If Trump increases the military size...

So this is something I was thinking about again since it came up recently. Trump wants to increase the size of the military. When we had the increases in enlistment during the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, the military couldn't meet their quotas and started dropping the requirements. A lot of those who filled out the requirements ended up being gang members.

There's actually a big problem right now with gangs in the military, and a secondary problem where the original wave of gang members are now getting out, going back to their gangs, and teaching the gangs military tactics to use against the police. In addition to using their military connections to score access to better weapons.

If we have a plan to increase the size of the military... where are the people for this plan going to come from?

a reply to: Aazadan

Did he say increase the size or just strengthen?

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

According to this, increase to what the Chief of Army says he requires.
www.donaldjtrump.com...

Increase the size of the U.S. Army to 540,000 active duty soldiers, which the Army Chief of Staff says he needs to execute current missions.

Obama downsized the military. We have plenty of willing people. Many of them were forced out. Never heard of the gang thing. I retired recently and never encountered it or heard about it. As for access to better weapons that is almost impossible. They would have to steal weapons from the armory. I have never seen a weapon come up missing in 20 years. I guess it happens but they would turn the unit upside down, massive investigation. People would likely go to jail if it happened on their watch. Like I said, I have never seen it and I served in many combat units. Also cameras in all the armories so good luck with taking weapons.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Aazadan

Did he say increase the size or just strengthen?

They're the same thing. But he said increase the size. Basically he wants to add an additional 200,000 active duty troops, going from 340,000 (I think that's what we're at now atleast) to 540,000.

a reply to: Aazadan

I hate Trump with a passion but come on, man.

Millions of teenaged Americans turn 18 every year and our country's population is constantly growing. If the goal is to increase the size of the military, they'll find a way, be it through increased recruitment drives, better benefits, or whatever. And that doesn't include things like re-enlistments.

Not to mention, even if a lot of gang members did join the military, they're still citizens. If they want to serve in the military, they still have the right to do so.

originally posted by: LifeMode
Obama downsized the military. We have plenty of willing people. Many of them were forced out. Never heard of the gang thing. I retired recently and never encountered it or heard about it. As for access to better weapons that is almost impossible. They would have to steal weapons from the armory. I have never seen a weapon come up missing in 20 years. I guess it happens but they would turn the unit upside down, massive investigation. People would likely go to jail if it happened on their watch. Like I said, I have never seen it and I served in many combat units. Also cameras in all the armories so good luck with taking weapons.

If you're active duty military you can order certain weapons that are otherwise restricted to ordinary civilians. Certain weaponry, body armor, etc... can only be sold to law enforcement and military. Gangs are getting people into the military, and then getting that equipment.

Here's a paper for you to read on the gang issue. The army quietly admitted to it a couple years ago... this site is where I learned of it actually.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.businessinsider.com...

This is also something the police have been reporting for a few years now, that street gangs are becoming more and more militarized. It's a direct result of the lower standards we had when recruiting these people to make quotas in the first place.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Aazadan

I hate Trump with a passion but come on, man.

Millions of teenaged Americans turn 18 every year and our country's population is constantly growing. If the goal is to increase the size of the military, they'll find a way, be it through increased recruitment drives, better benefits, or whatever. And that doesn't include things like re-enlistments.

Not to mention, even if a lot of gang members did join the military, they're still citizens. If they want to serve in the military, they still have the right to do so.

The last time they tried, it ended in disaster. As it turns out, people don't like enlisting in the military during wartime. They enlist when the benefits are good and we're at peace.

a reply to: Aazadan

In 2008, FBI gang investigator Jennifer Simon stated that 1-2% of the U.S. military belongs to gangs

1-2% is nothing. Like I said, I was in 20 years never seen or heard about it. It's not a problem. Been in many units in many states.

The special weapons, still can''t order fully automatic or large machine guns. Those to me are special weapons. Maybe good body armor but that is not a weapon.

a reply to: Aazadan

I can accept that. But every new wave of citizens seems to hit a refresh button on stuff like that. How many 18 year olds even remember things like "The Surge" in Iraq? Or the Abu Ghraib atrocities? They were like 3yrs old when 9/11 happened and may not even know that some of their elders served in Desert Storm, much less in Vietnam.

originally posted by: LifeMode
In 2008, FBI gang investigator Jennifer Simon stated that 1-2% of the U.S. military belongs to gangs

1-2% is nothing. Like I said, I was in 20 years never seen or heard about it. It's not a problem. Been in many units in many states.

