NationStates Jolt Archive

Our modern military doctrines are outdated.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 crumpled 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.

I like it! :D

Wouldn't it be quicker and easier to import all the male prisoners and then just brainwash and drug them into being super-soldiers? Many of these prisoners will already be somewhat violent, so with a little re-programming should be ideal candidates, surely?

Incidentally you don't inseminate people with embryos, you inseminate with semen.

Hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!

It's like something out of a NationStates issue...

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.
Yeah, I know how pathetic this is, but the whole interwebs seems to be down... so I'll pick a point.

Don't extrapolate that data to encompass the whole world, please. It only leaves you looking like a silly person.

The rest... I won't bother.

Oh, you know what would be even better? If we managed to recombine German Shepherd DNA into the super-soldiers'. Then they would have fierce fighting skills which would allow us to increase our lebensraum and defeat the vile Communists.

Means To An End needs theme music for his threads. Something like the Horst Wessel should do.

Wouldn't it be quicker and easier to import all the male prisoners and then just brainwash and drug them into being super-soldiers?

It would be much more difficult to ensure their loyalty, as they could secretly harbour an anti-American sentiment. Brainwashing is a much more effective process when employed against impressionable, young minds rather than the hardened pates of criminals and riffraff. It's certainly not a bad idea, but I'd be somewhat wary of it. Additionally, the quality of their genes could not be assured if we just take them by the shipload -- we are not the ones who "program" their DNA, and they may have certain weaknesses and not be equally adroit at fighting as those who were "born" to be soldiers.

Don't extrapolate that data to encompass the whole world, please.

It was simply a rough estimate. I was being fairly conservative in my numbers (for example, I assumed that only 1/14 of prisoners would be shipped to the US, despite the bounty on their heads). There are probably many more in countries which have dictators, so it's not a point which can really be effectively argued.

Maybe we should just contact a secretive organisation to commission us a Grand Clone Army, so we can use it against separatist forces of terror and keep Republic(an) democracy intact. :D

You freak.

Yeah, I know how pathetic this is, but the whole interwebs seems to be down... so I'll pick a point.

Don't extrapolate that data to encompass the whole world, please. It only leaves you looking like a silly person.

The rest... I won't bother.

I won't bother with the rest either, but I will say that figures show that the US contains between 22% and 25% of the global prison population. Land of the free, and all that...

Ah, here we go: http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie-T/cri_pri-crime-prisoners

Maybe we should just contact a secretive organisation to commission us a Grand Clone Army, so we can use it against separatist forces of terror and keep Republic(an) democracy intact. :D

I'd love to hear your plan on that particular issue.

Aw, I thought you were going to repurpose violent criminals into single-minded warriors, like in Starcraft.

I like it! :D

Why does this vaguly remind me of universal soldeir

Or maybe just soldier with Kert Rustle

You freak.

Please don't flame.

It's like something Hitler would come up with if he were high on LSD.

Please don't flame.

But you deserve it. You bizarre, disfunctional, linguistically impotent Nazi.

Halo Proposal

It's the future, really.

Please don't flame.

If you're happy advocating rape as a form of justice, your call.

Aw, I thought you were going to repurpose violent criminals into single-minded warriors, like in Starcraft.

I contemplated such a plan but concluded that it was far too unrealistic a target for the current state of our technology. It might be an apt plan in the future, however, depending on how far science allows us to delve.

It's like something Hitler would come up with if he were high on LSD.
LOL!

With these strategies, the Soviet Union would have inexorable crumbled before our armies like a piece of paper.

Are pieces of paper known for crumbling?

It's the future, really.

Exactly; it's nothing new or "out there," as many people in this thread you have you believe.

Are pieces of paper known for crumbling?

Damn! I was wondering whether to use the phrase "crumple like a piece of paper" or "crumble like a cookie" and I mixed them up. :(

I think it might be good for kids waiting to be adopted to basically be going to military school until they get adopted. If they never get adopted they shoudl be given a choice to get a job and go out in the world on their own or join the military and try to make a career out of that.

Many problems could arise from this, although I think they could be tackled effectively over time as the system is fine tuned.

But you deserve it. You bizarre, disfunctional, linguistically impotent Nazi.
QFT! :eek: That's got to be the best insult I've ever seen. Even if it is a flame, it's still a good one.

And what of the Constitutional rights of the babies born into this program? Do they not get a choice in the matter?

Besides, you said in the OP that we are fighting an asymmetrical war in which sheer numbers or technology will not prevail. Simply boosting our troop levels will not fix the problem, and boosting them in such a manner would only incite protests both here and abroad.

Meh, I don't know why I bother responding to these anymore. Sometimes it feels like I'm debating with somebody over whether two and two make four...

And what of the Constitutional rights of the babies born into this program? Do they not get a choice in the matter?

Besides, you said in the OP that we are fighting an asymmetrical war in which sheer numbers or technology will not prevail. Simply boosting our troop levels will not fix the problem, and boosting them in such a manner would only incite protests both here and abroad.

Meh, I don't know why I bother responding to these anymore. Sometimes it feels like I'm debating with somebody over whether two and two make four...

Yeah not really a practacle solution if it horrifies people enough to revolt.

But you deserve it. You bizarre, disfunctional, linguistically impotent Nazi.

As much as I dislike MTAE, he does not deserve that.
And you mysspeled dysfunctional.

and IMHO I believe he may be spouting things he doesnt believe

I won't bother with the rest either, but I will say that figures show that the US contains between 22% and 25% of the global prison population. Land of the free, and all that...

Ah, here we go: http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie-T/cri_pri-crime-prisoners

Yeah. Thank you very much. I couldn't be arsed to dig out the numbers for him.

And what of the Constitutional rights of the babies born into this program? Do they not get a choice in the matter?

They do get a choice in the matter; however, they will be so incredibly indoctrinated that they will not hesitate to join the army. As minors, however, without a fit parent or guardian, they must opt to be taken care of by the US government, allowing us to brainwash them.

Besides, you said in the OP that we are fighting an asymmetrical war in which sheer numbers or technology will not prevail.

No -- sheer numbers will prevail, although technology will not. We need to secure the peace, which means we need to station troops everywhere a potential conflict may arise. We do not need fancy weapons, however -- just well-trained soldiers.

With these strategies, the Soviet Union would have inexorable crumpled before our armies like a piece of paper.


Yeah, that's what Napoleon and Hitler thought, too.

Well, it wasn't the USSR with Napoleon, and he'd have been thinking in french, and Hitler in german, for that matter, but you get the point.


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.

So, slavery then.

There's a book by Aldous Huxley, Brave New World.


Besides the fact that the idea is inhumane, it's not even original.

So, slavery then.

Not really, no. I have advocated slavery in previous posts, that that's close to breaking some forum rules, so I have abstained from doing that. These children will be a given the choice whether to enlist or not, but they will be too brainwashed to resist.

