War The world is running out of soldiers - Wars are getting more common and militaries are building up. There’s just one thing missing.

1.png
Young recruits undergo military training at a recruiting center in Kyiv, Ukraine, on April 9, 2024. Getty Images

A war between the United States and China would involve the kind of military manpower the world hasn’t seen in decades. As a point of contrast, around 156,000 troops landed on the beaches of France during the Normandy invasion in 1944, which was commemorated by world leaders earlier this month. Some experts estimate that if China were to try to invade Taiwan — the most likely flashpoint for a superpower confrontation — it might need as many as a million. If the US were to defend the island, according to some estimates it might suffer as many as half the number of casualties in just the first three weeks of fighting as it did in 20 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The last time the US fought wars anywhere close to this scale, many of those fighting were not there by choice: the military draft only ended in 1973, as American involvement in the Vietnam war was winding down. That conflict involved some 2.7 million American servicemembers in total, more than 58,000 of whom were killed — around 30 percent of whom were draftees.

A report released on Tuesday by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), a DC-based defense think tank, looked at what might happen if the American government once again felt a draft was necessary to provide for the nation’s security. For military planners, its conclusions are not encouraging.

In a tabletop wargaming exercise — in which experts are asked to anticipate how a given military scenario might turn out — participants including military officers, Pentagon staff, and academic experts were given the task of raising a force of 100,000 conscripted US soldiers in 193 days for a war with China. (One scenario involved a war over Taiwan; another, significantly less plausible one, involved a Chinese attack on the West Coast.) The most “successful” groups in the exercise found they’d likely only be able to raise half as many of the 100,000 needed soldiers; most groups raised far less.

Some of the factors complicating their efforts were simply logistical: The Selective Service System has estimated it will take 500,000 induction notices to produce 100,000 draftees. But by US law, those notices would be sent by mail to the address that draftees — which include all 18- to 25-year-old men living in the US — used to register for selective service when they turned 18. Many of these letters would probably not reach their intended recipients.

There would almost certainly be legal challenges to the draft, as well as significant public protests, while some number of draftees would apply for conscientious objector status or dodge it altogether. (An estimated 300,000 Americans either illegally dodged the draft during the Vietnam War or deserted from the military.) Many, if not most, might simply not be eligible for service: Pentagon studies have found that around 77 percent of young Americans would not currently qualify for military service due to being overweight, using drugs, or having other physical or mental health issues.

The military would also have to ensure that it had the equipment, facilities, and training resources needed to absorb these raw recruits so quickly. This was an issue in the early days following Hamas’s October 7 attacks, when the Israel Defense Forces called up a record 300,000 reservists only to be quickly overwhelmed by complaints about insufficient facilities, equipment, food, and other logistical bottlenecks.

Given the cultural and political upheaval that ultimately caused the draft to be scrapped toward the end of the Vietnam War, a return to mass conscription is not an option most US leaders would prefer to contemplate. But the CNAS report makes a stark case that US leaders need to at least consider scenarios where it would become a necessity: “US lawmakers, policymakers, and military leaders must assume that if a draft were called, it would be absolutely necessary. And if it is necessary, it must work.”

“We have been so successful at deterring major power conflict for the past 75 years that we have started to consider them a relic of the past,” Katherine Kuzminski, author of the report and director of CNAS’s military, veterans, and society program, told Vox. “Now, every country is having to think about what happens when you have a no-kidding, existential threat on your borders.”

But while we may live in a world in which the number and severity of armed conflicts are increasing again after decades of decline and in which countries around the world are ramping up their military spending, there’s one resource nearly all major militaries seem to be short of: people to actually fight those wars.

War without soldiers​

In the United States, the Army is slashing its ranks by thousands of positions amid chronic recruiting shortfalls. In Europe, despite military spending increases since the war in Ukraine, the shortfalls are, if anything, even worse: Germany’s military has been shrinking for years despite a major recruiting push, while the UK may soon decommission four warships because of a lack of sailors to sail them. Despite a military buildup prompted by concerns about China, Japan’s Self-Defense Forces are falling short of their recruitment goals. Even China, which has the world’s largest military by people-power — with some 2 million active personnel — is struggling to recruit the skilled high school graduates it needs to operate its increasingly advanced weaponry. There’s an active debate among defense analysts about whether China even has the personnel needed to pull off an invasion of Taiwan.

