NationStates Jolt Archive


Military Strategy and Army Recruitment

MeansToAnEnd
16-11-2006, 01:08
Our modern military doctrines are outdated. They stress troop coordination and effective use of technology over sheer manpower. An emphasis is put on handily defeating a regular army while incurring the lowest possible amount of losses, and our army excels at this. With these strategies, the Soviet Union would have inexorable crumbled before our armies like a piece of paper. Unfortunately, there is no more Soviet Union and all of our brilliant plans were all for naught. We are now engaged in asymmetrical warfare with a determined enemy who employs guerrilla tactics, and we are woefully unprepared to conduct a successful campaign against a such adversary. A drastically new method of thinking is called for, and already a design has been formulated; however, it calls for a radical increase in troop levels. Because our army is falling short of recruitments goals, this vision cannot be easily realized and we are bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, where progress (although assured) is painful and slow, serving to weaken our resolve.

The most obvious solution to the problem is to recruit more soldiers, but this is becoming steadily more difficult as the media continues to air horrendous pictures of Iraq and the flow of fresh soldiers is trickling to a halt. Recruitments drives around the country are failing, and it seems unreasonable to expect the public opinion of the war to diametrically change any time soon. With these considerations in mind, I propose a completely different solution to the problem.

In the US, the prison population is about 1 in 142 citizens. Extrapolating that data to encompass the whole world, there are 42 million prisoners globally. Assuming, say, 1/3 of them are women, we are left with 14 million female prisoners. Hopefully, if we offer $1000 per captive, several countries will see their way through to transporting some of those criminals to the US (African countries, and other countries with poor economies and lax laws are the most likely candidates). We should be able to acquire 1 million females in total without much hassle.

Now, I suggest that we artificially inseminate each of these specimens with a specially-designed embryo which will grow to be adept at military service. If it is more humane, they will be put into a drug-induced coma, thus reducing their suffering (they may also be heavily drugged, if that is preferable). They will produce, say, 750 thousand babies per year, which will be trained (from birth) by the government to become skillful soldiers. One of the fringe benefits of such a plan is that the subjects are re-usable -- with one single shipment, we can produce 7.5 million soldiers within 10 years. In one fell swoop, we have rectified the shortage of recruits for the army and paved the way for US military interventions in other unstable regions (I'm looking at you, Iran).

The only shortcoming is the cost, which I will endeavor to assess. The cost of the shipment of baby producers is $1000 per individual; with 1 million females, that cost will reach around $1 billion dollars. The cost of raising the children will not be negligible either -- I'd estimate it at $100 billion dollars over a span of 18 years ($15 dollars per day per soldier). It is expensive, yes, but the pay-off is well worth it.
Nguyen The Equalizer
16-11-2006, 01:26
You ke-razy Nazi, you.
Fleckenstein
16-11-2006, 01:55
You ke-razy Nazi, you.

So you flame him in a double thread? Nice.
MeansToAnEnd
16-11-2006, 01:56
Sorry, there was a lot of lag -- I didn't mean to post it twice. Please let this one fade into obscurity.