No -- sheer numbers will prevail, although technology will not. We need to secure the peace, which means we need to station troops everywhere a potential conflict may arise. We do not need fancy weapons, however -- just well-trained soldiers.

Okay, i've decided to debate you on the one semi-sane thing that you've said so far. I do not think the sheer numbers of troops to secure the peace will ever work anywhere. It requires your forces to be perfect which they will never be, to never make a mistake, and to be willing to take mass casualties. Believe me, doing the whole hearts and minds thing has been run hundreds of times be the book w/ simunitions and everytime you take way too many casualties, get frusturated and end up killing more than you would have before. We can not go into insurgent states and expect to secure the nation b/c you can always pop out of a window and fire off an rpg, there is no panacea. But what we can do is take on the powers like pre-war saddam by airpower and deny him the ability to project force and be a threat.

Besides the fact that the idea is inhumane, it's not even original.

You're right on one count; the idea is not original. I made up my mind after reading a similar book to the one you suggested. However, it is most decidedly not inhumane -- what's really inhumane is allowing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to die because of lack of troop presence. What's inhumane is allowing the slaughter in Darfur to continue because we cannot commit sufficient troops to aid in the crisis there. Rectifying those problems is not only humane, but necessary and good.

It requires your forces to be perfect which they will never be, to never make a mistake, and to be willing to take mass casualties.

If we train them for a very early age, and genetically breed them to be soldiers, they will be as close to perfect as possible. Additionally, they will be able to secure many more towns and cities in Iraq than are currently safe if they are able to patrol through those cities and towns.

You're right on one count; the idea is not original. I made up my mind after reading a similar book to the one you suggested. However, it is most decidedly not inhumane -- what's really inhumane is allowing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to die because of lack of troop presence. What's inhumane is allowing the slaughter in Darfur to continue because we cannot commit sufficient troops to aid in the crisis there. Rectifying those problems is not only humane, but necessary and good.

How is that any less humane to forced servitude and death on the part of our solders?

How is that any less humane to forced servitude and death on the part of our solders?

It's not forced servitude -- hell, it's not even coerced servitude. They are given a choice whether they should serve or not, without incurring the ire of the US government should they wish to opt out of their patriotic duty.

If we train them for a very early age, and genetically breed them to be soldiers, they will be as close to perfect as possible. Additionally, they will be able to secure many more towns and cities in Iraq than are currently safe if they are able to patrol through those cities and towns.

Told you ... Solder by Kert Rustle (and about a billion other books)

Thankfully the authors of said books usually were not serious.

Not really, no. I have advocated slavery in previous posts, that that's close to breaking some forum rules, so I have abstained from doing that. These children will be a given the choice whether to enlist or not, but they will be too brainwashed to resist.

Removal of freedom through brainwashing is just as much enslavement as forcing them to serve. You simply place internal restraints on the mind rather than external restraints on the body.

If we train them for a very early age, and genetically breed them to be soldiers, they will be as close to perfect as possible. Additionally, they will be able to secure many more towns and cities in Iraq than are currently safe if they are able to patrol through those cities and towns.

No, you're wrong on all counts. You can train a soldier to fight well but you can't train them to not make mistakes. And one mistake takes away 1000 successes. They will not be able to secure more towns by any other way than by killing every iraqi. This is because it is impossible to secure a town through military means any other way. Patrols are just a show of force, they don't secure anything.

Not really, no. I have advocated slavery in previous posts, that that's close to breaking some forum rules, so I have abstained from doing that. These children will be a given the choice whether to enlist or not, but they will be too brainwashed to resist.

Who mentioned the children?

You're talking about buying people, here. Buying people, drugging them into a comatose state, and using them as incubators. I noticed not one word in that post about asking for their permission.
Prisoners have rights too, you know.

The moral implications of brainwashing children into joining the military is another matter altogether.

If you're going to argue w/ him about something argue about how it wouldn't even work regardless of moral implications because his morals are obviously not even close to yours.

You're talking about buying people, here.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with the seller. We are not subjecting them to either physical or mental anguish, nor are we killing them or otherwise harming them, so I don't see what's wrong with it.

Most conflicts die down when the general population reaches an acceptable standard of living. If the majority of the people reach one, they start caring less and less about idealistic political struggles, something that has clearly been shown in Ireland with the dying out of IRA armed conflict, and the opposite in 1930's Germany, with the rise of the National Socialists.

Africa would do a lot better with a global laissez-faire policy on agriculture. Stop the subsidies and stop some of the fighting.

They do get a choice in the matter; however, they will be so incredibly indoctrinated that they will not hesitate to join the army. As minors, however, without a fit parent or guardian, they must opt to be taken care of by the US government, allowing us to brainwash them.

No -- sheer numbers will prevail, although technology will not. We need to secure the peace, which means we need to station troops everywhere a potential conflict may arise. We do not need fancy weapons, however -- just well-trained soldiers.
Right. So you advocate a brute-force conquest of the world by forcing prisoners to give birth to babies which we then kidnap and brainwash into soulless killing machines.

That's your American Way?

If you have a problem with that, take it up with the seller. We are not subjecting them to either physical or mental anguish, nor are we killing them or otherwise harming them, so I don't see what's wrong with it.

It takes two sides to make a transaction, a seller and a buyer. Why not take it up with both? They are, after all, equally guilty.

Slavery does not require either physical or mental harm. It is simply a matter of being owned, of having lost their freedom in the most absolute way.

MTAE should really write a novel about an (in his opinion) utopian world.

It'll be the best dystopian novel since 1984 ;)

Isn't there an NS issue like this...

If you have a problem with that, take it up with the seller. We are not subjecting them to either physical or mental anguish, nor are we killing them or otherwise harming them, so I don't see what's wrong with it.

If you think that buying a female prisoner to implant her with a "specially designed", which I take to mean genetically altered, embryo won't cause mental anguish or severe psychological problems, then you haven't met any women in real life.

Not really, no. I have advocated slavery in previous posts, that that's close to breaking some forum rules, so I have abstained from doing that. These children will be a given the choice whether to enlist or not, but they will be too brainwashed to resist.

If they will only choose one option, IT ISN'T A GODDAMN CHOICE. Comprende?

If they will only choose one option, IT ISN'T A GODDAMN CHOICE. Comprende?

It's a choice. An indoctrinated soldier may not be mentally capable of adequately contemplating it, but it's a choice nonetheless. Capisce?

It is simply a matter of being owned, of having lost their freedom in the most absolute way.

What do you mean? Criminals are sent to jail. Have they lost their "freedom"? Well, they have erred and are being punished for their transgressions.

It's a choice. An indoctrinated soldier may not be mentally capable of adequately contemplating it, but it's a choice nonetheless. Capisce?

Choice does not work that way.

What do you mean? Criminals are sent to jail. Have they lost their "freedom"? Well, they have erred and are being punished for their transgressions.

Even criminals are not subject to slavery and forced pregnancy. They are being punished in accordance with the sentencing of the judicial system, and going beyond that is specifically prohibited by the Constitution, as well as slavery in general.

