No, you don't. Not when the 'cause' in question is complete shite.
If you think that a life spent licking boots and murdering people is serving 'the highest purpose', then I think you're better off hiding in the jungle for 29 years (or however long it takes you to come to your wits).
I think that's very sage advice that anyone thinking about joining because of idealistic views of military service would do well to heed. It's too bad they don't have it up as a poster in recruitment offices.
Yes but the point is that Aussies have always choofled off to somebody else's war and ended up either dead or maimed defending somebody else's territory. Did you know that during WW2 there were not enough soldier's left in our country to defend it if the Japanese HAD decided to invade? No, because our soldiers were all off fighting in Europe! So the only reason we weren't invaded then was because the Japanese didn't think it was worthwhile, NOT because we were gallantly defending our shores!
Alison
The japanese did not invade because they could not take New Guinea, which they needed to springboard there invasion. And Tojo was against the idea, but he never had any worthwhile ideas anyway.
How do you square facism with pacifist convictions of Ghandi, MLK and the anti-facist perspective of Solzhenitsyn? Each of whom you seem to admire or at least point to to support your point about sacrifice?
To each his own, and I respect your points in the thread, and regard your desire to serve as admirable, but I just wonder about the whole facist thing.
That's a very interesting idea, and it's probably true to some degree. I wonder if it's not also true the other way around. Maybe aspies began to (re)appear in greater numbers because of war. I wonder what percentage of NTs versus what percentage of aspies would be consciencious objectors...
In America since its Civil War and around the world since at least WWI, growing numbers of people use the one's opinions on war as part of the process of selecting a mate. Are we breeding a more polarized society, and in so doing amplifying NT and AS characteristics? Obviously such polarization is not ALL genetic, but I'm really only interested in the genetic component to it for this thread.
Is there a selection process going on that people farther out on the NT spectrum get killed more often in war because of the way they think? Of course, we'll never know that, either; but we do know that if your own people can't trust you, they're as likely to shoot you in a firefight as the enemy is. Perhaps this kind of thing is more a feature of modern wars than of ancient ones; I just don't know.
I've always thought that AS was an older way of thinking, before language developed. NT's seem unable to think without words, so thinking in pictures seems more likely to develop and more generally useful to survival; but NT thinking gives us lies and deceit, therefore fear and war. Is the recent increase in AS a multi-generational response to the industrial scale of war? I can't find the mechanism for sure, but its identification in the generation following WWI is an intriguing coincidence. Do aspies survive war better/more often than NT's? Even just a little?
Or maybe, it's because we're "unfit" to fight in the first place. There's enough evidence in this thread to suggest that aspies generally don't get sent in to fight. Therefore we survive. The military is selecting in favor of us.
It's a shame we don't have data from other periods of intense warfare and the generations that follow them. We'll never know, but it's sure interesting to think about.
First, don't confuse military with paramilitary. That's like confusing a surgeon with an EMT (paramedic). Many similarities, but not the same animal at all. The military life bears little or no resemblance to the paramilitary life. I know I clipped that out of the quote, but it screamed as something that needed attention.
I speak from my own personal experience in the USMC from 1980-1986. Your mileage will vary. The military has its own language, and none of its special words has more than one meaning. They will teach you that language and it's easy to pick up and makes sense. They not only teach you the words, but why the civilian word that sometimes means the same thing is not appropriate.
Now, on to the two military schools for beginners:
Boot camp was easier for me than for most. They tell you the rules right up front and regiment every aspect of your life for the period you're there. Talking amongst yourselves is forbidden except during one hour per day. The Marine Corps, at least, makes boot camp surprisingly aspie-friendly in some ways, even if the stress is high. The ability of drill instructors to comprehend and evaluate aspies is limited, and you may find yourself regularly underestimated (and insulted for it) by the drill instructors. If you can handle that, you should be fine.
Officer Candidates' School, which I would recommend for smart people with college degrees, is another matter. I went through OCS in 1984/1985 (got out because glasses rendered my flight contract invalid). It's more physically difficult (a LOT more), and the less regimented structure and leadership demands were more challenging for me than boot camp ever could have been, even if the other stresses were much lower. That said, there are more problem-solving situations and the kind of evaluation you go through in OCS is a lot more accurate in finding your true strengths and weaknesses than boot camp.
If I had it to do all over again, I'd go into the Coast Guard, because they do every day that which they train for, and what they do is save lives and border interdiction. They are the real department of homeland security and their means and objectives (and they way in which they are used in practice) are more noble by my definitions than any of the other branches. If I'd gone in there I would have stayed in and might even have gone for 30. That would mean retiring in 4 years, which is a lot sooner than I'm going to be able to as a civilian.
I find this to be one of the biggest ironies of the 20th century. As evil as Hitler and the Nazis were, Stalin and the Soviet Union were 10 times more evil. More people died in the gulags of Siberia than in the Nazi deathcamps. This is forgotten today because the Soviets were our allies.
At school in Canada I was taught about Stalin's genocide and murder of people considered political threats, including intellectuals. We were also taught about the treatment the surrendered german forces and civilians received at the hands of russian soldiers. Ugly all around.
A deliberate sacrifice of one's self for what (s)he truly belives is right, is a life well spent. That said, a soldier in what cause? Not every cause or collective interest is altruistic. I admire your valiance, but I've gotten the impression that you advocate enlistment in ANY army. Is this correct?