In this context, more national leaders are starting to gingerly approach the issue of conscription. Germany’s defense minister recently presented a plan for a form of limited military conscription based on the systems now used by Scandinavian countries, which conscript some, but not most, eligible young people based on defense needs. Britain’s Conservative Party has included a plan for mandatory national service — with military and civilian options — in its platform for the country’s upcoming election. In the United States, the Washington Post recently reported some allies of former President Donald Trump’s campaign have suggested that some form of national service might be introduced if he is elected.

Whether any of these initiatives will go anywhere is hard to predict. Britain’s Conservatives are widely expected to lose, and Trump himself, who avoided service in Vietnam due to a diagnosis of bone spurs, dismissed the Post report as “fake news.” But in an era of so-called “great power conflict,” the question of who will actually be fighting the wars of the future will only become more important.

Lessons of Ukraine​

The reason for the sudden resurgence of global interest in soldiers and conscription isn’t a mystery. The war in Ukraine, with its trench lines, tank battles, and artillery duels, marks a return to the sort of warfare that many had hoped was consigned to the dustbin of history.

For instance, the year-long Battle of Bakhmut, in which Russian forces — primarily from the semi-private Wagner Group — eventually succeeded in taking a small eastern Ukrainian city, was Russia’s bloodiest battle since World War II. More than 19,500 fighters were killed, according to a recent independent media investigation. That’s more troops killed in a single long battle than the Soviet Union lost in its decade-long war in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Finding troops for the “meat grinder” in Ukraine hasn’t been easy for the Russian government. Russia does conscript soldiers every year, but conscripts generally can’t be deployed outside Russia. In the fall of 2022, the Kremlin declared a “partial mobilization” meant to raise 300,000 troops for the military. But more than twice that number are believed to have fled the country to avoid the draft.

Since then, however, Russia has managed to stabilize its manpower situation. It has done this in part by offering large signing bonuses that exceed average annual salaries in many remote and impoverished regions of Russia, and by granting pardons to prison inmates. (Pardoned prisoners made up the bulk of the fatalities in Bakhmut.) These tactics have largely kept the public backlash to the hundreds of thousands of casualties manageable.

The worries about personnel are far more acute in Ukraine, which has a democratic political system and about 100 million fewer citizens than Russia. The long lines that formed outside recruiting centers immediately after Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022 are a thing of the past. Today, there are desperate shortages of Ukrainian troops on the front lines.

The average age of these soldiers is over 40 — shockingly old by global standards. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy recently signed a controversial law to lower the age for draft eligible men from 27 to 25. (The average age of an American GI in Vietnam was 19.) The government has resorted to a number of carrots (giving volunteers the right to choose their own battalions) and sticks (highly unpopular street patrols to find young men avoiding the draft) to replenish the ranks. And like Russia, Ukraine is also now recruiting prison inmates to serve.

Another similarity to Russia: Ukraine was in a state of precipitous population collapse even before the war, thanks to a combination of plummeting birth rates and out-migration. Its population declined from 51.5 million when it became independent in 1991 to just 37 million in 2019. Add to that the more than 6 million people who fled the country after the outbreak of war, those currently in the military, those killed or seriously wounded in the war, and those who’ve turned to black market employment in order to avoid conscription, and it’s no surprise that Ukraine’s civilian economy is facing serious labor shortages.

The war has presented Ukrainian leaders with an agonizing choice that goes even beyond the brutal prospect of sending thousands of young people to their deaths: Fighting for their national survival today might require decimating the nation’s already grim demographic future.

Grayer world, grayer wars​

Demography is also on the mind of military planners in rapidly aging East Asia, which is furthest along the global trend toward lower fertility rates. With the ever-present risk of a major war with neighboring North Korea growing, South Korean men have to perform at least 18 months of military service — and at least among democracies, it’s one of the toughest countries to avoid the draft. Even members of K-Pop supergroup BTS have to put in their 18 months.

But the country is also facing some stark population math. To maintain current troop levels, South Korea needs to enlist or conscript 200,000 men per year. But if current birth rates continue, in 20 years there will only be about 125,000 men available per year to fill those spots.

South Korea has one of the world’s fastest aging societies, but it’s hardly an outlier. Two of the regions with the fastest falling birth rates — East Asia and Eastern Europe — are also the places where risk of interstate war or superpower conflict may be highest right now.