Choice does not work that way.

In his moral world it does so there is no point in trying to convince him otherwise.

P.S. MTAE- respond to my post or you admit that the one bastion of sanity you have on this argument is gone.

It's a choice. An indoctrinated soldier may not be mentally capable of adequately contemplating it, but it's a choice nonetheless. Capisce?

It is a choice when a person can freely choose between more than one option. Because you have removed all but one option through brainwashing, they are no longer free to choose. Withholding information and deliberately bending their minds towards military service is suppressing their freedom.

If we train them for a very early age, and genetically breed them to be soldiers, they will be as close to perfect as possible.

"Ah, but what happens if they get my looks and your brains, Lady Asquith?"

If you have a problem with that, take it up with the seller. We are not subjecting them to either physical or mental anguish, nor are we killing them or otherwise harming them, so I don't see what's wrong with it.

Apart from the whole rape malarky, obviously.

So bascially you favour using grunt troops in canoon fodder fashion?

Overhwelming numbers doesn't always work. We had numbers in Vietnam, didn't stop the war all that well.

And MTAE, you are advocating slavery, rape, and another of other nasty little crimes that you may not think are bad, but most of the rest of humanity has a problem with.

What do you mean? Criminals are sent to jail. Have they lost their "freedom"? Well, they have erred and are being punished for their transgressions.

Indeed they have, albeit temporarily, not absolutely, and they still have certain rights and entitlements.

As you said, they have erred and are being punished for their transgressions. Their imprisonment is their punishment. So, to then be further punished, by being sold as property and forced to serve as a factory-line for children, while addled out of their minds on drugs (what drugs and what effect it might have on the children is yet a third matter)... well, frankly that cannot be justified. You may as well round up women off the streets, it's much the same thing.

Also... what crimes are these women to have committed? Are these murderers, housebreakers, tax evaders? Are you opting for 'one size punishment fits all', here?

You can train a soldier to fight well but you can't train them to not make mistakes.

Via good training, you will be able to lower the incidence of mistakes which are committed. Troops will be both physically and mentally prepared for any and all situations to an astonishing degree, enabling them to seldom err.

They will not be able to secure more towns by any other way than by killing every iraqi.

The more troops there are, the more security there is. It is equivalent to the correlation between the amount of policemen and safety. The more safe a town or city is, the greater the quality of life is, and the enthusiastic the native people will be. This will prove fundamental in defeating the terrorists.

Indeed they have, albeit temporarily, not absolutely, and they still have certain rights and entitlements.

What about those who are condemned to life in prison, or even death? In either case, I do not wish to subject the prisoners to cruel punishment -- they will not suffer any physical or mental anguish and will not be harmed in any way. They have the right to be free from pain; that is sufficient. They need not possess any additional rights.

You may as well round up women off the streets, it's much the same thing.

But women on the streets are American citizens, while the criminals of other countries are not Americans. Also, the women on the streets have not committed so greivous a wrong-doing so as to warrant their being placed in jail.

Are you opting for 'one size punishment fits all', here?

Yes. It should also act as a deterrent for crime of all kinds, which is an additional benefit. Personally, I am in favor of very severe punishment for any and all criminals.

What about those who are condemned to life in prison, or even death? In either case, I do not wish to subject the prisoners to cruel punishment -- they will not suffer any physical or mental anguish and will not be harmed in any way. They have the right to be free from pain; that is sufficient. They need not possess any additional rights.
And you don't think being forced to give birth to a child not of their choosing isn't painful?

Go see your mom, tell her labor isn't painful, and after she slaps you silly, come back and talk to us.

Yes. It should also act as a deterrent for crime of all kinds, which is an additional benefit. Personally, I am in favor of very severe punishment for any and all criminals.
Given that you want to take these women from countries with lax laws, you'll be getting a number of political prisoners whose crime was to speak out against repressive regimes.

As to be expected from a member of the CBUA Party.

Sometimes it feels like I'm debating with somebody over whether two and two make four...

Pssah. Everyone knows two and two make five. Big Brother says so! ;)

What about those who are condemned to life in prison, or even death? In either case, I do not wish to subject the prisoners to cruel punishment -- they will not suffer any physical or mental anguish and will not be harmed in any way. They have the right to be free from pain; that is sufficient. They need not possess any additional rights.


Is that so? So how long are you intending to keep these women (and men, I presume, you'd need sperm, after all), imprisoned in this fashion? A certain span? The rest of their lives? So, waking up to be told that you've lost x number of years of your life, been forcibly impregnated, carried an unknown number of children to term, and had them abducted. Oh, and that you've been a slave.
I'd say that would cause a fair deal of mental anguish, so your only option then becomes to keep them until their deaths, an automatic death sentence.

Also, 'life imprisonment' is rarely the case, and I oppose the death penalty.


But women on the streets are American citizens, while the criminals of other countries are not Americans. Also, the women on the streets have not committed so greivous a wrong-doing so as to warrant their being placed in jail.


If these other criminals are not American citizens, and have committed no crime on American soil, then you have no right to hold them, do you? Just as you don't an American citizen who has not committed a crime.

What about tourists? Women tourists on the street are not American citizens. Are they fair game, too?


Yes. It should also act as a deterrent for crime of all kinds, which is an additional benefit. Personally, I am in favor of very severe punishment for any and all criminals.

So... your serial killers are as condemned as those who have committed parking offences, or defaced public property?

Please, please try to justify that.

A couple of problems, first of all, what do we do with the 7.5 million brainwashed supersoldiers once we're done with the jihadists?History has shown time and time again that massive armies+boredom=Coup. The soldiers wouldn't have the basic social skills expected of an ordinary person, or they would have social skills of a different kind. Plus, the civil rights groups would howl if you were forcing women to give birth over and over again in government prisons, also the sale and trade of prisoners is remarkably like slavery.

If you wanted a real solution to your problem (which wasn't designed to shock people) you could suggest passing a bill which allows criminals to be sentenced to military service, and contains provisions for existing criminals to be offered (or forcibly sent) military service also. Anyone who argued it was inhumane or unfair will have to deal with the fact that we are now giving criminals a fate which some choose voluntarily, rather than imprisonment. You said there was 142/1 citizens to criminals in USA right? Whats the population of the US..ok it says about 300 million, so that makes 2 million instant conscripts. Further, you have a steady flow of criminals coming in for military service. If you wanted to push it, you could suggest purchasing criminals of foreign countries, but this is a new level of extreme (as in you probably wouldn't get it past society).

All of this is very Imperial Britain, don't you think?

Someone has been looking at AMF's posts on II about his infamous sentinel super-soldiers.

Let's cut the crap here: if recent history has taught us nothing else it has taught us that the most efficient way of raising the numbers entering the US military is to fly hijacked planes into populated buildings. Any volunteers?

