If World War Three broke out, would you sign up?

[Tagaziel]

It is a big question and I had to take a few days to formulate an answer, as I spent a non-trivial amount of time pondering it. I think it's a number of questions, actually, so I'll break them down by point:

1. Would you volunteer for armed service in time of need?

I have thought about it and I would most likely volunteer. I've also discussed it with my wife and she feels the same way.

The reasons are two, one ideological and the other practical. First and foremost, I feel that Europe and Poland are worth fighting for. It's not a popular stance to take (after all, Euroscepticism is hip these days), if the popular media are to be believed, but as a person who was not born into the Union's wealth and prosperity, I could see first hand how it helped my country rise from the ashes of Communist devastation. Defending it is a natural consequence. Furthermore, I don't want my country to chafe under another nation's whip. In the 19th and 20th centuries, we spend a total of 160 years enslaved by Russians/Soviets, with 97 years by Prussia/Imperial German and Austria/Austro-Hungary. I don't want to witness that in my generation. That ties into my second reason: If I and millions of others refuse to fight for our right of self-determination, then others will determine our fate for us. See above for our experiences.

If you have doubts if the European Union is worth fighting for, I suggest you take a look at Ukraine. Thousands already sacrificed their lives so that Ukraine can break free from the remnants of the Soviet empire and join Poland and other post-Soviet countries in a place where stuff works at least slightly better.

2. Would your risk your life for your country and nation?

It's a separate question and one that deserves serious thought. I can cautiously say that I'd be willing to. I might not be terribly fond of Poles, but I adore the Polish nation and, in a broader sense, the European ideal, the European dream. I think it's worth risking one's life for. A cause to fight for is one of the things I want in life and Poland in Europe is it. A lot of people would like independence and prosperity to cost two cents and a drop of blood. It's never that cheap.

A separate thing is that us Poles have a history of fighting for other people's freedoms - and our own. My own great-grandfather was a soldier of the Greater Polish Army fighting the Germans in 1918-1919 Greater Poland Uprising, to rejoin Poznan and Wielkopolska to the reborn Poland.

3. Would you die for your country?

No, I would not. I want to live for my country, and live as long as possible. Even if I served in the military, I'd be unwilling to die. Dying is defeat. Making the people on the other side of the gun die is victory.

Nuclear weapons guys and other stuff of mass destruction,

To be honest, I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to launch a first strike. Even if armed confrontation would happen, nuking your enemy gives the other side a carte blanche to nuke you.

 

[Yamu]

Even then, you'd risk losing all popular support domestically and (especially) abroad. With the current global society so dependent on its carefully cultivated equilibrium, doing anything to threaten that equilibrium is just as likely to negatively impact your political and commercial capital as your target's. Winning a nuclear exchange that doesn't lead to MAD just means you're in a severely weakened position and surrounded by relatively undiminished states who aren't particularly pleased with you.

(Though talk like this is probably more suited to the nuke war thread, sorry.)

 

[Atomkilla]

I would never willingly join a military conflict under any circumstance, unless I am absolutely forced too.

My father, my uncle and many other people who I know, both members of my family or else, have risked their lives in pointless wars my country fought in the previous decades and they got nothing from it. Absolutely nothing. And some of them lost a lot, some everything.
Besides, this country has done very little for me in this life or for anybody I know. It's a den of corruption, bigotry, nepotism, idiocy, irrationality, theft, crime and conflict. It's not the worst place in the world, but it's not the best either. It may have a rich history, it may have a culture worth defending, but those are all relics of the past, something I'm not going to put my life on the line for. The country is dying, population is diminishing and people are emigrating, internal struggle is apparent and balkanization is still a present phenomenon. This land will soon become a relic of the past too.

If I were forced to go to war, it would be for my family and my friends. I am aware that sounds very naive, but fighting for this flag is just not worthy my life. Figthing other men's wars is something that is just not worthy your life.

I'm aware this sounds highly idealistic, and I'm no idealist. If the push comes to shove, and WW3 broke out, the reality of the current situation is that my country would be torn up from inside by various local conflicts that would ensue. I do not think that WW3 would be anything but a nuclear conflict. Anything other major conflict would just be an interlude to it.
In any case, I'm ill-equipped and ill-prepared to fight a war of any sort, so I'd most likely end up a rotting corpse before you know it.