In China, demographic decline is further compounded by the legacy of the country’s one-child policy. A high-casualty war — which China has not fought since its conflict with Vietnam in the 1970s — would devastate many families in a society where lone adult children are often expected to provide for their aging parents. Perhaps in recognition of this concern, the People’s Liberation Army amended its policies to allow parents as well as spouses to claim death benefits for a soldier killed in the line of duty.

There might appear to be a bright side to all this. Not so long ago, some theorists were predicting a “geriatric peace”: societies with fewer available soldiers as well as older — therefore, presumably, less aggressive — populations might simply be less likely to start wars.

But the recent actions of Russia — where population decline is only slightly slower than in Ukraine — provide a powerful counterexample to that theory, not to mention the rising tensions and territorial conflicts in fast graying East Asia. The calculations of aggressive leaders like Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping might just as easily be explained by what international relations theorists call “power transition theory”: the idea that governments will try to lock in military gains before their power starts to decline.

In other words, looking at decades of population decline to come, China’s Xi might decide that now is the moment to act in Taiwan, while he still has the troops to take it.

Andrew Oros, a professor of political science at Washington College who is writing a book on the security implications of East Asia’s aging societies, suggests that we may be seeing what he calls “dual graying” of conflict in the region: As societies age, they may be more likely to engage in so-called “gray zone” tactics — sabotage, propaganda, hacking, deniable attacks by unofficial militias and dual-use fleets — rather than all-out war. “This kind of gray conflict is something that older states are still very capable of doing,” Oros told Vox. “You don’t necessarily need to be fully able-bodied to fight a cyber war.”

Dulce et decorum est?​

It’s not just that the pool of available soldiers is getting smaller. Those in that pool are less willing to join up than ever. Polls show young people around the world are becoming far less willing to fight for their country. Young Americans have far more negative views of the military as an institution than older ones.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Benjamin Freakley, who supervised recruiting as commander of the Army’s Accessions Command, said one challenge is an anti-establishment mood in society at large, one that has even infected feelings about the military — an institution that long had wide support from Americans, whatever their politics. “There’s something of a loss of confidence in institutions across the board — courts, the government, the media, and the military,” Freakley told Vox.

When those feelings are paired with what is now a period of relatively high employment and higher wages in even low-skills sectors in the private economy, and the idea of arduous and potentially dangerous military service can look less appealing. It’s not a coincidence that Russia has been doing the bulk of its conscription in poorer, more remote regions of the country where the private sector can’t compete with military bonuses.

This trend holds even in some countries facing imminent military threat.

Taiwan recently extended compulsory military service for its citizens from four months to a year, but service is widely unpopular among many young Taiwanese and the government has struggled to expand its roughly 169,000-strong military.

A recent Carnegie Endowment poll shows that in Ukraine, a significant generation gap has opened up in attitudes toward the war. Ukrainians over 60 are about 20 percent more likely to say that Ukraine is winning the war and that it should fight until it liberates all its territory than those between 18 and 25 who would be more likely to do the actual fighting if the country began drafting more aggressively.

Jennifer Sciubba, a population demographer who focuses on defense issues, told Vox that “when you have a larger pool [of potential recruits or conscripts] to draw from you have to worry less about cultural shifts. It becomes a great issue in countries where the shift toward smaller populations is more pronounced.”

Uncle Sam wants you​

A range of policy changes are being considered in light of these trends. Some Asian countries are loosening age and height requirements to expand the pool of potential recruits or conscripts. Australia, dealing with its own recruitment woes, is considering allowing foreign nationals to serve in its armed forces for the first time. At a recent panel at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Gen. James Slife, vice chief of staff of the US Air Force, said his commanders were looking at loosening some restrictions, such as requiring airmen to have driver’s licenses. (Gen Z-ers are far less likely to drive.)

The elephant in the room when it comes to discussion of manpower is gender. Israel may be the best-known example of a country with universal (with some notable exceptions) military service for both men and women. Norway and Finland are among the few countries with selective service systems that draft women as well as men, though Denmark recently joined them. Taiwan only recently rolled out plans to allow women to register for reserve training.

In the United States, where women are no longer excluded from combat roles in the military, the Supreme Court has rebuffed several legal challenges to the all-male Selective Service System.

