder to use a conscript army because of political reasons: oppositions leaders can make the case that the soldiers are being forced into combat. So, unless you establish separate conscript units and volunteer units (not a good idea), conscription can reduce the offensive potential of an army in today?s society and political environment. However, sometimes, I think it is necessary or at least beneficial to implement conscription, especially in a major war (I hate it when people say ?major conflict,? not ?war.? But I digress.) when volunteering may not yield sufficient recruits. For example, in the American Civil War, President Lincoln implemented the first draft. At least in the beginning of the war, when the prospects for the North looked pretty bleak, popular opinion wasn?t too much in favor of the war. As volunteering wasn?t producing the men, a new system was needed. But quite apart from the military aspects, I think that patriotism, at least in Western countries, is declining, maybe to the point of danger. In a time when it fashionable, at least in some circles, to condemn all war as big bullying countries with imperial ambitions oppressing small, helpless nations so that they (big nations) can rape mother earth for her resources, I fear that if conscription were outlawed or widely proclaimed as immoral, America would be deprived of a useful tool. Admittedly, we haven?t been in any wars for some time that required the return to a draft system to save the nation. Nor would conscripts be useful in small wars such as we have been involved in recently: they wouldn?t even be completely trained by the end of the war even if they enlisted the first day. But it is in precisely those major wars that threaten national survival that conscription would be useful. One hopes that such things don?t come about, but they sometimes do, and if drafting is necessary, then so be it. In short, I think that conscription is more moral in a free society than a totalitarian state. If one lives in the latter, one has no means of changing the laws on conscription. Furthermore, one really isn?t fighting for one?s self and rights, one is fighting for the despot ruling the place. If one lives in the former, he ought to be grateful for his freedom and hopefully he will wish to protect it when it is in peril. Of course, it is his choice, but if he doesn?t wish to defend his rights, part of me wants to tell him to get lost. Note: don?t take my little rant too seriously, considering that I?m not old enough to be conscripted even if we did have a draft system! mike_golf, in other threads you?ve mentioned that were a former cavalryman with combat experience (yes, I?ve been a lurker for quite some time). Since you are a veteran of our noble armed forces, I?d like to hear your opinions on the draft. -MilesDei

Hi MilesDei, Thanks for letting me know you read what I post, that's nice to hear. Anyhow, yes, I am a combat vet. And a cold war vet, which in some ways is the same thing. We all expected to go to war on 24 hours notice in the late 70's and early 80's. This led to nearly a combat mindset in the military at the time. Especially if we were stationed in Germany or South Korea. I think that being a combat veteran colors my thinking. My bottom line is that I believe conscription in a free society is absolutely immoral. Here are my two arguments to support that position. First, the individual level. I don't want the men on my flank (or my tank crew) to be anything but men who want to be there and volunteered to be there. That's my very personal and very selfish opinion. I even have trouble with the volunteer Army the US has today where people join to get money for college. They don't really want to be there to serve their country (or for the adventure, which was a big motivator for me when I joined). They want their college money and have no real intention of fighting for their country. I had a soldier in my platoon like that in 1991 and he caused me no end of trouble. If I could have sent him home I would have, and gone into combat a man short. On the higher level, I am convinced that true conscript armies are far less capable than volunteer armies. Voluntary service out of a sense of duty or patriotism is a huge force multiplier. The US did not use conscription after Pearl Harbor to ensure they had enough manpower, they had more volunteers than the military could handle on December 8, 1941. Conscription was used by the US in WWII to manage the manpower, to have the right number of recruits showing up in basic training at the right time, etc. The US military of WWII was the largest volunteer Army the world has ever seen. From a purely military perspective volunteers are much more effective, generally, than conscripts. Further, if the society is truly free then that freedom includes the choice of whether you will defend your freedom or not. Conscription automatically creates a society that is not truly free. I would rather see my country defeated in war than win by soldiers forced to serve against their will.

Just to throw out another bone... According to my interpretation of the text, and the interpretation reached in the paper I am drawing this from (http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/ftp/fedrlsvc.pdf), federal service meant military service. However, the damning evidence against this comes from Heinlein himself, who said federal service was the equivalent of the term "civil service" as used in the US. So working as a postman for two years would give you your franchise. You guys should read that essay, its very interesting and may further some of the original discussion. Of course, I don't consider the book's political system to be fascist regardless of which "federal service" interpretation is used, But some people might find Heinlein's intended meaning to be more digestible.

Yeah, RAH in this book made it quite clear that if you wanted to serve you would be given the opportunity to serve no matter what your physical qualifications. According to a couple of different spots in the book the vast majority of all men and women who served the Terran Federation were in civil service positions or in community service type occupations.

I went looking for the essay and the URL was wrong. Here's the corrected URL: http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/ftp/fedrlsvc.pdf