• Just say "mister I'm sorry, I got no time to die, I'm too busy" and then turn and run like hell. If they say coward why don't pay any attention because it's your job to live not to die. If they talk about dying for principles that are bigger than life, you say "mister you're a liar. Nothing is bigger than life". There's nothing noble in death. What's noble about lying in the ground and rotting? What's noble about never seeing the sunshine again? What's noble about having your legs and arms blown off? What's noble about being an idiot? What's noble about being blind and deaf and dumb? What's noble about being dead? Because when you're dead, mister, it's all over. It's the end. You're less than a dog, less than a rat, less than a bee or an ant, less than a white maggot crawling around on a dungheap. You're dead, mister, and you died for nothing.

 

[iLeikCheese]

I am 16, and am already going to enlist in the Marine Corps whenever I turn 17. So, yes, I am signing up regardless.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

Full of cum and nonsense.

 

[Crni Vuk]

To be honest, I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to launch a first strike. Even if armed confrontation would happen, nuking your enemy gives the other side a carte blanche to nuke you.

We had already one war that saw even two nuclear weapons in action. So it is not impossible.

WW2.

I mean we are talking about WW3 after all. The world was a few times close enough to a nuclear war without even a real war. Imagine what would happen if the whole world becomes a battlefield again, with Russia, China, the US etc. fighting each other.

Someone might get trigger happy. You never know.

I am 16, and am already going to enlist in the Marine Corps whenever I turn 17. So, yes, I am signing up regardless.

Yeah, even Hitler already said that's what the young people are there for. War is old men talking and young men dying.

You really should not chose the military live just because you have no clue what to do. Seriously. Just saying.

 

[gordog_frohman]

Luckily for me I've got a two citizenships for both Canada and the U.S., so if any war breaks out and there's a draft I've at least got some options unlike most of my peers. Still, I'd probably have to consider the nature of the conflict before deciding whether to go to war or to flee (who is at fault for the war? Will the war end? etc.)

I am 16, and am already going to enlist in the Marine Corps whenever I turn 17. So, yes, I am signing up regardless.

You should reconsider. Yes, military service can be beneficial in some aspects, but just deciding to sign your life away at 17 (and I'd assume drop out of High School) will probably do more bad than good. I'd say go to college, get a degree, and then join as an officer if you still feel like making the commitment. After all, I'm gonna assume being a 2nd Lieutenant is better than a Private.

 

[iLeikCheese]

I am 16, and am already going to enlist in the Marine Corps whenever I turn 17. So, yes, I am signing up regardless.

You should reconsider. Yes, military service can be beneficial in some aspects, but just deciding to sign your life away at 17 (and I'd assume drop out of High School) will probably do more bad than good. I'd say go to college, get a degree, and then join as an officer if you still feel like making the commitment. After all, I'm gonna assume being a 2nd Lieutenant is better than a Private.

Signing up at 17 still requires you to the finish high school, basically just getting you out and into boot as quickly as possible.

BTW, I have put in 3 years into JROTC so I will be an E2 (Private First Class) whenever I join. Not an officer, but still a bit if an increase in pay and when you factor in base pay, food allowance, uniform and uniform replacement allowances, etc. there is not many expenses I will have to pay for.

 

[Emperor]

Sing up to defend my country? I don't know, patriotism, kissing the flag, dying for the country and other stuff are in a state of decadence here in Brazil.

