Considering Joining the Military

Ravioli said:
There's a sea tide between people who put in their 4 or 6 and those who choose to serve. I have never been in the military. My family members who have served did 20+ years each.

I'll need to look it up, but there was a Commandant of the Marine Corp who famously said something to the effect of don't join the Marines for college money.
Click to expand...
Either way, you go to basic, then go train for your career and then work your career in the military is serving. That's almost like saying that people in the national guard aren't really serving their country when they are. Everyone who enlists provide some sort of service to their country and I personally don't believe it's based on years served.

I thank your family for their service, and that isn't shocking coming from someone in the Marines. The last I checked they are on the bottom of the list when it comes to benefits, bonuses and so on.

Either way, people choose to serve for all sorts of reasons whether it be for the benefits, family, honor or simply the call. Each individual that serves gets my thanks no matter the reason they did it.
 
Last edited:
RJM62 said:
Finishing a BA/BS/BSAST in the service would be easy and nearly free. Research DANTES.

Many fine, accredited colleges work closely with the military to enable service members to complete their degrees at little or no cost, and usually with little or no on-campus attendance required. Practically every course the military teaches has been evaluated by ACE for credit. I received 9 credits just for basic training, and about 30 additional credits for various other courses I took, qualifications I earned, or DANTES tests I passed.

Between your Associates, military courses, and filling in the gaps with DANTES exams, you probably can complete a BS or BSAST without taking any classes at all, at little cost, and without touching your VA benefits. For a BA, you might have to take some upper-division liberal arts courses.

Rich
Click to expand...
That sounds absolutely fantastic. Thanks for the information.
 
Velocity173 said:
From what I’ve read, the old 20 year pension system pays out more than the BRS if one lives to the average life expectancy age. I saw the writing on the wall reading a Stars and Stripes article in Afghanistan in 2010. A Senator made the comment that the military has a retirement plan in place that allows an 18 year old to retire at 38 and get paid 50 % of their base pay for life. The new retirement plan is all about saving tax payer money plan and simple.
Click to expand...

I agree. They didn't do it to provide a better benefit. That isn't something the military ever does, as you, I, or anyone has seen countless times. One could argue that it *does* provide something for a guy/gal who doesn't stick around to 20+. That is some value added for those folks. I was at 10 years active service when the policy went into effect, and had a year to decide if I wanted to retain High 3 or go BRS. I chose to keep high 3 because I knew I was quitting and going to do reserves to retirement (and the HYT for my rank assured I'd get to 20 at least). In my situation, the switch to BRS wouldn't have made any sense. I think you could argue the merit of both depending on your situation, but I agree, if you live a long life and make it to 20 or better, H3 is by far the better option.
 
While there are some practical benefits, and leaving aside the issue of the risks in the event of seeing combat, a serious question to consider is the following - do you want to be signed up to follow orders to fight the kind of wars overseas which the US is largely involved in? And to follow the orders of who ever gets elected to the White House in the present climate? Because that is what signing up with them now involves.
 
35 AoA said:
To be fair, that is what it always involved, unless something in your statement is going flying over my head :)
Click to expand...

Basically, that once you're in, you're in. You don't get to choose the wars you fight. For the term of your contract (or possibly longer), you'll be sworn to "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over [you]". So it would be prudent to consider current geopolitical factors and the likely military implications of same, and be satisfied that you could serve in good conscience in those potential conflicts, before signing up.

That's probably one area in which your maturity gives you an edge over the more-typical pimple-faced teens who apply.

Rich
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
While there are some practical benefits, and leaving aside the issue of the risks in the event of seeing combat, a serious question to consider is the following - do you want to be signed up to follow orders to fight the kind of wars overseas which the US is largely involved in? And to follow the orders of who ever gets elected to the White House in the present climate? Because that is what signing up with them now involves.
Click to expand...
Yes.
That's the best answer I can give without going political.
 
RJM62 said:
Basically, that once you're in, you're in. You don't get to choose the wars you fight. For the term of your contract (or possibly longer), you'll be sworn to "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over [you]". So it would be prudent to consider current geopolitical factors and the likely military implications of same, and be satisfied that you could serve in good conscience in those potential conflicts, before signing up.
Click to expand...

Sure, I meant that everything you just said would have applied just as much 50 years ago to someone considering joining the Armed Forces as it would today. Some of the specific concerns might be different of course, but nothing has changed with respect to anything you mentioned. My original question was exactly that......how is now different in that respect? I.e wouldn't that have always been sage advice?
 
35 AoA said:
Sure, I meant that everything you just said would have applied just as much 50 years ago to someone considering joining the Armed Forces as it would today. Some of the specific concerns might be different of course, but nothing has changed with respect to anything you mentioned. My original question was exactly that......how is now different in that respect? I.e wouldn't that have always been sage advice?
Click to expand...