But CNAS’s Kuzminski suggests that this is an issue for the government to deal with now, rather than when a wartime draft actually becomes necessary.“The legal underpinning for the all-male registration law is on pretty shaky ground,” she said. “It’s not about the social policy side of things. From our perspective, it’s about the fact that you cannot afford to lose a week, a month, two months, while this gets moved up through the courts.”

Then there’s the question of whether the wars of the future will be fought by humans at all. The Pentagon recently announced plans to build thousands of cheap drones as a means to, in the words of Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks, “overcome [China’s] biggest advantage, which is mass. More ships. More missiles. More people.”

Gen. Nick Carter, former chief of the UK’s Defense Staff, predicted in 2020 that his country might someday “have an army of 120,000, of which 30,000 might be robots.” (The country currently has 130,000 servicemembers, all human.)

Freakley, who commanded US combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, was skeptical of the idea that “mass” could be achieved through autonomous systems alone, pointing out that similar claims had been made in previous generations by advocates of airpower. “There’s always a balance between manpower and technology,” he said, “but what history has shown us in warfare is that if you want to control another nation, you’ve got to put boots on the ground.”

But finding young people to put into those boots is only becoming more challenging.

Article Link

Archive
 
Ah yes, I see the underclass are to be culled again, in the usual manner. The proles have started to harbour too many useless eaters amongst them. Time for a reduction in foreign lands, what ho.
Do you think Tyrone can handle a mortar attack better than a traffic stop? They are after white men. Look at the demographics of combat troops and tell me who you see. It’s white men and it’s always white men.

You seem like a nice a person so please stop being obstinate and/or brown.
Also fucking pay people you fags.
I think that’s what they’re going to do. DEI can be used to ramp of the economic misery of white people, especially white men. Being pushed out of the work force could also make them vulnerable to propaganda that plays on their feelings of inadequacy, shame, and isolation. The idea of a supportive brotherhood where white men are valued, capable and strong would be very seductive. A good pay check and a way to leave the misery of being poor and undesirable could lure them into the meat grinder.

I don't know what I can do.
 
Do you think Tyrone can handle a mortar attack better than a traffic stop? They are after white men. Look at the demographics of combat troops and tell me who you see. It’s white men and it’s always white men.
That's the exact point. White underskilled men in white countries are a problem, because you can't deport the surplus and they make a lot of noise about needing a living wage and expecting a wife and public services. Immigrant unskilled workers live ten to a room and get paid under the table. They cost peanuts, and they can't vote. They are the 'flexible labour' that the elite continually states they need for 'growth'.
The "lonely white male underclass" will make a lot less noise once enough of them have died somewhere on the other side of the world.
This is a plan for herd reduction. The current shufflings around it is the beginning of normalisation.
 
But the country is also facing some stark population math. To maintain current troop levels, South Korea needs to enlist or conscript 200,000 men per year. But if current birth rates continue, in 20 years there will only be about 125,000 men available per year to fill those spots.
South Korea could easily get over this low-birth rate issue if they just got off their asses and invented the artificial womb. Problem solved.

I think that’s what they’re going to do. DEI can be used to ramp of the economic misery of white people, especially white men. Being pushed out of the work force could also make them vulnerable to propaganda that plays on their feelings of inadequacy, shame, and isolation. The idea of a supportive brotherhood where white men are valued, capable and strong would be very seductive. A good pay check and a way to leave the misery of being poor and undesirable could lure them into the meat grinder.

I don't know what I can do.
Never going to happen. The military has been poisoned by DEI and such. The parasites in government will never give up enough control of the military to allow it to be a white man's brotherhood. They would be too scared it would be used against them and they should be. The white men smart enough to realize they have been sidelined, are smart enough to understand the same poison has infected the military. The white men not smart enough have already been propagandized to accept it and will join without promises.

That's the exact point. White underskilled men in white countries are a problem, because you can't deport the surplus and they make a lot of noise about needing a living wage and expecting a wife and public services. Immigrant unskilled workers live ten to a room and get paid under the table. They cost peanuts, and they can't vote. They are the 'flexible labour' that the elite continually states they need for 'growth'.
The "lonely white male underclass" will make a lot less noise once enough of them have died somewhere on the other side of the world.
This is a plan for herd reduction. The current shufflings around it is the beginning of normalisation.
Assuming A) TPBT could force that white male surplus to go and B) do get their war, it wouldn't kill off enough of that white male population to do so. Wars are bloody, yes, but we are talking a hundred million white men in America. 16 million just between the ages of 18 and 24.
 