1-2% is a lot. What's the rate for gang membership among the general population? It's a lot lower than 1-2%.

It should be easy to increase the size of the US military without raising the budget. So much corruption and waste in the MiC

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Aazadan

I can accept that. But every new wave of citizens seems to hit a refresh button on stuff like that. How many 18 year olds even remember things like "The Surge" in Iraq? Or the Abu Ghraib atrocities? They were like 3yrs old when 9/11 happened and may not even know that some of their elders served in Desert Storm, much less in Vietnam.

Those aren't the questions to ask though, but the answer to them is that I doubt most have even heard about any of them (aside from 9/11) much less know details on them. What's going to happen with Trump though, is he wants to go in and take the oil from the Middle East. He doesn't want a large standing army to just not use it. He wants it because the military brass want to regain our WW2 capabilities of invading two nations at once. That way we can be involved in constant war, without losing the diplomatic leverage we hold when we threaten to invade someone.

Doing that is going to lead to more war, which will hurt recruitment numbers. The last time we tried this the Pentagon upped the enlistment age from 25 to 42 in order to fill ranks.

Is that really what we want to recruit into the military? And for that matter, what of the honest citizens? We have too many vets as it is, that need care and aren't getting it. Just look at the suicide rate, it's a mark of shame on the country. Can you honestly say we're ready to commit to enlisting people, using them, and then supporting them through life? I don't think we are.

a reply to: Aazadan

Only IF your COMMANDER signs for it, can you even STORE an NFA weapon and unless such weapons are part of JSOC 's mission. GOOD luck if you're a line dog to try to get a class 3.
Your commander might write you up for a psyche eval too.

a reply to: LifeMode

You are a voice of reason and experience in a sea of mindless babble.
Kudos!

War is a business. Trump is a business man.

Smart money is on the Halliburton's, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, etc. of the world.

Trump will fold to the neocons the minute he is sworn in just to become another pawn and traitor to the American electorate.

The military budget will skyrocket.

a reply to: Aazadan

Better, more precise weaponry (which every country is heading towards)...would make the need for more soldiers un-necessary. Bombing from a great or close distance. We even have weapons now that destroy living things leaving buildings, appliances etc...intact so the enemy can move right in and just clear away the bodies.

Remember at 1st in Iraq...the US was blowing things up as the Iraqi military was shooting up the skies overhead...but we werent even there. We either dropped the "shock and awe" overhead and split...or shot them there from a distance...we were gone and miles away already with our own advanced delivery systems.

I know we'll always need some ground troops of course...but advanced weaponry is already being used. Imagine in 5 years? Or sooner?

a reply to: Aazadan

I think we're having a misunderstanding here. I'm anti-war & believe that "supporting the troops" should include things like never sending them into unnecessary wars, never using them as pawns for other countries or for corporations, and making sure they're given the support they need right here so they can successfully reintegrate into society. In fact, I'd prefer we bring the vast majority of our troops home and replace most of our defense spending with domestic spending programs (like improved social services, single payer healthcare, a nationwide high speed rail network, a smart energy grid, etc). So I'm not disagreeing w/you from that angle.

I'm just objecting to the idea that they won't be able to recruit enough soldiers. To be blunt, there will always be new citizens who are willing to join the military. All it would take is a single new "terrorist" attack and the kneejerk bigots would enlist in droves, just as some of my former friends did after 9/11. We might not even need an attack; a simple rallying cry from Trump to wage a crusade against ISIS would probably do the trick. Remember, it took years in Iraq and Afghanistan for the enlistment numbers to start decreasing.

I was also objecting to the idea that gang members joining is a bad thing. If they want to serve their country, why stop them? It's not like no one else who joins the military has committed a crime before. Besides, I'm sure not going to sign up to be a soldier for Hillary or Trump. So if someone else wants to do it, more power to them.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

I believe some time ago he said blank check without oversight..something to that effect, we all know who will benefit.

Yup, he is soooo much different..same sh#t..different pile.

a reply to: Aazadan


Some or many even of these folks could come from student loan sufferers that are out of work or under employed. Say if they pull 4 years they get a good discount. Better than currently offered.