Sure.
 
35 AoA said:
Sure, I meant that everything you just said would have applied just as much 50 years ago to someone considering joining the Armed Forces as it would today. Some of the specific concerns might be different of course, but nothing has changed with respect to anything you mentioned. My original question was exactly that......how is now different in that respect? I.e wouldn't that have always been sage advice?
Click to expand...

Yes, it has been a long time since people signed on for the duration of a specific conflict. I agree with @RJM62 that the nature of the conflicts has changed considerably and one would be well advised to be sure you can in good conscience fight in the type of conflicts the US presently engages in prior to joining.

At least with an all volunteer force people can make that choice, versus the draft we had from the Civil War until after Vietnam. A lot of those fighting in those conflicts did not choose to go freely.
 
My vote is: Not Recommended.

Join the service because you want to serve. Put another way, would you do this exact same thing right now today at your age if you did not have a flying agenda?

If the answer is yes....really??? Then join and serve!

If you are honest with yourself and the answer is no, augment your already decent paying IT job (which you are trained for) and just get any part time job. You'll probably earn more money on the side job than you will as a E1..E3. Plus you can flight train right away. What if all 4yrs are in a location you can't fly? Worse yet, if you get injured during the service flying might become a distant dream but you still have to finish the enlistment.

If your IT training has a college degree. Can you join the National Guard as an officer?

I went Navy, Subs 4yrs.

Regarding being a diver, after 4yrs I'm not sure if you'd be diving or just completing tending topside. For warm water I was seeing younger divers once in awhile for security. But the guys in Kirby Morgans seemed to be of higher ratings than you'd make in 4yrs. But it's been awhile so maybe that has all changed.
 
The guy’s talking about going cyber security. He’s not exactly going to be jumping out of a C-17 with a computer on his back to go fight ISIS. Just because someone takes the oath of enlistment doesn’t mean they’ll be involved in some questionable war that might be in conflict with one’s conscious either.

As far as wanting to serve or just using the military to your benefit, it’s still service. You don’t have to be some flag waving patriot to serve. Just do your job, follow orders, fulfill your obligation and get an honorable discharge. You served.
 
Velocity173 said:
Just because someone takes the oath of enlistment doesn’t mean they’ll be involved in some questionable war that might be in conflict with one’s conscious either.
.
Click to expand...

I guess I don’t fully understand this. Do you just mean that the wars which get started and you are ordered to fight in might not violate your conscience? Or that there is some way once you have signed up to not fight in the war because you conclude it violates your conscience?

My understanding is you can refuse what you conclude is an illegal order, but short of that, you have to obey them or will be court martialled (or I guess even shot if in the heat of battle).
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
I guess I don’t fully understand this. Do you just mean that the wars which get started and you are ordered to fight in might not violate your conscience? Or that there is some way once you have signed up to not fight in the war because you conclude it violates your conscience?

My understanding is you can refuse what you conclude is an illegal order, but short of that, you have to obey them or will be court martialled (or I guess even shot if in the heat of battle).
Click to expand...

Well you have combat jobs (MOS) and ones that don’t involve combat. While one might take the oath of enlistment, they might very well be in a job that doesn’t involve direct action against the enemy.

In short, I was in a combat arms branch (infantry, armor, artillery, aviation) of the Army. Therefore I had a reasonable chance of having to decide of a course of action against an enemy engagement. The guy sitting behind a desk at Bagram Air Base, while still important, doesn’t have that same burden.
 
22 years with half full time and half in the Guard but always on the Abrams tank. 2 tours in Iraq (04-05 and 08-09), Germany rotation, Kuwait and various other locations. The military isn't for everyone but I would never discourage anyone from serving. Best of luck!
 
Velocity173 said:
Well you have combat jobs (MOS) and ones that don’t involve combat. While one might take the oath of enlistment, they might very well be in a job that doesn’t involve direct action against the enemy.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. Of course, some might also object to taking even indirect action to facilitate a particular war. Cheers.
 
Velocity173 said:
Well you have combat jobs (MOS) and ones that don’t involve combat. While one might take the oath of enlistment, they might very well be in a job that doesn’t involve direct action against the enemy.

In short, I was in a combat arms branch (infantry, armor, artillery, aviation) of the Army. Therefore I had a reasonable chance of having to decide of a course of action against an enemy engagement. The guy sitting behind a desk at Bagram Air Base, while still important, doesn’t have that same burden.
Click to expand...

Well... Some conscientious objectors would argue that any role that supports the military's objective is combat service. Some CO's consider even CO medics to be combatants because the combatants whose lives they save will go on to fight again. I happen not to believe any of that, but I can understand the bases of their argument.

For my part, St. Augustine's jus bellum justum doctrine best sums up my own convictions.

