Do we really have enough men/women in the military?

[Anonymous]

Actually, all the branches hit their recruiting targets. The real problem in the military is that there too many officers at present. Which is why ROTC scholarships are so difficult to obtain right now. There's a glut of lieutenants.

If the US reinstates a draft, it means it's the end times and you should all hide. Until then, it's not happening. The US does just fine having a professional military.

[Anonymous]

No, there are a lot of feds and contractors who have replaced active duty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually, all the branches hit their recruiting targets. The real problem in the military is that there too many officers at present. Which is why ROTC scholarships are so difficult to obtain right now. There's a glut of lieutenants.

If the US reinstates a draft, it means it's the end times and you should all hide. Until then, it's not happening. The US does just fine having a professional military.

Not really but common sense is to go in as an officer vs enlisted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have homeless vets. We have vets with such severe PTSD that their families are afraid of them and they can't work. The VA can't care for all their vets. I think we should fix those problems before we create more future vets.

Some of them had service related, some preexisting.

[Anonymous]

I guess it depends on our commander in chief:

If he follows through on his election claims to bring World Peace, then we’ve got more than enough and he might finally get his Nobel.

If his Department of War decides to invade Canada, Greenland, and Panama, we’ll need a draft.

If he decides to start WWIII and pushes his nuclear button, Russia and China will retaliate by pushing their buttons, and then the question will be moot.

[Anonymous]

Well, Hegseth has a plan in place to get rid of substantial numbers of Black men in the military — for what is essentially an easily treated medical condition. Hegseth will be firing them because — with light beards, grown out to treat painful and disfiguring razor bumps — they won’t conform to the image that Hegseth wants the US military to set.


https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/06/27/new-army-shaving-policy-will-allow-soldiers-skin-condition-affects-mostly-black-men-be-kicked-out.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If we had another world war, I question whether it would involve a lot of ground troops.

I think the bigger question is if we have enough drone pilots or warhead maintenance engineers or whatever.

The US has facilitated Ukraine staying in this war with Russia primarily through giving them technology and heavy weaponry that makes it easier to fight with a smaller force. Meanwhile Russia is bribing people to join the military with huge bonuses (or getting help from North Korea). The reason Russians are tolerating this war so well, other than the fact that Putin will jail them or kill them if they vocally oppose it, is that Russians don't perceive the loss of life as tragic because most of the soldiers signed up in exchange for big cash bonuses to them and their families. So they've created a kind of mercenary military and the view of other Russians is "oh well that's what they signed up for."

Putin is using the illiterate, poor, rural, ethnic minorities as cannon fodder, that's why the Russian people are tolerating the war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now a days, seems like a lot of people don't want to work. The military don't attract people like they use to; seems like kids would rather sell drugs or do crime. If we were to be in WWIII, I worry we would not be prepared and have enough manpower.

With 40% obesity rates, tons of mental illnesses, and illiteracy most people don’t qualify if they wanted to.

So yes, we have a problem if China, Russia, No Korea, Iran all went nuts at the same time.

[Anonymous]

At this point in time enlisting to work for team coup Anti American hell no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If we had another world war, I question whether it would involve a lot of ground troops.

I think the bigger question is if we have enough drone pilots or warhead maintenance engineers or whatever.

The US has facilitated Ukraine staying in this war with Russia primarily through giving them technology and heavy weaponry that makes it easier to fight with a smaller force. Meanwhile Russia is bribing people to join the military with huge bonuses (or getting help from North Korea). The reason Russians are tolerating this war so well, other than the fact that Putin will jail them or kill them if they vocally oppose it, is that Russians don't perceive the loss of life as tragic because most of the soldiers signed up in exchange for big cash bonuses to them and their families. So they've created a kind of mercenary military and the view of other Russians is "oh well that's what they signed up for."

Video gaming prepares individuals to be drone pilots.

Is Russia still getting troops from North Korea ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess it depends on our commander in chief:

If he follows through on his election claims to bring World Peace, then we’ve got more than enough and he might finally get his Nobel.

If his Department of War decides to invade Canada, Greenland, and Panama, we’ll need a draft.

If he decides to start WWIII and pushes his nuclear button, Russia and China will retaliate by pushing their buttons, and then the question will be moot.

Taking over Greenland would not necessitate a draft. The total population of massive Greenland is about 60,000--many of whom are older and unlikely to engage as soldiers in battle.

Greenland's leaders have made clear that more US military bases would be welcome in Greenland. Why isn't the President taking action to do so for this strategically important location ?

[Anonymous]

Most likely serious military action by the US would be to invade Venezuela, and this would not require a draft.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess it depends on our commander in chief:

If he follows through on his election claims to bring World Peace, then we’ve got more than enough and he might finally get his Nobel.

If his Department of War decides to invade Canada, Greenland, and Panama, we’ll need a draft.

If he decides to start WWIII and pushes his nuclear button, Russia and China will retaliate by pushing their buttons, and then the question will be moot.

Taking over Greenland would not necessitate a draft. The total population of massive Greenland is about 60,000--many of whom are older and unlikely to engage as soldiers in battle.

Greenland's leaders have made clear that more US military bases would be welcome in Greenland. Why isn't the President taking action to do so for this strategically important location ?

Most Greenlanders voted to join the US as a "territory" not a state. So that should be done first, to help ease the red tape of the base building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess it depends on our commander in chief:

If he follows through on his election claims to bring World Peace, then we’ve got more than enough and he might finally get his Nobel.

If his Department of War decides to invade Canada, Greenland, and Panama, we’ll need a draft.

If he decides to start WWIII and pushes his nuclear button, Russia and China will retaliate by pushing their buttons, and then the question will be moot.

Taking over Greenland would not necessitate a draft. The total population of massive Greenland is about 60,000--many of whom are older and unlikely to engage as soldiers in battle.

Greenland's leaders have made clear that more US military bases would be welcome in Greenland. Why isn't the President taking action to do so for this strategically important location ?

Pp you responded to

Greenland has long been a friendly, cooperative ally. If Trump had asked to expand the base we already have in Greenland, and/or increase their number, I think it would have probably been relatively easy (in terms international relations, with each party having their own bureaucracies and interests) arrange.

On the other hand, a country who gas been threatened with forcible annexation, might not welcome increased military presence in their country by the country that is threatening them.

Sure, we could easily conquer Greenland. We could send in land troops, an army of drones, etc. However, Greenland is not fully independent, but part of Denmark. Granted, we could conquer Denmark, as well, but it is part of NATO, which means that the rest of NATO would be committed to coming to the defense of Denmark (including NATO).

In a war against Panama, Canada, and the rest of the NATO alliance, I think we might need a draft.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess it depends on our commander in chief:

If he follows through on his election claims to bring World Peace, then we’ve got more than enough and he might finally get his Nobel.

If his Department of War decides to invade Canada, Greenland, and Panama, we’ll need a draft.

If he decides to start WWIII and pushes his nuclear button, Russia and China will retaliate by pushing their buttons, and then the question will be moot.

"world peace" Trump is full on a Russian asset. There will be no world peace.