That's the exact point. White underskilled men in white countries are a problem, because you can't deport the surplus and they make a lot of noise about needing a living wage and expecting a wife and public services.
You spoke of unskilled workers and the underclass— not white men— but my point is that they will be targeted because white men make the best soldiers. It's also why the elites fear conscripting them; setting off any sort of resistance or racial awareness would be a disaster, DEI and a paycheck is safer. Whatever demoralization or economic effects that comes out of their horrible deaths, injuries, and trauma is secondary to the prime directive of defending Israel.

I don’t disagree that they see getting rid of white people as part of their economic strategy, but they seem less confident. Angus Deaton, Nobel Prize winner and certified NiggerFaggot, wrote this short essay Rethinking My Economics which hints at the discomfort
Questioning one’s views as circumstances evolve can be a good thing

Economics has achieved much; there are large bodies of often nonobvious theoretical understandings and of careful and sometimes compelling empirical evidence. The profession knows and understands many things. Yet today we are in some disarray. We did not collectively predict the financial crisis and, worse still, we may have contributed to it through an overenthusiastic belief in the efficacy of markets, especially financial markets whose structure and implications we understood less well than we thought. Recent macroeconomic events, admittedly unusual, have seen quarrelling experts whose main point of agreement is the incorrectness of others. Economics Nobel Prize winners have been known to denounce each other’s work at the ceremonies in Stockholm, much to the consternation of those laureates in the sciences who believe that prizes are given for getting things right.

Like many others, I have recently found myself changing my mind, a discomfiting process for someone who has been a practicing economist for more than half a century. I will come to some of the substantive topics, but I start with some general failings. I do not include the corruption allegations that have become common in some debates. Even so, economists, who have prospered mightily over the past half century, might fairly be accused of having a vested interest in capitalism as it currently operates. I should also say that I am writing about a (perhaps nebulous) mainstream, and that there are many nonmainstream economists.

  • Power: Our emphasis on the virtues of free, competitive markets and exogenous technical change can distract us from the importance of power in setting prices and wages, in choosing the direction of technical change, and in influencing politics to change the rules of the game. Without an analysis of power, it is hard to understand inequality or much else in modern capitalism.
  • Philosophy and ethics: In contrast to economists from Adam Smith and Karl Marx through John Maynard Keynes, Friedrich Hayek, and even Milton Friedman, we have largely stopped thinking about ethics and about what constitutes human well-being. We are technocrats who focus on efficiency. We get little training about the ends of economics, on the meaning of well-being—welfare economics has long since vanished from the curriculum—or on what philosophers say about equality. When pressed, we usually fall back on an income-based utilitarianism. We often equate well-being with money or consumption, missing much of what matters to people. In current economic thinking, individuals matter much more than relationships between people in families or in communities.
  • Efficiency is important, but we valorize it over other ends. Many subscribe to Lionel Robbins’ definition of economics as the allocation of scarce resources among competing ends or to the stronger version that says that economists should focus on efficiency and leave equity to others, to politicians or administrators. But the others regularly fail to materialize, so that when efficiency comes with upward redistribution—frequently though not inevitably—our recommendations become little more than a license for plunder. Keynes wrote that the problem of economics is to reconcile economic efficiency, social justice, and individual liberty. We are good at the first, and the libertarian streak in economics constantly pushes the last, but social justice can be an afterthought. After economists on the left bought into the Chicago School’s deference to markets—“we are all Friedmanites now”—social justice became subservient to markets, and a concern with distribution was overruled by attention to the average, often nonsensically described as the “national interest.”
  • Empirical methods: The credibility revolution in econometrics was an understandable reaction to the identification of causal mechanisms by assertion, often controversial and sometimes incredible. But the currently approved methods, randomized controlled trials, differences in differences, or regression discontinuity designs, have the effect of focusing attention on local effects, and away from potentially important but slow-acting mechanisms that operate with long and variable lags. Historians, who understand about contingency and about multiple and multidirectional causality, often do a better job than economists of identifying important mechanisms that are plausible, interesting, and worth thinking about, even if they do not meet the inferential standards of contemporary applied economics.
  • Humility: We are often too sure that we are right. Economics has powerful tools that can provide clear-cut answers, but that require assumptions that are not valid under all circumstances. It would be good to recognize that there are almost always competing accounts and learn how to choose between them.

Second thoughts

Like most of my age cohort, I long regarded unions as a nuisance that interfered with economic (and often personal) efficiency and welcomed their slow demise. But today large corporations have too much power over working conditions, wages, and decisions in Washington, where unions currently have little say compared with corporate lobbyists. Unions once raised wages for members and nonmembers, they were an important part of social capital in many places, and they brought political power to working people in the workplace and in local, state, and federal governments. Their decline is contributing to the falling wage share, to the widening gap between executives and workers, to community destruction, and to rising populism. Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson have recently argued that the direction of technical change has always depended on who has the power to decide; unions need to be at the table for decisions about artificial intelligence. Economists’ enthusiasm for technical change as the instrument of universal enrichment is no longer tenable (if it ever was).

When efficiency comes with upward wealth redistribution, our recommendations frequently become little more than a license for plunder.
I am much more skeptical of the benefits of free trade to American workers and am even skeptical of the claim, which I and others have made in the past, that globalization was responsible for the vast reduction in global poverty over the past 30 years. I also no longer defend the idea that the harm done to working Americans by globalization was a reasonable price to pay for global poverty reduction because workers in America are so much better off than the global poor. I believe that the reduction in poverty in India had little to do with world trade. And poverty reduction in China could have happened with less damage to workers in rich countries if Chinese policies caused it to save less of its national income, allowing more of its manufacturing growth to be absorbed at home. I had also seriously underthought my ethical judgments about trade-offs between domestic and foreign workers. We certainly have a duty to aid those in distress, but we have additional obligations to our fellow citizens that we do not have to others.

I used to subscribe to the near consensus among economists that immigration to the US was a good thing, with great benefits to the migrants and little or no cost to domestic low-skilled workers. I no longer think so. Economists’ beliefs are not unanimous on this but are shaped by econometric designs that may be credible but often rest on short-term outcomes. Longer-term analysis over the past century and a half tells a different story. Inequality was high when America was open, was much lower when the borders were closed, and rose again post Hart-Celler (the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965) as the fraction of foreign-born people rose back to its levels in the Gilded Age. It has also been plausibly argued that the Great Migration of millions of African Americans from the rural South to the factories in the North would not have happened if factory owners had been able to hire the European migrants they preferred.

Economists could benefit by greater engagement with the ideas of philosophers, historians, and sociologists, just as Adam Smith once did. The philosophers, historians, and sociologists would likely benefit too.

Angus Deaton is the Dwight D. Eisenhower Professor of Economics and International Affairs, Emeritus, at the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs and the Economics Department at Princeton University. He is the 2015 recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.
Never going to happen. The military has been poisoned by DEI and such.
Propaganda doesn’t need to be consistent or rooted in reality but I like your point about DEI supporters in the military. Given that this is about defending Israel from potential annihilation (and avoiding conscripts) I assumed that they’d be willing and able to make temporary concessions. I hope you’re right and I hope it keeps all whites, especially white men from enlisting.
 
You spoke of unskilled workers and the underclass— not white men
I am in the UK. The underclass here are white. When politicians and normies here reeee about people "who have never worked" and "families that have been brought up on benefits" and "dole scroungers" and on and on, they mean white people. White people with no or limited earned income.
Assuming A) TPBT could force that white male surplus to go and B) do get their war, it wouldn't kill off enough of that white male population to do so. Wars are bloody, yes, but we are talking a hundred million white men in America. 16 million just between the ages of 18 and 24.
Now add to the fatalities the number who will come back either severely disabled and/or with some form of combat PTSD. The post WW2 UK generation were very docile, because frankly they had seen enough on active service that they were struggling enough to get along in an everyday job and manage on civvy street.
A bad enough conflict with enough lads thrown in as cannon fodder will keep any ideas about rebellion and suchlike very, very quiet for a while, because just managing every day will be hard enough for the survivors.
Did your parents ever say to you, "I'll give you something to really cry about"? This is the something to really cry about.
You should really worry when they start talking about "a country fit for heroes to come home to".
The large number of mentally ill veterans that result will make an excellent reason for increased gun control, too.
 