Rich
 
RJM62 said:
Well... Some conscientious objectors would argue that any role that supports the military's objective is combat service. Some CO's consider even CO medics to be combatants because the combatants whose lives they save will go on to fight again. I happen not to believe any of that, but I can understand the bases of their argument.

For my part, St. Augustine's jus bellum justum doctrine best sums up my own convictions.

Rich
Click to expand...

Sure, if they’re a conscientious objector then they shouldn’t join the military then. Obviously the OP isn’t an CO, so it’s a moot point.
 
Velocity173 said:
Sure, if they’re a conscientious objector then they shouldn’t join the military then. Obviously the OP isn’t an CO, so it’s a moot point.
Click to expand...

It’s a good point about a CO in general would not want to join. I am not sure it is completely moot, at least for others. Some might not object to fighting in a war like WW2 where the the US was directly attacked, but would object to fighting in Iraq, for example. That was sort of the point of my original post. You don’t get to choose the war once you sign up for the term.

But clearly the OP does not have conscientious objections in any case.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
It’s a good point about a CO in general would not want to join. I am not sure it is completely moot, at least for others. Some might not object to fighting in a war like WW2 where the the US was directly attacked, but would object to fighting in Iraq, for example. That was sort of the point of my original post. You don’t get to choose the war once you sign up for the term.

But clearly the OP does not have conscientious objections in any case.
Click to expand...

Well I guess it all depends on how far you take the CO role. To me, “directly fighting” is just that. The person responsible for actions against the enemy. Those not involved with that should have a clear conscious.

Take @35 AoA for example. You gonna link his actions to the COAC at Qatar that assigns his mission? The “red shirt” that loaded his ordnance?. How about the cook working on the carrier that cooked his breakfast before his mission? Where do you draw the line on the limit of responsibility?

Also, we’ve been fighting wars for a long time that have nothing to do with direct protection of American soil or even remotely related to “support and defend the Constitution...” Forget the past 50 years. More like 200 years of conflicts on foreign soil.
 
Velocity173 said:
Well I guess it all depends on how far you take the CO role. To me, “directly fighting” is just that. The person responsible for actions against the enemy. Those not involved with that should have a clear conscious.

Take @35 AoA for example. You gonna link his actions to the COAC at Qatar that assigns his mission? The “red shirt” that loaded his ordnance?. How about the cook working on the carrier that cooked his breakfast before his mission? Where do you draw the line on the limit of responsibility?

Also, we’ve been fighting wars for a long time that have nothing to do with direct protection of American soil or even remotely related to “support and defend the Constitution...” Forget the past 50 years. More like 200 years of conflicts on foreign soil.
Click to expand...

Starting to veer onto politics and away from aviation, so I will simply state my view and leave it at that lest I get reprimanded. I understand you will likely disagree. We can discuss it in another forum or via PM further if you like.

I agree that the level of responsibility is more diffused for those further away from the battlefield. But I think COs can make an argument there is some there. I think anything voluntarily and knowingly done to aid the war effort bears some level of responsibility. Paying taxes is not necessarily voluntarily done so would not count.

I agreed that the US has been fighting wars for most of its existence and many having only an indirect connection to the protection of lives of people living in the US. I will put my view of those this way - I would not have chosen to fight in or support any of them.
 
smv said:
Aside from the GI Bill aspect... After doing 20 years and 8 days (but who is counting?) in the Navy as a peon enlisted puke, if I had it all over to do again, I would choose either the Air Force or the Coast Guard.
Click to expand...

Back in the late 1970s when I worked for (not in) the Navy I had a job where we did work for the Coast Guard and the Marines, in addition to the Navy. I had one job on Kodiak for the Coast Guard where all the enlisted from E-5 and up were ex-Navy, doing the same job as they had done in the Navy. They, to a man, thought the Coast Guard was fantastic. Same job, 1/2 the BS.

We got an example of what they were talking about while doing a TEMPEST survey of the (then) brand new receiver site for the CG CommSta. There were operator positions around a large bay where the watch commander could patch into any individual position. It being brand new, the district commander (Rear Admiral) came around for an inspection while we were there. We were troubleshooting a low level teletype and asked if the ET that was helping us could be excused from the festivities while we worked. If this had been the Navy, we would have been laughed at. The CG said, "OK". In preparation for the inspection the Coasties cleaned the place up. It never would have passed a Navy white glove inspection, but it was presentable. The admiral came and inspected all the operator positions. When he got to us, that's when we lost less than 5 minutes. He asked what we were doing, we told him and he said to carry on and went on with his inspection. I could see immediately why the senior enlisted types loved the Coast Guard.

I don't know if anything has changed (that was over 40 years ago), but based on that I would recommend the Coast Guard. I've seen all 5 branches and the Coasties were the happiest campers of the bunch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top