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 crumpled 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.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120157/

A couple of problems, first of all, what do we do with the 7.5 million brainwashed supersoldiers once we're done with the jihadists?History has shown time and time again that massive armies+boredom=Coup. The soldiers wouldn't have the basic social skills expected of an ordinary person, or they would have social skills of a different kind. Plus, the civil rights groups would howl if you were forcing women to give birth over and over again in government prisons, also the sale and trade of prisoners is remarkably like slavery.

If you wanted a real solution to your problem (which wasn't designed to shock people) you could suggest passing a bill which allows criminals to be sentenced to military service, and contains provisions for existing criminals to be offered (or forcibly sent) military service also. Anyone who argued it was inhumane or unfair will have to deal with the fact that we are now giving criminals a fate which some choose voluntarily, rather than imprisonment. You said there was 142/1 citizens to criminals in USA right? Whats the population of the US..ok it says about 300 million, so that makes 2 million instant conscripts. Further, you have a steady flow of criminals coming in for military service. If you wanted to push it, you could suggest purchasing criminals of foreign countries, but this is a new level of extreme (as in you probably wouldn't get it past society).

All of this is very Imperial Britain, don't you think?

How many of those 2 million are incapable of service through phisical or disability restrictions?

Age?

OR a temperament so fucked up that they really should be in permenent
therapy?

despite what people think ability to kill != ability of a solder. Sure thats part of it but ability to handle and prosper in a rigid control and social structure are also up there on the list. Ability and willingness to obey orders another. Some of those criminals are so fucked up that they willingly chose to break the law and throw away the rest of their life to rot in prison. What makes you think that a few months down the road they wont tweak and say fuck the consequences to another societal structure.

You are going to spend more man power and more time making sure your solders are behaving and getting the job done then you are going to spend actually projecting on the enemy.

I know it is tempting to take the society rejects and put them to what some believe is good use. But there is a reason many of them could not function in general society, what makes you think they are going to function in military society?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120157/

Beat you to that reference by like fifty posts ! :)

How many of those 2 million are incapable of service through phisical or disability restrictions?

Age?

OR a temperament so fucked up that they really should be in permenent
therapy? Who cares? Soldiers are really only out there to catch lead anyway.

despite what people think ability to kill != ability of a solder. Sure thats part of it but ability to handle and prosper in a rigid control and social structure are also up there on the list. Ability and willingness to obey orders another. Some of those criminals are so fucked up that they willingly chose to break the law and throw away the rest of their life to rot in prison. What makes you think that a few months down the road they wont tweak and say fuck the consequences to another societal structure.

You are going to spend more man power and more time making sure your solders are behaving and getting the job done then you are going to spend actually projecting on the enemy.

I know it is tempting to take the society rejects and put them to what some believe is good use. But there is a reason many of them could not function in general society, what makes you think they are going to function in military society?
I'd imagine it'd be achieved the same way they do it in prison, or military school, or boot camp. Comprehensive dehumanisation, deindividualisation, combined with permenant fear and the grinding of their very souls'. In actuality, you would have to put the convicts into a batallion of their own, with higher security, and much much shittier work/life. Make it absolute hell. Make it so that the prisoner batallion is used as expendable cannon fodder (more so than the rest of the military). Then, for convicts which take to the environment well, and show discipline and respect, move them into positions of leadership, then out of the batallion all together. That way, the majority of the inmates who don't have something psychologically fucked up within them preventing them from conforming have great motivation to work with the system, and the convicts who want to fuck with the system will probably end up dead on the front lines, either by the bullet of an enemy, or of their commanding officer for treason.

I know well what it takes to be a soldier, UT, and the kind of psychological conditioning inherent within the process of enlistment (and to a lesser degree, commissioning).

Beat you to that reference by like fifty posts ! :)

I couldn't tell, your spelling was so bad. :D

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 crumpled 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.

This is so stupid, unconstitutional, and evil. Ever hear of a little thing called human rights? Your math is crazy too. In ten years there would be 750,000 ten year olds, not 7,500,000 soldiers. People are not livestock to be bred at the whims of the state, although it would be nice to have mandatory abortions to cleanse the gene pool of genetic diseases.

The thing that is stupid is that you have to be in great shape to be in the military. Fatbodies like me get turned down by the recruiter. It is not that people do not want to be in the military. The problem is that we are too unhealthy for military service.

Horrifying morality aside, you could not keep the women under permanent sedation without dramatically and adversely affecting the fetus.

You would have to find some other means of coercing these women into being breeders. The best possible solution would be to convince them to do it willingly. Honestly, I don't think that is a feasible option. And any other option I can imagine is too horrific (i.e. physical coercion) for me to attempt to explore as options. I am sure you will have no trouble thinking on these things.

Also your cost estimate in the OP did not include the cost of care and feeding of these women during their fertile period.

Horrifying morality aside, you could not keep the women under permanent sedation without dramatically and adversely affecting the fetus.

Not really. If you stimulate a drug-induced coma (without resorting to pain-relieving drugs) the fetus can develop more normally.

Not really. If you stimulate a drug-induced coma (without resorting to pain-relieving drugs) the fetus can develop more normally.

How would you do that?

But you deserve it. You bizarre, disfunctional, linguistically impotent Nazi.

come on, he's not a Nazi he's a troll. Enjoy your suspension for trolling MTAE?

I personally think it is a great idea, although it might need some tweaking. But there is always the morality that you have to think of. Is it right to breed humans (against the mothers' will may I add) for state control. Many different groups are going to be stubbornly opposed to this idea, and you would have to change an entire country's view on morality for them to accept this. I realise that this could have huge benefits for a nations military, but in true demorcratic society it would never get through parliament (or Senate or whatever)

Once again, great idea, but would lack public support

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 crumpled 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.

OR

Hire more mercenaries. But yours is more logical.

Not really. If you stimulate a drug-induced coma (without resorting to pain-relieving drugs) the fetus can develop more normally.

And how do you intend to simulate a drug-induced coma? And on that note, how do you intend to create these specially designed embryos?

This is the most unrealistic and psychotic thing I have ever heard.

EDIT: Mercenaries would be a lot more realistic. Also, to maintain an army of that size taxes would have to go through the roof.

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 crumpled 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.


wow you are dumb, and you've seen the movie "Soldier" one to many times. That movie sucked anyway. ANd you're totally wrong, the Soviets would've crushed us in the Cold War had it gone hot without nukes for some reason. Contrary to popular belief the Soviets would have totall control of the skies and totall air support. A reverse of what the US military is dependant on. They would because the US Air Force at the time was obsessed with bombers, not fighters, and the Soviet MiG's and Fighter based Air Force would've butchered the US out of the sky and proceeded to bomb the bases until they had complete air control.

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.I'm going to call for evidence on the claim that the military is falling short on recruitment goals. Last I heard, it wasn't. I could be wrong though.

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. And when are you joining up? (I can't believe I'm the first person to ask this...)
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. That's a pretty shitty excuse why you shouldn't join, especially since the science fiction you write up below wouldn't produce soldiers until you're too old for service, meaning you wouldn't be replaced at all.

