NationStates Jolt Archive

O.K. I know I'm gonna catch hell from the Libertarians on this one, but here goes.

Katrina and Rita have shown us a valuable lesson. The best way to handle a disaster is to send in the military! BUT, the military doesn't like the idea, because they don't want to be put in the position of having to be a police force. What to do, what to do?

Here's my proposal. We make a new branch of the military. Call it the United States Disaster Forces. Keep them under military control so that they get the training and money neccessary to be worth it, and so they have the discipline that is crucial to get jobs done right.

Make them 100% percent NON-deployable. Right up a constitutional amendment stating that they can be a police force when needed, but only under the control of the governor of whichever state the disaster is in.

Instead of training them to kill foreigners, train them to deal with disasters, and suppress civil disorder. Same pay and benefits as all other militarys (within reason)

And if someone brings up this point "Thats what the national guard is for" I will put an ancient egyptian mummy curse on them! (in other words, go argue that point somewhere else)

So what does everyone think?

You already have them. It's called 'The Emergency Services'.

You already have them. It's called 'The Emergency Services'.
HHHMmmm, didn't see that on the U.S military website.

Not a bad idea, but wouldn't it be better if the normal army just had that training instead? They probably know quite a lot from their military training already.

YEAH

but lets call them something shorter and to the point.

hmmm

since it would be national and they would guard us from harm....

how about


THE NATIONAL GUARD

YEAH

but lets call them something shorter and to the point.

hmmm

since it would be national and they would guard us from harm....

how about


THE NATIONAL GUARD
UUMMMBBUUSHGIGOSH MMUUOOOSHBIGOSH MMUUUFFFAASSHHHHDDIIGOSH
A mummy curse has been placed upon you.

And for the record, if you would bother to read the WHOLE post, you'd see where I said " BUT, the military doesn't like the idea, because they don't want to be put in the position of having to be a police force. What to do, what to do?"
Or you could just keep it up with the talking points. Whatever. :rolleyes:

O.K. I know I'm gonna catch hell from the Libertarians on this one, but here goes.

Katrina and Rita have shown us a valuable lesson. The best way to handle a disaster is to send in the military! BUT, the military doesn't like the idea, because they don't want to be put in the position of having to be a police force. What to do, what to do?

Here's my proposal. We make a new branch of the military. Call it the United States Disaster Forces. Keep them under military control so that they get the training and money neccessary to be worth it, and so they have the discipline that is crucial to get jobs done right.

Make them 100% percent NON-deployable. Right up a constitutional amendment stating that they can be a police force when needed, but only under the control of the governor of whichever state the disaster is in.

Instead of training them to kill foreigners, train them to deal with disasters, and suppress civil disorder. Same pay and benefits as all other militarys (within reason)

And if someone brings up this point "Thats what the national guard is for" I will put an ancient egyptian mummy curse on them! (in other words, go argue that point somewhere else)

So what does everyone think?
Another layer of bureauocrocy is ALL we need! :rolleyes:

UUMMMBBUUSHGIGOSH MMUUOOOSHBIGOSH MMUUUFFFAASSHHHHDDIIGOSH
A mummy curse has been placed upon you.

And for the record, if you would bother to read the WHOLE post, you'd see where I said " BUT, the military doesn't like the idea, because they don't want to be put in the position of having to be a police force. What to do, what to do?"
Or you could just keep it up with the talking points. Whatever. :rolleyes:
hey that you want to reinvent the wheel is your problem

we already have it covered with the national guard.

So why can't we say the national guard?

Instead of making a whole new branch of the military, just use the one's who are already supposed to cover what this new branch would.

So why can't we say the national guard?

Instead of making a whole new branch of the military, just use the one's who are already supposed to cover what this new branch would.

Apart from the fact that the National Guard isn't qualified to pick it's own nose, and couldn't find it's own arse with both hands, a map, and a platoon.

We have a saying over here, 'Couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery'.