I mean, the country is so deep in shit, we are breaking apart. There is corruption everywhere, in the land ( Mensalão) in the sea ( Petrolão) and sometimes in the air ( there some cases of corruption). Our leader can't handle shit, she is weak, uncharacteristic, messy, can't seem to be able to do something right and her ministers ( most) can't do jack, hell, one of them even said that the protests that are happening here were orchestrated by the CIA! Well, our current government is basically that phase ''It's his/her fault, not ours''.
Criminality is rising everywhere, murder is starting to get common, like stealing is. IIRC this week, in my city, 3-5 people were already murdered. Everyday, you get up and you only hear bad news, someone were killed, new cases of corruption, taxes and inflation are rising, education and health had their budget in half again. Of course there is still some good things but the amount of shit is so huge that it completely covers it and it keeps getting bigger! That's why we are having protests since last year, although it's not working, hell ( again), people are so desperate that some are even asking to the military dictatorship to come back. Oh, there is also the Impeachment group, who is starting to get bigger but the worst thing is, that the next in line of power is even worst! We need to wait 4 years of bad management and crisis to have a better option ( The guy who we want is not a good person either but he is better and less of shit than our current president, and it's firm, strong and charismatic. Shame that he lost by 3% IIRC of winning the last election)

There is practically no love for Brazil at it's current state, we only love and dream of that future that Brazil was promised to be, but like everything in the world Brazil is exception. We are the country of the future for quite some time and that future is not getting closer, only drifting away. If WW3 starts, we are probably already collapsed or soon it will.

I don't love Brazil for what it is today, I love the potential that Brazil have, the chance that it have to be something greater than it is but my relationship with it is complicated, sometimes I want to leave but sometimes I want to stay and change something. It's a love and hate relationship. So I guess I will only do some war effort ( not singing up) if it is the Brazil who managed to accomplish it's potential.

 

[Nas92]

snip

I upvoted your post, mainly because I have a certain fondness for the Polish fighting spirit (being Hungarian and having studied some Polish language and culture I know some Polish history). However, I would also say, correct me if I'm wrong, that you probably suffer from the same condition many people, including myself, suffer from: an inability to comprehend the disgusting brutality of war, and the finality of death. Even though I've read a ton of literature on what a war really looks like, I'm still affected by bs propaganda - sometimes it even springs out of my own mind - that paints war as people standing upright shouting colorful, eloquent speeches at each other, trying to persuade the other why their side is better. Then one of them shoots the other, and before dying they recite a whole another speech, either cursing the enemy or "repenting." And of course the general theme of "our side is wholly good, the other side is cackling evul" affects me too, as much as I try to fight it. Makes me sick just to think of it, but I think in one of those weak moments I would sign some paper within a heartbeat and then shit myself when coming back to my senses. Fortunately, I don't think I'm fit enough to even be considered for the army, but who knows.

 

[JohnnyEgo]

I am 16, and am already going to enlist in the Marine Corps whenever I turn 17. So, yes, I am signing up regardless.

You should reconsider. Yes, military service can be beneficial in some aspects, but just deciding to sign your life away at 17 (and I'd assume drop out of High School) will probably do more bad than good. I'd say go to college, get a degree, and then join as an officer if you still feel like making the commitment. After all, I'm gonna assume being a 2nd Lieutenant is better than a Private.

Signing up at 17 still requires you to the finish high school, basically just getting you out and into boot as quickly as possible.

BTW, I have put in 3 years into JROTC so I will be an E2 (Private First Class) whenever I join. Not an officer, but still a bit if an increase in pay and when you factor in base pay, food allowance, uniform and uniform replacement allowances, etc. there is not many expenses I will have to pay for.

Good on you for choosing to serve. Most of the folks on here have a different perspective based on history and culture. They are entitled to their opinions, but you shouldn't let them determine the course of your life, or for that matter, me or anyone else. I enlisted at the age of 17, and came in as an E3 because of my rate. My particular rate promoted fast, so I was an E4 coming out of my rate school, and an E5 not too long after that. The plus side of enlistment is that you have the ultimate social safety net; three hots and a cot regardless of whether you can make rent. The bad news is you won't have very much money at all. Then again, at your age, all I needed was enough to take a girl on a date.

Remember, too, that boot is not about keeping you in, but about removing those who would not be a good fit to serve. So if you really want to be there, you will be just fine. I'm comfortably more than twice your age, and military service was very good for me. It gave me some technical knowledge, a new way to view the world, and a better understanding of my physical and mental limits. After my service, it paid for my degrees, and later still, I used a VA loan to buy my house. Made some life-long friends, saw the world, and had experiences both good and bad, but I am a better person for them. Should you choose to pursue a similar path, I hope it works out just as well for you.