I'm going to call for evidence on the claim that the military is falling short on recruitment goals. Last I heard, it wasn't. I could be wrong though.

And when are you joining up? (I can't believe I'm the first person to ask this...)
That's a pretty shitty excuse why you shouldn't join, especially since the science fiction you write up below wouldn't produce soldiers until you're too old for service, meaning you wouldn't be replaced at all.

Overall the rate of new enlistments has been down but the rate of reenlistments has been up. Fun w/ statistics.

And what of the Constitutional rights of the babies born into this program? Do they not get a choice in the matter?
'Rights'? Come on now, you surely don't think we'd teach our future soldiers such an outdated concept, do you? Ideally they won't even know what a 'right' is once the US Government is done 'training' them!

However, I fail to see how having more troops would help the problem when we already have a shitload overseas and they aren't doing very much to help the situation. Today's wars do not demand manpower, they demand strategy and tactics, far more than ever before -- we must evolve to match our enemies, and I don't see the human wave tactic as working very well. Even if it's a human wave trained from birth and armed with a lot of big guns. Look at D-Day.

Using female prisoners as baby factories is a ludicrous idea – it would be insanely expensive (I won’t even bother with ‘moral’ arguments). First off, the cost of purchase, plus constant medical care for the prisoners, and then the cost of raising the children (many of whom will be unsuitable for use) would cost far more than any other option and would not produce substantially better soldiers.

There are two options which come to mind as being far better solutions:
1) Use mercenaries: PMFs (Private Military Firms) are very efficient and reliable. They are cost effective for any special operation or foreign excursion (though for national defense a standing army is still best). Since they are only contracted out when you need something done, you are not incurring the cost of constant training and maintenance, and any costly unforeseen difficulties are largely absorbed by the PMF.

2) Recruit 16 year olds from around the world into a foreign legion. There is a huge population of able-bodied youths in refugee camps, orphanages, and just in the general population which could be trained and turned into good soldiers. Sign them up for 10 year contracts and immediately put them on a serious regimen of good nutrition, education, physical training, and indoctrination in the military brotherhood. After a couple of years in this environment they will be completely integrated so there is minimal risk of disloyalty, their mental and physical training will make them efficient and capable, their education will focus on relevant skills (such as local languages and customs of different hotspots in addition to weapons and tactics), and the cost is comparatively small. The total cost will be in food and housing (which is minimal in a barracks), clothing (mass produced uniforms so minimal cost), and training (mostly previous students) – initially there will be a labor cost for staff, but after the fist set cycles through they will fill in the otherwise paid positions. They will receive a negligible salary (since they have free food, housing, medical care, etc) so the labor costs will be small.

If you are going for a recruitment goal of perhaps 150k/yr, this is very easily achievable while still being highly selective. Given the population of the world living in poverty, refugee camps, and simply disaffected with their current living situation (very uncommon among 16 year olds ;) ) even though many will be unsuitable due to poor health (due to poor nutrition or disease) there will be more than enough potential recruits.

After the term of their contract, most will likely re-up after spending so many formative years in the army, so turnover will be small. Even those who choose to leave will be pretty well set as they will have marketable skills (anything from mechanics to linguistics to medicine) so they will be much better off than if they had stayed in the refugee camps or in the slums.

Of course we could just ship all our prisoners off to Salusa Secundus for a while…

Via good training, you will be able to lower the incidence of mistakes which are committed. Troops will be both physically and mentally prepared for any and all situations to an astonishing degree, enabling them to seldom err.
You can't prepare infantry to that level. It just isn't physically or financially possible. War is unpredictable and mistakes are a natural part of it.


The more troops there are, the more security there is. It is equivalent to the correlation between the amount of policemen and safety. The more safe a town or city is, the greater the quality of life is, and the enthusiastic the native people will be. This will prove fundamental in defeating the terrorists.
The more troops there are means the more targets there are for insurgents not more security. There is a difference between the correlation between policemen and infantry and that difference is that the natives want to see policemen. The single complaint that i have heard from iraqis and afghanis the most is that they don't want to see us. More troops would only make that worse. Native peoples are not enthusiastic when there are foreigners on every street corner.

Native peoples are not enthusiastic when there are foreigners on every street corner.MTAE, consider it akin to having blue helmets patrolling your neighborhood. French blue helmets ;)

MTAE, consider it akin to having blue helmets patrolling your neighborhood. French blue helmets ;)

I would consider it my patriotic duty to shoot them. What's your point?

I would consider it my patriotic duty to shoot them. What's your point?You've just managed to put yourself in the shoes of the men shooting at US soldiers in Iraq. Good job, I didn't think you had the empathy necessary. ;)

I would consider it my patriotic duty to shoot them. What's your point?

Well, there's the fact that this statement justifies all attacks against Coalition forces in Iraq.

As an aside, I'm not sure why you feel it is patriotic to shoot forces of a non-hostile, fellow-UN member.

I would consider it my patriotic duty to shoot them. What's your point?

HAHA, you just proved that this would never work.

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/happy087.gif
This is your funniest thread yet :D So devoid of all connection to reality and morality. I'm impressed. http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/score009.gif

Keep it up, your resent threads have just been sad. But this one makes me want to see what comes next, how you can possibly top this. http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/happy089.gif

You've just managed to put yourself in the shoes of the men shooting at US soldiers in Iraq. Good job, I didn't think you had the empathy necessary. ;)
Well, there's the fact that this statement justifies all attacks against Coalition forces in Iraq.

No, it most certainly does not. We are a liberating force; we have brought them freedom. The only thing France could possibly bring us is some good wine, a large supply of white flags, and a failed economic model. It would be fine for the Polish Jews to shoot at the Germans, but not for the Germans to shoot at the invading Allied troops. Some invasions can have a positive effect on a country and are completely in the right, and some are not. The Iraqis are simply butchers and madmen if they choose to shoot at those who are trying to save them from themselves and to rebuild their country.

No, it most certainly does not. We are a liberating force; we have brought them freedom. The only thing France could possibly bring us is some good wine, a large supply of white flags, and a failed economic model. It would be fine for the Polish Jews to shoot at the Germans, but not for the Germans to shoot at the invading Allied troops. Some invasions can have a positive effect on a country and are completely in the right, and some are not. The Iraqis are simply butchers and madmen if they choose to shoot at those who are trying to save them from themselves and to rebuild their country.

Yes, because destabilising the region, killing uncounted thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands), and 'liberating' them of what little semblance of safety and security (and equality) they previously had is such a positive effect.

To be quite blunt, you are perfectly justified to attack anyone who invades your country.

No, it most certainly does not. We are a liberating force; we have brought them freedom. The only thing France could possibly bring us is some good wine, a large supply of white flags, and a failed economic model. It would be fine for the Polish Jews to shoot at the Germans, but not for the Germans to shoot at the invading Allied troops. Some invasions can have a positive effect on a country and are completely in the right, and some are not. The Iraqis are simply butchers and madmen if they choose to shoot at those who are trying to save them from themselves and to rebuild their country.