Not to mention the Coast Guard as well. Sure they have a military structure and such, but except during wartime they cannot be deployed as full military international combatants, they are under the Department of Homeland Security, rather than the Department of Defense. During wartime only they come under the Department of the Navy as another reserve source. They have a general mission statement of internal policing, i.e. maritime security, drug policing, etc., and they along with the NG have put much into the Katria & Rita relief efforts. So yea, I think someone beat you to the punch.

hey that you want to reinvent the wheel is your problem

we already have it covered with the national guard.
You have to talk THEM into it, because officials have stated that they don't want the job! Again, I'll say it. THE MILITARY DOESN'T WANT TO HAVE TO POLICE CIVILIANS! WE NEED A SEPERATE BRANCH FOR THAT!
You really need to read up on what the National Gaurd is supposed to be for.
I'm not trying to re-invent the wheel. I just don't want to try and shove a square peg into a round hole. The National Guard is trained to use mortars and hand grenades. Tell me how the hell thats gonna help in a disaster? Tell me how BAD you'd FREAK OUT if they ever fired mortars at looters.

Apart from the fact that the National Guard isn't qualified to pick it's own nose, and couldn't find it's own arse with both hands, a map, and a platoon.

We have a saying over here, 'Couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery'.

yes, we have that saying over here too...


So the solution to that problem, is a whole new group? Make the national guard more redundent than it already is?

Not to mention the Coast Guard as well. Sure they have a military structure and such, but except during wartime they cannot be deployed as full military international combatants, they are under the Department of Homeland Security, rather than the Department of Defense. During wartime only they come under the Department of the Navy as another reserve source. They have a general mission statement of internal policing, i.e. maritime security, drug policing, etc., and they along with the NG have put much into the Katria & Rita relief efforts. So yea, I think someone beat you to the punch.
Gee, one problem. What the hell is the Coast Guard gonna do if we have a natural disaster in inland California? Launch food missiles from their boats? The Coast Guard is supposed to..............wait for it............. GUARD the COAST!

You have to talk THEM into it, because officials have stated that they don't want the job! Again, I'll say it. THE MILITARY DOESN'T WANT TO HAVE TO POLICE CIVILIANS! WE NEED A SEPERATE BRANCH FOR THAT!
You really need to read up on what the National Gaurd is supposed to be for.
I'm not trying to re-invent the wheel. I just don't want to try and shove a square peg into a round hole. The National Guard is trained to use mortars and hand grenades. Tell me how the hell thats gonna help in a disaster? Tell me how BAD you'd FREAK OUT if they ever fired mortars at looters.
ohmy GOD

we do NOT need a national police force. isnt the FBI bad enough?

I don't know about calling it a specific branch of the military, but you could create a new Disaster Management Corps within the army (note that it doesn't necessarily have to be at the corps level; it can be division or brigade level).

My concern with using the National Guard to cover the local disasters they face is the fact that Katrina was over and above anything the local authorities could handle. Having corps with sub headquarters in various circuits (sort of along the lines of the 13 Circuit Courts that encompass several states each -- except for the D.C. Circuit) would allow for relatively quick response in the event of a major catastrophe.

An advantage of such a unit could be that they would be trained specifically to deal with the aftermath of natural disasters in a way that infantry would not be. And, frankly, the difference between a federally run Disaster Management Corps and state national guards could end up being similar to that between army regulars and local militia back in the Revolutionary War.

Gee, one problem. What the hell is the Coast Guard gonna do if we have a natural disaster in inland California? Launch food missiles from their boats? The Coast Guard is supposed to..............wait for it............. GUARD the COAST!

Food Missiles, eh....

Apart from the fact that the National Guard isn't qualified to pick it's own nose, and couldn't find it's own arse with both hands, a map, and a platoon.

We have a saying over here, 'Couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery'.
Not quite true. I was an advisor to two National Guard units for a couple of years, and they definitely know their jobs. Most of them have been in the Guard since God was in diapers and know each other and what they are all capable of quite well.

You have to talk THEM into it, because officials have stated that they don't want the job! Again, I'll say it. THE MILITARY DOESN'T WANT TO HAVE TO POLICE CIVILIANS! WE NEED A SEPERATE BRANCH FOR THAT!
You really need to read up on what the National Gaurd is supposed to be for.
I'm not trying to re-invent the wheel. I just don't want to try and shove a square peg into a round hole. The National Guard is trained to use mortars and hand grenades. Tell me how the hell thats gonna help in a disaster? Tell me how BAD you'd FREAK OUT if they ever fired mortars at looters.
you obviously dont know much about the national guard. they have whole units devoted to the kinds of skills needed in disasters.

why do you think they always call the national guard out in a disaster? so they can bomb survivors??