**

As to the original topic, I suppose much would depend on circumstances. I'm getting a little long-in-the-tooth to return to military service in my country. That being said, if I thought the health, safety, and liberty of my family were at stake, I can still shoulder a rifle pretty well. I also have degrees in electrical engineering and computer science, so perhaps there would be more chairbourne ways for me to serve. Regardless, I'm long past making any definitive declarations in life. Too much just depends on the circumstances.

 

[Tagaziel]

I upvoted your post, mainly because I have a certain fondness for the Polish fighting spirit (being Hungarian and having studied some Polish language and culture I know some Polish history). However, I would also say, correct me if I'm wrong, that you probably suffer from the same condition many people, including myself, suffer from: an inability to comprehend the disgusting brutality of war, and the finality of death. Even though I've read a ton of literature on what a war really looks like, I'm still affected by bs propaganda - sometimes it even springs out of my own mind - that paints war as people standing upright shouting colorful, eloquent speeches at each other, trying to persuade the other why their side is better. Then one of them shoots the other, and before dying they recite a whole another speech, either cursing the enemy or "repenting." And of course the general theme of "our side is wholly good, the other side is cackling evul" affects me too, as much as I try to fight it. Makes me sick just to think of it, but I think in one of those weak moments I would sign some paper within a heartbeat and then shit myself when coming back to my senses. Fortunately, I don't think I'm fit enough to even be considered for the army, but who knows.

Short of actually participating in a military conflict, I'd say I do comprehend how brutal war is and how final death is. My grandfather was a lieutenant colonel of the People's Polish Army, my mother's a medical doctor, my father's a lawyer, and a combination of these factors has given me ready access to stuff most people don't. And, getting to study certain cases my father took has exposed me to the inhumanity of man in a far more... Effective way than merely reading clinical digests. We're talking infanticide of the most horrid degree, something that left my wife (then fiancee, also a law grad like me) repeating "what in the fuck" while reading it.

War is brutal and horrifying, but sometimes it's the only way to protect what you believe in. Weak as we are, when your country is threatened, fighting or supporting those who fight might just be the only solution to avoid others dictating how you should live your life. A choice between a life of servitude or a life of trying to avoid it.

I'm not saying I wouldn't experience fear, I'd probably shit myself the first time under fire, as with everyone else in the unit, or experience a panic attack. Mastering that fear and learning to cope with it would became the first order of business. And then clinging to life for as long as you can, killing as much of the opposite number as you can. Would they come back to haunt me? Probably yes.

In doubt, I like to remind myself of the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1921. A nation that barely regained its independence is forced to fight for its very existence. If we did not decide to fight, against all odds, we'd perish.

Food for thought.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Mhmm. A difficult topic for sure, but I don't believe that war ever solved really a problem though. All it did was giving one side the oportunity to solve their issues on the expense of another side.

 

[TheChosen1]

Since I live in New Zealand, that's a nope.

Spoiler

I'd rather not fight WWIII with an air force of a whooping 6 planes

 

[Walpknut]

Military conflict never solved anything, it just causes more and more problems, if even if you "win".

But then again, if people want to go die and kill for their politician's interests is their own goddamn business.

 

[Yamu]

Let's not be too absolutist, now-- military conflict has solved plenty of things, most notably the problem of how you survive when someone else is sending their military at you. Armies necessitate armies. It's the ugliest kind of circular justification, but since human history (and human psychology) is chock-full-o-xenophobia, selfishness, bloodlust, and the like, it's still a valid point.

Unfortunately, self-determinism, also, sometimes necessitates that you be able to meet with force those who would deny it to you. The stars aligned just right for Gandhi and for many of the Arab Spring uprisings, but 1760s America and 1950s Cuba are more typical examples of what a people has to do to get a particularly heavy boot off their neck. I consider myself a dyed-in-the-wool pacifist, but I have to acknowledge the fact that you can't generally guilt an oppressor into ceasing to exploit you, and it's not always possible to twist their arm through nonviolent means in practicality. Even the push for Civil Rights in the U.S. and the end of apartheid in South Africa, widely lauded as prime examples of peaceful revolution, were secured to some degree by the cestus as well as the olive branch, against a backdrop of increasingly armed and organized black activist communities and more civil agitation than you could shake a fat southern sheriff's nightstick at. It was, in considerable part, those governments' fears of eventual widespread violent unrest costing them control that caused them to give in.