We certainly didn't liberate sunnis so that would mean that with that logic they are right to attack us. That would mean that b/c we didn't help the taliban that we deserve to be attacked by them. That would also mean that the two men who died serving under me deserved to die. I used to not agree w/ you but at least respect you a tiny bit. That is now gone.

To be quite blunt, you are perfectly justified to attack anyone who invades your country.

So you think the French would be justified in attacking the Allied invasion forces during WWII? Do you hate freedom or something?

We certainly didn't liberate sunnis so that would mean that with that logic they are right to attack us.

No. They were the ones who were perpetrating the horrible crimes and disenfranchisement among their people; they deserved to be deposed and were completely unjustified in fighting back, just like the Nazis were unjustified in fighting back against the Allies. We were completely in the right back then, just as we are now; no American soldier deserved to die back then, just as no American soldier deserves to die now.

No. They were the ones who were perpetrating the horrible crimes and disenfranchisement among their people; they deserved to be deposed and were completely unjustified in fighting back, just like the Nazis were unjustified in fighting back against the Allies. We were completely in the right back then, just as we are now; no American soldier deserved to die back then, just as no American soldier deserves to die now.

Not all Sunnis were doing this. It was just the elite few. Do the rest still deserve to be disenfrachised? Right now, the shiias are commiting sectarian attacks against sunnis. Do they also deserve to be deposed?

So you think the French would be justified in attacking the Allied invasion forces during WWII? Do you hate freedom or something?

If they (the French that attacked) were siding with the Germans, then yes. As it was, they chose to attack the original invaders.

Basically, if you're not invited in somewhere, and you go anyway, don't complain if you're unpopular.

No. They were the ones who were perpetrating the horrible crimes and disenfranchisement among their people; they deserved to be deposed and were completely unjustified in fighting back, just like the Nazis were unjustified in fighting back against the Allies. We were completely in the right back then, just as we are now; no American soldier deserved to die back then, just as no American soldier deserves to die now.
MeansToAnEnd, cut the bullshit. Your point, if it can be called that, is that as long as it's America doing the attacking, it is liberation, and no one is "allowed" to attack back. Your attempts to say otherwise use logic so twisted as to be pointless.

And, as usual, you have not answered any of the salient points brought up so far in this thread. USMC leatherneck has already brought up military issues that you have ignored for this nitpick little tangent. Why? Probably because you know you can't win. You have ignored medical problems with your idea that have been brought up. Why? Because you cannot answer them. You have ignored moral points brought up? Why? Because once again you cannot answer them.

Fris is right, you don't debate, you just run the same points over and over again in the hopes that everyone will get tired and concede. This is the debating skill of a two-year-old. Do try to grow up.

If more US citizens felt the need to 'liberate' Iraq and "save them from themselves," then there wouldn't be a shortage of able-bodied soldiers. That of course, is a quixotic presumption and is not grounded in the reality of the military industrial complex.

Some young men and women who choose to serve may be motivated by patriotism or a moral imperative to liberate other states, but fundamentally the majority of the armed service ranks are filled by drawing on a population of poor and vulnerable US citizens.

Joining the military to escape a condition of poverty is no longer practical for many as evidenced by the decline in recruiment upon which this thread was premised.

This a sad fact. That group of the population will have to turn (or return)to illicit endeavors to sustain themselves/their families. Further inclination towards a police state is realized in these occurences.

Since the incentives to get the pre-prison population to join the military aren't working, maybe there can be incentives to get them out of prison and into the battlefield. Brainwashing or selective breeding may not be necessary.

Desperation either needs to be intensified and/or the incentives for service need to be more favorable.

fundamentally the majority of the armed service ranks are filled by drawing on a population of poor and vulnerable US citizens.


Not to get off track and please don't respond to this b/c i don't want MTAE to be able to dodge responding to my earlier post but 40% of military recruits come from lower-middle-class to poor. That is hardly a majority. I know it is a large segment and i am not refuting it but it isn't a majority and that demographic is the only one to lower since OIF.

No, it most certainly does not. We are a liberating force; we have brought them freedom.Nowhere did I specify that the French blue helmets would or wouldn't be liberating the US (perhaps from Hillary Clinton's rule, who knows?). You don't seem to care whether or not, therefore, you are no different from the Iraqis shooting at coalition troops, with the minor exception that you're not killing anyone yet.

When are you joining up in the military, btw. You know, to raise recruitment levels.

Not all Sunnis were doing this. It was just the elite few. Do the rest still deserve to be disenfrachised? Right now, the shiias are commiting sectarian attacks against sunnis. Do they also deserve to be deposed?

Those who were or are restricting the freedom deserve to be "disenfranchised" (read: shot). Those who are not deserve to be liberated from those who are maltreating them. The dissolution of the Iraqi government serves those two functions simultaneously.

(perhaps from Hillary Clinton's rule, who knows?).

That means we'd have gone out of the pseudo-communist frying pan and into the true wrath of the communist fire.

Fris is right, you don't debate, you just run the same points over and over again in the hopes that everyone will get tired and concede. This is the debating skill of a two-year-old. Do try to grow up.

Which points haven't I adequately covered? If you feel my answer was insufficient, please ask the question again.

Which points haven't I adequately covered? If you feel my answer was insufficient, please ask the question again.
Quoted again:

And, as usual, you have not answered any of the salient points brought up so far in this thread. USMC leatherneck has already brought up military issues that you have ignored for this nitpick little tangent. Why? Probably because you know you can't win. You have ignored medical problems with your idea that have been brought up. Why? Because you cannot answer them. You have ignored moral points brought up. Why? Because once again you cannot answer them.

Quoted again:

I have adequately covered medical issues. It is perfectly safe to induce a coma into a female while allowing the baby to be delivered successfully. I have responded to USMC's most recent query. There are irreconcilable differences between my moral stance and that of others, however, and such axioms cannot be the subject of debate.

That means we'd have gone out of the pseudo-communist frying pan and into the true wrath of the communist fire.Which reminds me: When are you joining the military to help them meet their recruitment goals?

I have adequately covered medical issues. It is perfectly safe to induce a coma into a female while allowing the baby to be delivered successfully.
Really? Got proof of this? Do you have any actual knowledge of the mechanics of carrying a child to term? Such as any drugs you would need to keep said women induced into a coma would be passed onto the child? Do you know what those drugs would do to the child as it developed? Do you have any idea the health risks of being in a 10 month long coma? Do you know what that might do to a woman's reproductive system? Do you have a friggen clue?

I have responded to USMC's most recent query.
No you didn't, you ignored the part of military does not equal policemen and that having more boots on the ground does not equate to a safer street as you proposed. You ignored that it is impossible to somehow make 'perfect' troops that will never commit a mistake.