Not quite true. I was an advisor to two National Guard units for a couple of years, and they definitely know their jobs. Most of them have been in the Guard since God was in diapers and know each other and what they are all capable of quite well.

Maybe you got lucky, or were assigned (Assuming that you were assigned) to some already exemplary units. However, the Guard cannot be properly relied upon as a disaster reaction thingy, as it isn't given training of such standards as regular army personnel, or fire services, etc. Also, past records of reserve and paramilitary units does not show good results when policing, or dealing with riots and such.

you obviously dont know much about the national guard. they have whole units devoted to the kinds of skills needed in disasters.

why do you think they always call the national guard out in a disaster? so they can bomb survivors??
Never mind. You just don't get. ~shakes head~

ohmy GOD

we do NOT need a national police force. isnt the FBI bad enough?
Not to mention the CIA, NSA, Majestic12, (lol) FEMA, OEM and about several more large, pain in the ass, organizations that are supposed to deal with these problems.

I mean come on, FEMA= Federal Emergancy Maintence Association as well as OEM= Office of Emergancy Managment.

We don't need ANOTHER bueocratic, tax-sucking, deficit-enhancing, poorly-trained military branch to "deal with civilians in emergancies".

The FBI trains SPECIFICALLY for these situations along with FEMA, OEM, CIA, NSA, ATF, DEA and all of the other crime/safety organizations that are out there!

I've noticed a new trend in wanting a new agency for every new problem.

Like how the Office of Fatherland Security came about because of 9/11.

Now we want FEMA 2 as well?

Here's a hint, America: making more agencies does not make us stronger.

O.K. I know I'm gonna catch hell from the Libertarians on this one, but here goes.
<snip> So what does everyone think?
2p from a Libertarian.

I think it's a good idea. (stop throwing things!)

#1 - institute Mandatory Service
#2 - all the peaceniks can go there and learn a little dicipline instead of wasting air by being "professional protestors".

Makes a hell of a lot more sense than sending them overseas in the "Peace Corps" and if it's run like the Military it won't be quite as F*cked up as a Fed Agency like FEMA.

Gee, one problem. What the hell is the Coast Guard gonna do if we have a natural disaster in inland California? Launch food missiles from their boats? The Coast Guard is supposed to..............wait for it............. GUARD the COAST!

SN, there are these lifeforms on the ships...they're called people....and they have feet....which allows them to walk on land....which lets them get into inland California.

Why don't we let the media organise disaster response? They get to the scene quicker than everyone else anyway.

You're all missing one important point: already existing military branches will cut each other's throats in order to secure funding. The Air Force has been trying to snuff out the National Air Guard for a while now and is slowly suceeding. You think a new military branch would have a snowballs chance in hell? No way. The National Guard would undermine them at every step.

First off, there is a thing called posse comtitatus (sp?). Basically it prevents federal troops from being used in the states.

This country is called the United STATES of America for a reason.

My point is that in order to do this, we would have to change the bases upon which our country is founded and it would actually be a lot more complicated than you think.

You might as well get rid of state legislatures and governors and just have a national government. A terrible idea, and not just from the standpoint of representation per capita which is already ridiculous in large states.

So what does everyone think?
It sounds like that should be a chore that the Army Natl' Guard should do, not some new force. It'd just be a waste of money and precious Pentagon office space.

Not to mention the CIA, NSA, Majestic12, (lol) FEMA, OEM and about several more large, pain in the ass, organizations that are supposed to deal with these problems.

I mean come on, FEMA= Federal Emergancy Maintence Association as well as OEM= Office of Emergancy Managment.

We don't need ANOTHER bueocratic, tax-sucking, deficit-enhancing, poorly-trained military branch to "deal with civilians in emergancies".

The FBI trains SPECIFICALLY for these situations along with FEMA, OEM, CIA, NSA, ATF, DEA and all of the other crime/safety organizations that are out there!

ya,coulnt you just turn all those organizations into one huge one,and have those as branches of said super-organisation.

Why don't we let the media organise disaster response? They get to the scene quicker than everyone else anyway.
True, and they know more than everyone else too... :rolleyes: