A scary idea

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Typically, an empire's greatest restriction on its wrongdoing and aggressive war has nothing to do with the wrongs done to others - those are easily masked with flowery words of how you are 'defending your nation' and such - but rather, the cost in casualties of your own nation's troops. There is no shortage of enemies, because the very nature and purpose of empire are the advantages from being in the limited group who benefits at the expense of another, so there will always be another group for that second-class role.

So, the trick is to reduce the number of your own casualties, and a time-tested method for this is to use mercenaries; whether paid, or preferably, cheap labor from conquered foes.

But here's an idea for the US: the Mexican mercenaries.

Consider the factors that now exist:

- Business has a huge need for the cheap labor.
- The US has a huge need for troops, both at all because we're stretched thin, but especially ones with a lower domestic political cost as casualties.
- We're unable to stop the flow of immigrants anyway.
- Right-wing political opposition to illegal immigrants disappears if the people have served the US in the armed forces.
- There is political pressure to be the party to open the doors to Mexicans and get their very important swing votes in gratitude.

The US could create some program where foreigners are invited to serve in the US military for a period in exchange for access to a guest worker or citizenship spot.

It could include English language training for a small cost compared to the benefits.

Problem solved - a huge supply of troops for our 'needs', little domestic political price for the casualties, the public feeling they 'earned' citizenship, and the 'cheap labor force'.

Food for thought. I think it's pretty appalling, but imaginable.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,839
2,625
136
Already being done, and has been done for a long time. Military service during time of war puts you on a fast track to citizenship.

After all, Dub watched Starship Troopers too.
 

slash196

Golden Member
Nov 1, 2004
1,549
0
76
We already outsource combat to mercenaries, "contractors" to use the vernacular. They, of course, are not beholden to any of the standards we hold our military to; not shooting civilians, for example. They operate outside of our jurisdiction. Not that we care what they're doing anyway.
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
I say we solve the whole situation by giving them military training and telling them to go back to Mexico and take their country back. (and the Gasden Purchase while they're at it, nothing there but desert anyway.)
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
I don't like foreigners being shipped into our military for one reason. If there is ever a civil war in this country, or some kind of necessary uprising of the people, I want those in uniform to be our brothers, fathers, and sisters, people with attachment to the citizens. Not some foreigner who could care less who he shoots/bombs/kills, as long as he is "following orders" and collecting a paycheck.
 

slash196

Golden Member
Nov 1, 2004
1,549
0
76
Originally posted by: bamacre
I don't like foreigners being shipped into our military for one reason. If there is ever a civil war in this country, or some kind of necessary uprising of the people, I want those in uniform to be our brothers, fathers, and sisters, people with attachment to the citizens. Not some foreigner who could care less who he shoots/bombs/kills, as long as he is "following orders" and collecting a paycheck.
That's a pretty huge "if". I understand your reasoning, but I don't think that's likely to happen. People are all pretty pacified by our current system, I (unfortunately) don't see any uprisings happening.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: slash196
Originally posted by: bamacre
I don't like foreigners being shipped into our military for one reason. If there is ever a civil war in this country, or some kind of necessary uprising of the people, I want those in uniform to be our brothers, fathers, and sisters, people with attachment to the citizens. Not some foreigner who could care less who he shoots/bombs/kills, as long as he is "following orders" and collecting a paycheck.
That's a pretty huge "if". I understand your reasoning, but I don't think that's likely to happen. People are all pretty pacified by our current system, I (unfortunately) don't see any uprisings happening.

Maybe not in the near future. But it is inevitable.
 

ahurtt

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2001
4,283
0
0
Why would they serve in the military when they can and do continue as they already do today and just keep sneaking in?
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
We don't need them.

What limits the armed services from recruiting more than they do is the caps they have on their numbers. Still, like Bush recently said in an interview. It would nice to add 10,000 more to the marines or army, but how are they going to pay for it? 1.2b for each 10k in troops added.


What I find most interesting is that the Democrats are proposing to get more people into uniform and spend much much more on technology. I seem to think the two are counter to each other. Wouldn't be a hoot to see defense spending skyrocket under demorcrats?

Considering public spending increased like gang busters under Bush it would mean that the difference between the parties comes down to mascot