There are irreconcilable differences between my moral stance and that of others, however, and such axioms cannot be the subject of debate.
Oh please, then answer this question, you said that if the women are in jail, it would be ok to use them; however, I did note that such countries that would be willing to sell their own people would most likely also have political prisoners, women jailed for being in oposition, how does that jive with your moral ideals, oh ye who wants to destory communism by becoming it?

You need to change your nickname, Ratbert seems to be apt as you have his debating skills.

Really? Got proof of this? Do you have any actual knowledge of the mechanics of carrying a child to term? Such as any drugs you would need to keep said women induced into a coma would be passed onto the child? Do you know what those drugs would do to the child as it developed? Do you have any idea the health risks of being in a 10 month long coma? Do you know what that might do to a woman's reproductive system? Do you have a friggen clue?

If there is no drug whatsoever that can safely put a female in a coma (which I seriously doubt, and cite as sources such TV shows as House), there are other methods. For example, the woman could be conscious for the entirety of the procedure. However, there are many potent drugs which act solely upon the nervous system, and thus do not have any detrimental effects upon a growing fetus. Nonetheless, I don't think many studies have been conducted as to how a drug-induced coma would impact an unborn fetus since it is not really a practical topic among the medical community, and thus there is not a wealth of sources at my disposal. If worst comes to worst, we can make the incubators "brain dead" so that they experience no negative emotions but can carry a baby to term.

No you didn't, you ignored the part of military does not equal policemen and that having more boots on the ground does not equate to a safer street as you proposed. You ignored that it is impossible to somehow make 'perfect' troops that will never commit a mistake.

The purpose of the US military is to preclude the enemy from outright occupying small towns and villages, to confiscate weapons, and to detain enemy terrorists. For these goals, it would be better to have an increased amount of soldiers. We need an armed force to fill in the gap before Iraqi security forces can take over, and we cannot just dump them into a hostile environment. If the Iraqi civilians don't like it, tough. It's for their own protections. Also, if you train a soldier well, the incidence of his errors will drastically decrease.

Oh please, then answer this question, you said that if the women are in jail, it would be ok to use them; however, I did note that such countries that would be willing to sell their own people would most likely also have political prisoners, women jailed for being in oposition, how does that jive with your moral ideals, oh ye who wants to destory communism by becoming it?

It is up to their respective countries to make that choice on their behalf, not ours. If they choose to send us their political prisoners, so be it. I have no moral qualms about such an option, as it would serve the greater good in the end. If you want to make an omelet, you cannot be reluctant to break a few eggs.

(which I seriously doubt, and cite as sources such TV shows as House)You're not for real.

You're not for real.

I'm afraid I cannot cite any more reliable sources. However, House is medically accurate.

I'm afraid I cannot cite any more reliable sources. However, House is medically accurate.You can judge this because you can't cite more reliable sources? Paradox warning.

Means To An End needs theme music for his threads. Something like the Horst Wessel should do.

That or "Yakety Sax". :D

I'm afraid I cannot cite any more reliable sources. However, House is medically accurate.

You are The Red Arrow, and I claim my five pounds.

If there is no drug whatsoever that can safely put a female in a coma (which I seriously doubt, and cite as sources such TV shows as House), there are other methods. For example, the woman could be conscious for the entirety of the procedure. However, there are many potent drugs which act solely upon the nervous system, and thus do not have any detrimental effects upon a growing fetus. Nonetheless, I don't think many studies have been conducted as to how a drug-induced coma would impact an unborn fetus since it is not really a practical topic among the medical community, and thus there is not a wealth of sources at my disposal. If worst comes to worst, we can make the incubators "brain dead" so that they experience no negative emotions but can carry a baby to term.
You're quoting a TV show to me as proof? A TV show? A bloody TV show? You have NO skills at debate, do you? In any case, no, you still have not answered the problem because obviously you have no clue about what it takes to bring a child to term. ANY drug used has an effect on the fetus, ANY drug. Why do you think women are told to be damn well careful about anything they injest during that time? They take it, the baby shares it. And how do you plan to make a woman brain dead but keep the body working enough to carry a healthy child to term? The few instances of a pregnant woman who did so has always a case of brain death AFTER pregnancy, and the woman has almost always died as a result.

The medical issues are still there. You have not addressed them.

The purpose of the US military is to preclude the enemy from outright occupying small towns and villages, to confiscate weapons, and to detain enemy terrorists. For these goals, it would be better to have an increased amount of soldiers. We need an armed force to fill in the gap before Iraqi security forces can take over, and we cannot just dump them into a hostile environment.
Said hostils are, in this case, part of the general population, invloved in many different levels from outright fighting to providing bread every other day. There's not enough troops in the world to activily search and get every single person. It was already said, all that makes for is a BFT (Big Fat Target).

Also, if you train a soldier well, the incidence of his errors will drastically decrease.
They are already trained very well, the US Military is one of, if not the, best trained force in history, they still make mistakes.

And once again you offer nothing more than "I say so". Again, you do not debate beyond saying your opinion over and over again, Ratbert.

If there is no drug whatsoever that can safely put a female in a coma (which I seriously doubt, and cite as sources such TV shows as House), there are other methods. For example, the woman could be conscious for the entirety of the procedure. However, there are many potent drugs which act solely upon the nervous system, and thus do not have any detrimental effects upon a growing fetus. Nonetheless, I don't think many studies have been conducted as to how a drug-induced coma would impact an unborn fetus since it is not really a practical topic among the medical community, and thus there is not a wealth of sources at my disposal. If worst comes to worst, we can make the incubators "brain dead" so that they experience no negative emotions but can carry a baby to term.

You just keep posting more and more idiocy!
You do realize that when in a coma you lose muscle mass right?
You get bed sores.
You are more prone to infections.
It cost a huge amount of money to care for comatose patients.
And how do you expect a fetus to come to term normally in a woman that gets no exercise?

These are just the factual errors on the medical end of your inhuman idea to use human beings as incubators so that you can use other human beings as cannon fodder!


The purpose of the US military is to preclude the enemy from outright occupying small towns and villages, to confiscate weapons, and to detain enemy terrorists. For these goals, it would be better to have an increased amount of soldiers. We need an armed force to fill in the gap before Iraqi security forces can take over, and we cannot just dump them into a hostile environment. If the Iraqi civilians don't like it, tough. It's for their own protections. Also, if you train a soldier well, the incidence of his errors will drastically decrease.

The purpose of the U.S. Military is to protect the United States of America!
It is not to spread Democracy or police the world!


It is up to their respective countries to make that choice on their behalf, not ours. If they choose to send us their political prisoners, so be it. I have no moral qualms about such an option, as it would serve the greater good in the end. If you want to make an omelet, you cannot be reluctant to break a few eggs.

So if some dictator decides he does not like the people that are peacefully protesting him he can sell them to be used as slave incubators so we can raise a slave army!
We should have had your foresight and wisdom before WWII!
All those Jewish women wasted in gas chambers and ovens could have made perfectly good incubators!