All Western states make it their number 1 priority to act against the best interests of their primary military demographic whenever possible, are stunned to find said demographic is increasingly disinterested in dying for said states.

Nobody could have seen this coming.
I don’t disagree that they see getting rid of white people as part of their economic strategy, but they seem less confident. Angus Deaton, Nobel Prize winner and certified NiggerFaggot, wrote this short essay Rethinking My Economics which hints at the discomfort
There's no discomfort. They're mocking you, this is the part where they admit everyone got fucked just like everyone with a brain has been shouting from the rooftops for decades but oopsie nothing we can do about it now teehee!
 
Last edited:
All Western states make it their number 1 priority to act against the best interests of their primary military demographic whenever possible, are stunned to find said demographic is increasingly disinterested in dying for said states.

Nobody could have seen this coming.
So the military is facing the same problem that all employers are? Not offering enough in exchange for the services of people they want to hire?
What do you think would take for people to start signing up in droves for the military? A two story house, car and like 5k$ in cash per month?
Because from what I'm seeing (https://www.goarmy.com/benefits/while-you-serve/money-pay), the salary of 27k$ (~2250$ per month) is really not that competitive, especially when put into context of someone else, like lets say Russia, which is offering ~1600$ per month for rear line personnel and double that much (~3200$) for the combat zone, even more so when put into context of the respective salaries (the ones in the US being about 6 times larger, a comparable amount would be 9600$ per month for rear line and 19200$ for combat zone personnel).
Maybe the bonuses are significant and very common (I don't really care about it enough to look it up), but even with the combined enlistment bonus, the rate is still lower than they would be getting if they were being paid at a adjusted rate.
 
I think that’s what they’re going to do. DEI can be used to ramp of the economic misery of white people, especially white men. Being pushed out of the work force could also make them vulnerable to propaganda that plays on their feelings of inadequacy, shame, and isolation. The idea of a supportive brotherhood where white men are valued, capable and strong would be very seductive. A good pay check and a way to leave the misery of being poor and undesirable could lure them into the meat grinder.

I don't know what I can do.
Simple. For the zoomies, just expose them to the Tik-Toks that have managed to turn "Die for Israel" as an insult. As for the rest, remind them that the system will eat them up and spit them out. No support, no family and they'll be eating ze bugs and owning nothing if they fight for this sham of a government... also teach them the beauty of self-sufficiency.

The proverbial power process Ted K pointed out in his book. As soon as your average male can understand they're worth more than what the system is telling them is when they can truly resist all forms of propaganda.
 
like lets say Russia, which is offering ~1600$ per month for rear line personnel and double that much (~3200$) for the combat zone
Far more Russian soldiers in these few years have died than Americans in the entire occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
If we take the realistic MediaZona lowball estimate of 60,000 KIA, that's like 10% of the entirety of the Russian force deployed to the Ukraine, killed.

Would you risk your life on a role of a ten-sided dice? And that 60,000 doesn't include maimed and injured.
 
If the county was being invaded, I would have no issue fighting. But it's not and it won't be. Good luck finding anyone worth a damn to go die in another country for you purse strings.
if this country was being invaded i still couldn't be bothered tbh
If? If??!!! My negroids in Yakub, what the fuck d'you mean, "if?"

I'm sorry to be the one to tell you but, if you live anywhere in 'The West' it is being invaded, it has been invaded, and it is already under hostile foreign occupation.
invade_why.jpg
The real war - and possibly the only one worth actually fighting - has been going on for years, but hardly anyone even (((noticed))).
 
>Start needless war
>draft all the white men so they can die for kikes
>Leave the Mexicans so they can act as slaves laborers, and leave the blacks so they can knock up all the white women
>Kill off the white genome slowly, replacing it with a muddy half breed majority thats low IQ and easily controlled
>Decades later an actual unplanned war happens, leaving only the retard half breeds behind to be the troops
>The mutts can barely function, and you've lost the war
>?
>Profit
Simple. For the zoomies, just expose them to the Tik-Toks that have managed to turn "Die for Israel" as an insult. As for the rest, remind them that the system will eat them up and spit them out. No support, no family and they'll be eating ze bugs and owning nothing if they fight for this sham of a government... also teach them the beauty of self-sufficiency.