It's easy enough for us to analyze situations with the hindsight afforded by history and say militant conflict is never necessary, and in fact, it's usually true. But making that a policy in practice in the real world, where political and material self-interest remains the primary driving force of statecraft, amounts to telling those with no pull on the global stage (say, because their oppressors/invaders happen to be, or be allied with, a superpower) that they'll probably be able to maneuver themselves into a better situation if they just grin and bear it for six or seven generations.

Now, is it right to take it upon yourself to throw down for someone else if they don't seem capable of doing it themselves? That's a more situational question, and the default answer is "there's every chance you're just going to make things worse." It's certainly not always wrong, though-- see Axis v. Allies, 1939. War should always be a last resort against real evils such as genocide, never a tool of the amoral modern state, but it remains that there are problems you can't shame, shun, or sanction away.

tl;dr: Military conflict is going to be a periodic inevitability unless humanity somehow manages to achieve universal enlightenment or dies. It's never a good thing, but occasionally, it beats the alternative. We could sure as hell be doing better as a species to avoid it, and world peace should always be the ideal, but barring the completely fantastic (post-scarcity technology, collective ascension of the species, divine intervention, etc.), it'll always remain a tightrope to be walked rather than a destination we can actually reach.

 

[Tagaziel]

Military conflict never solved anything,

It certainly stopped the Holocaust from becoming even worse, prevented the USSR from conquering Europe twice (1920 and 1941), restored Poznań and returned it and Greater Poland to Poland... I mean, these are three big examples off the top of my head.

 

[Akratus]

Yes. I am extremely qualified. I have uncounted hours of training in missile defence surface to air missile control simulations.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Military conflict never solved anything,

It certainly stopped the Holocaust from becoming even worse, prevented the USSR from conquering Europe twice (1920 and 1941), restored Poznań and returned it and Greater Poland to Poland... I mean, these are three big examples off the top of my head.

And you could argue that WW2 - and the holocaust, have been a direct result from the outcome of WW1, it's not rare that some historians see WW2 just as WW1 with a long brake inbetween.

The thing is, even if you name examples like Poland or Germany from WW2, what wars usually do is that they always leave one side as looser. Always. There can't be two winners in war. One side dominates the other one. And this leads to issues in the long run.

If you want real solutions that work even after decades than they have to be made with diplomacy, with common goals and interests. Like the European Union. The fact that Germany was needed after WW2 because of the Soviets made sure that Europe would face a time of stability and peace. Germany, France, Britain etc. had common goals and interests outside of their typical rivalry. Nuclear weapons changed the face of future conflicts. And luckily a few individuals like Churchill thought that they should not repeat something like Versailles.

I understand that extreme situations are very complicated and I definitely support the idea that people and nations should always have the right to defend them self from any aggression on their territory, though we should never forget that looser never forget, that's simply how it goes, I learned that lesson from the Yugoslavian Civil War. When ever a side is facing humiliation or a defeat, they will remember it. There have been more examples where "war" or "violence" has just lead to even more violence. Like the middle east. Syria, Libya, Iraq, the list is pretty much endless. Nations are not personalities or like individuals and nations should be capable to forgive. Otherwise you just end up in the same old stupid cycle that we experience pretty much for the last 10 000 years. Wars have never pushed humanity further as a species. Even the idea that wars lead to many new inventions is actually a fallacy, while there are very often new inventions in war they usually serve only the conflict, it requires huge resources which could be spend somewhere else.

It is very questionable if war has ever solved issues in the long run. I mean we all sometimes feel the need for revenge. And no one wants to be the looser. But I believe there are simply way to many examples where wars and conflicts have not solved anything. And using maybe one or two situations where actually improved the situation, maybe, which is also questionable, is not enough reasons to keep the idea as whole.

It's simply a pointless game.

 

[Walpknut]

Man, even nowadays people still believe WW2 was a cinematic narrative of good vs evil and that the Nazis just sprouted from the ground. Kind of sad really.