And, as others have pointed out and I have asked on each and every thread that you cheerlead for war on, if you believe that the U.S. Military is so short handed when are you going to join up (http://www.goarmy.com/flindex.jsp)?

After all someone as "brilliant" as you, with all of the answers to the worlds problems, should make a great soldier and rise quickly through the ranks to a position of power where you can test your sick theories in the real world.
:rolleyes:

The purpose of the US military is to preclude the enemy from outright occupying small towns and villages, to confiscate weapons, and to detain enemy terrorists. For these goals, it would be better to have an increased amount of soldiers. We need an armed force to fill in the gap before Iraqi security forces can take over, and we cannot just dump them into a hostile environment. If the Iraqi civilians don't like it, tough. It's for their own protections. Also, if you train a soldier well, the incidence of his errors will drastically decrease.



wow, you have no-clue what war is like, you also have absolutley no fucking idea about what Guerrilla warfare is. You think the casualties are bad now...heh. Theres some wars you need to read up on, first one, Vietnam, second one, the Russian Partisan movement in ww2, and for some real shits, Napoleon's Spanish Ulcer- if you catch that last one.

And, as others have pointed out and I have asked on each and every thread that you cheerlead for war on, if you believe that the U.S. Military is so short handed when are you going to join up (http://www.goarmy.com/flindex.jsp)?

After all someone as "brilliant" as you, with all of the answers to the worlds problems, should make a great soldier and rise quickly through the ranks to a position of power where you can test your sick theories in the real world.
:rolleyes:

MTAE has already stated in a previous thread of his that he does not feel it neccesary for him to join; he claimed he was in a comfortable economic position to forfiet joining. You know, cause pople only sign up to escape poverty. :rolleyes:

Alright MTAE, i'm gonna repost this and if you don't respond i will know that you give up on the military viability of your "idea."
Note: The quotes are by MTAE



Via good training, you will be able to lower the incidence of mistakes which are committed. Troops will be both physically and mentally prepared for any and all situations to an astonishing degree, enabling them to seldom err.
You can't prepare infantry to that level. It just isn't physically or financially possible. War is unpredictable and mistakes are a natural part of it.


The more troops there are, the more security there is. It is equivalent to the correlation between the amount of policemen and safety. The more safe a town or city is, the greater the quality of life is, and the enthusiastic the native people will be. This will prove fundamental in defeating the terrorists.
The more troops there are means the more targets there are for insurgents not more security. There is a difference between the correlation between policemen and infantry and that difference is that the natives want to see policemen. The single complaint that i have heard from iraqis and afghanis the most is that they don't want to see us. More troops would only make that worse. Native peoples are not enthusiastic when there are foreigners on every street corner.

*Reads through thread*

*Explodes in a burst of laughter*




Damn, this thread could be used as a weapon - kinda like the Monty Python sketch :D

Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja!...
Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!

Hans't anyone ever watched movies?

The Super Soldiers always rebel against the government! Our only hope is Steven Segal!

*Reads through thread*

*Explodes in a burst of laughter*




Damn, this thread could be used as a weapon - kinda like the Monty Python sketch :D

Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja!...
Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!

At the risk of dying though laughter induced asphyxiation, whats the translation of that joke?

Our modern military doctrines are outdated. They stress troop coordination and effective use of technology over sheer manpower.

So sheer manpower is the way forward? Tell that to the 100,000 who died at the Somme.

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 crumpled 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.

I'm not going to go into a military question which remains fortunately and forever unanswered.

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.

Good lord, I actually agree with more than three of your words arranged in the correct order! Have a gold star!

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.

Care to inform those of us oppressed by the Socialist Overlords of Darkest Upper Britisherstan this "new method", which clearly common knowledge in the US, or why would you not feel obliged to elaborate on it?

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.

As many before me have pointed out, you're not helping the recruiting situation, but I digress. The people aren't joining the military. The US is, despite your best efforts, a democracy. Those people are free. Therefore the people don't want war, and since this is the "rule of the people", nor does the state.

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.

The US has one of the highest citizen/prisoner ratios in the world and all that, but any monetary exchange of human life is slavery by the accepted definition of people owning people.

Sometimes I wish the founding fathers would rise from their graves and beat your head against the constitution until you get the point.

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).

Noun, Singular: rape, Plural: rapes

1. The act of forcing sexual intercourse or other sexual activity upon another person, without their consent. (From Wiktionary).

I'm fairly sure you have laws on that sort of thing. Oh wait, they aren't American citizens! Oh wait, it's illegal over here, too. So, as Insidious Communist Muslim Slave Drones of the Socialist Overlords of Darkest Upper Britisherstan, British women wouldn't have rights? The same applying to citizens of every other country which has rape laws.

[QUOTE=MeansToAnEnd;11952444]They will produce, say, 750 thousand babies per year, which will be trained (from birth) by the government to become skillful soldiers.

This nitpick applies to every "trained from birth" soldier in all SF and similar:

"Repeat after me: this is the end that goes bang, this is the bit that you squeeze!"

"Bikit! Wanna bikit go pottee now!"

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.

Ten year old soldiers? Well, it's got a certain historic authenticity to it.

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.

For what? What justifies slave dealing, rape, and brain washing? Freedom? This is freedom?

Will you please stop defecating the graves of every US soldier who ever fought for your own liberty? They really don't appreciate it.

They do get a choice in the matter; however, they will be so incredibly indoctrinated that they will not hesitate to join the army. As minors, however, without a fit parent or guardian, they must opt to be taken care of by the US government, allowing us to brainwash them.

Do they get a choice in whether or not you indoctrinate them?

If we train them for a very early age, and genetically breed them to be soldiers, they will be as close to perfect as possible. Additionally, they will be able to secure many more towns and cities in Iraq than are currently safe if they are able to patrol through those cities and towns.

If “near to perfect as possible” isn’t much better then the finest historical elite, I can just about wrap my head round it. The problem is officers. It’s impossible to create a 2LT anywhere near perfect: there’s just too many contingencies, too many issues of leadership and charisma and respect. Don’t get me started on the perfect generals. Name the best general in human history and I’ll name four substantial flaws or mistakes they made.

Or maybe you could just start training your soldiers properly, including a LOT of language and interaction training, and tell your soldiers to ask questions first and shoot later.

That and have IQ tests for military service. Having a bunch of armed morons in foreign lands is never a good idea, especially when they can't talk to the people around them without an interpreter, and they need to understand the culture and reasons as to why their opponents are fighting them.

Less 'because they hate freedom and democracy', more 'because we've blown up their houses and caused a power vacuum leading to a civil war - and people are pissed because of that'.

And that doesn't make them 'super soldiers'. It just means that they can perform their job adequately.

At the risk of dying though laughter induced asphyxiation, whats the translation of that joke?It's gibberish.

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 crumpled 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.

Idiot, defenestrate thyself.