The proverbial power process Ted K pointed out in his book. As soon as your average male can understand they're worth more than what the system is telling them is when they can truly resist all forms of propaganda.
Why do you think the Dems are desperate to gain control of TikTok? It has proven to be an extremely powerful brainwashing tool, and they know that if the right somehow stops being retarded and gay (challenge: impossible) they could easily shift the demographic and cultural viewpoints of the new generation. it was never about CHYNA, it was about who can control the zoomers.
TikTok is pushing the troon shit. The OnlyFans shit. The "Vote blue no matter what" shit. If they paradigm changes then everything the left can poured into brainwashing the youth will have been for naught.
So the military is facing the same problem that all employers are? Not offering enough in exchange for the services of people they want to hire?
What do you think would take for people to start signing up in droves for the military? A two story house, car and like 5k$ in cash per month?
Because from what I'm seeing (https://www.goarmy.com/benefits/while-you-serve/money-pay), the salary of 27k$ (~2250$ per month) is really not that competitive, especially when put into context of someone else, like lets say Russia, which is offering ~1600$ per month for rear line personnel and double that much (~3200$) for the combat zone, even more so when put into context of the respective salaries (the ones in the US being about 6 times larger, a comparable amount would be 9600$ per month for rear line and 19200$ for combat zone personnel).
Maybe the bonuses are significant and very common (I don't really care about it enough to look it up), but even with the combined enlistment bonus, the rate is still lower than they would be getting if they were being paid at a adjusted rate.
Like I said in another thread, men have learned that joining the army and dying for your country is no longer the reality of being a soldier. Its being dumped in a fucking desert and either killed or maimed/psychologically damaged for life and then dumped like a pile of dirty laundry with no support aside from the shitty VA to help you. It isn't worth it anymore. People know they'll die for Jews or Ukies, and refuse to become another statistic. And like you said the pay isn't worth dying for.
If and when the draft is shoved through congress because the left are panicking over the people possibly fighting them over their evil as fuck choices, expect a ton of people either fleeing the country, going off the grid, crippling themselves, or killing the officers sent door to door to round up the sons. And a ton of attacks on bases and pro war politicians will begin to crop up, making the war effort as futile as possible.
The Dems and GOP boxed themselves into a corner. Guess you should have been nicer to the troops instead of throwing them away, you stupid bastards.
 
Far more Russian soldiers in these few years have died than Americans in the entire occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
If we take the realistic MediaZona lowball estimate of 60,000 KIA, that's like 10% of the entirety of the Russian force deployed to the Ukraine, killed.

Would you risk your life on a role of a ten-sided dice? And that 60,000 doesn't include maimed and injured.
Honestly, not that bad. If I wasn't where I am now (guaranteed employment the moment I get the diploma and a good wage without having to move to Russia), I would definitely consider it very strongly.
 
It might be because nobody pays soldiers shit even in places where they don't treat them like trash. And most everywhere they are treated like shit.
For the same amount of physical effort and inherent danger you could be a firefighter or EMT and be payed more and have a better chance of promotion and nobody sane insulting you.
In many places an enlisted solider through jewish magic makes even less money than minimum wage. Why risk your life when you can stack shelves and make more money?
And if you just want a dumb job with some risk mining now pays much better than soldier work.
The reason in ye old days they could pay people a pittance, food and cot is because there was this natural cultural movement across most of the globe that promoted defending one's nation. We did away with that shit after some failed art student made a mess. Now you should maybe adapt, overcome and actually pay people.
 
It might be because nobody pays soldiers shit even in places where they don't treat them like trash. And most everywhere they are treated like shit.
For the same amount of physical effort and inherent danger you could be a firefighter or EMT and be payed more and have a better chance of promotion and nobody sane insulting you.
In many places an enlisted solider through jewish magic makes even less money than minimum wage. Why risk your life when you can stack shelves and make more money?
And if you just want a dumb job with some risk mining now pays much better than soldier work.
The reason in ye old days they could pay people a pittance, food and cot is because there was this natural cultural movement across most of the globe that promoted defending one's nation. We did away with that shit after some failed art student made a mess. Now you should maybe adapt, overcome and actually pay people.

Imagine if they gave people land for being a soldier. Take some of that property they’ve stolen through eminent domain, build some cheapo houses on it and every soldier who serves a predetermined amount of time gets one. It’d be a nice benefit plus you’d know your neighbors, better for social cohesion!
 
Back