Thank you for your thoughtful contribution. 
Supporting military action that you are able but not willing to participate in is extremely cowardly
It was merely a rhetorical tactic. I’m trying to shame iiandyii into stopping his support for the American war machine. Thought it’d be easy because supposedly he’s anti-war but I guess sacrificing that pension is too much to ask. Well, hopefully his shame campaign is more successful.
And I see iiandyiiii’s proposal as a rhetorical tactic as well.
Now, I am on record on my first post in this thread that I don’t think that this tactic will work. But, that’s my only objection to it. If I thought it would actually be effective in preventing us from building a public case for unnecessary wars, I’d endorse it.
The comparison to advocating for child sex is not off point. I’m not going to start a thread in GD “Should adults be allowed to have sex with 6 year olds?”, not only because I don’t actually want to discuss it, but because I would rightly be thought of in a rather bad way for even broaching the topic.
You can see the opposite effect with racism. Talking about racist views was just fine for quite some time, and it was prevalent. For a little while in more recent times, racists were shamed if they brought their racist views into the public sphere, and it did seem as though racism was on the decline. Now that it is no longer shameful (and that they have little shame), the public discussion of racist views is on the rise, as is racism itself.
I don’t see it catching on in the public sphere. In small groups or one on one, the idea can be used with effect. “We should go blow up those people and take their stuff.” “Are you prepared and willing to make any sacrifices towards this war effort?” This isn’t really public shaming, but it is a form of “shame”, but private. Having your ideals questioned in private, pointing out contradictions and asking them to puth their money where their mouth is, may have some effect. In public, people will have a harder time backing down and reconsidering their views.
As far as people being in the military, I’m fine with that. We do need a standing military, and I’d generally rather have people who are hesitant to use force against sovereign nations than those who are gung-ho to go kick some ass. Having a strong military actually means that we don’t need to use it. Carry a big stick and all that. Actually using it in unnecessary wars is the problem. Having it, and having people in it, is not.
I’ll add that the best targets for this tactic, IMO, are public figure chickenhawks like Trump, John Bolton, and others like them. Not necessarily from candidates for office, but from partisan attack-dog figures – I’d like to see a sustained rhetorical campaign of accusations of cowardice against these figures just like there was a sustained rhetorical campaign of accusations of corruption and dishonesty against Hillary Clinton. From radio, print media, TV talking heads, social media gurus, etc.
I believe your thought is contradicted by this line from the OP:
(My bolding)
My personal feelings about cowardice covers both necessary and unnecessary wars. My feelings about using this as a rhetorical tactic to influence policy is about the unnecessary wars. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make this clear if I haven’t before.
The U.S. military is designed to project power and be an interventionist force worldwide. Some would say that’s a good thing for the world order but it’s precisely this design that makes optional wars so tempting and easy to implement. If you are against optional wars, you should be against the structure of the U.S. military and I would think morally obliged not to aid its function. If the reserves were only called up for actual emergencies, rather than say occupying Iraq, then joining the reserves would be defensible. But that isn’t the case.
In short, being part of an organization that’s main function is projecting power worldwide is incompatible with an antiwar morality.
Downside of that is that those people are not really your description of able bodied men able to go to war.
You ask Bolton if he’ll pick up a rifle and go fight with the troops that he is sending, and he can rightly remind you that he’s an old man that would just get in the way.
"I would go fight, but my fighting days are past. " Even if he never had any fighting days in his past.
Ah, the ol’ “I couldn’t avoid the temptation” defense. Always a good idea to blame it on the ones who tempt you to sin, rather than the sinner.
Now, to be fair, I considered joining the military, as it was the only way I could see I could pay for college, but I ended up choosing not too, partly because I’m not a fan of authority figures, but also largely because I don’t want to ever have to kill someone, and joining the military seemed to be something that would increase the chances that I would have to kill someone.
But, that is where quite a bit of this “volunteer” army comes from. From people who see no options for advancement above flipping burgers.
Do you feel the same way about iiandyiiii drawing a paycheck from being a part of the military industrial complex as someone who works for GE or Boeing? How about a company that supplies parts to GE or Boening? What about the miners who mine the material that gets smelted and refined into parts that GE or Boening use to make weapons and weapon delivery systems?
It’s not a defense and I have no idea why you would think I was making a defense. I’m describing reality.
I have no problem with some kid joining the army to avoid flipping burgers. If he calls himself antiwar though, he’s full of shit.
Bolton and Trump are chickenhawks (and cowards) because of past actions, not because they don’t currently serve in the military, IMO.
I thought you seemed to be defending the advocates for war based on the idea that having people in the military “makes optional wars so tempting and easy to implement”. That having people in the military is the bigger problem than people advocating to send that military in to break things and kill people.
If that is not what you meant, I apologize for the miscommunication, but then I must admit that I am not able to grasp what it is that you meant.
I would agree that a pacifist joining the military for a college degree would be full of shit, but being anti-unnecessary-war doesn’t make you pacifist.
I can’t understand the confusion. The U.S. military is set up to quickly put damage anywhere in the world, thus it’s easy for a political faction with a bug up its ass to quickly start damaging something elsewhere in the world. Just like you’re more likely to wash sheets if you have a washing machine rather than having to do it by hand. If you thought people wash sheets too much and they are killing the environment, then maybe you shouldn’t work for Maytag?
Do you feel that the US nuclear stockpile works as a deterrent against nuclear war, or as a temptation into it?
Well, the US started the game rolling on nukes, so it is a little bit of whitewashing to describe it entirely as a deterrent driven strategy but sure, it was a deterrent. But the MAD theory behind the nuclear arsenal really has little to do with the strategy, scope and practice of American non-nuclear forces.
Whether it’s relevant or not, I do believe the US military should be significantly smaller.
Lol, yeah that’s relevant. You really think the military could be as big as it was if people like you actually stood by their principles? If everyone who thought “I want to defend my country but I don’t want to be in optional wars” merely waited for the country to be threatened before they joined the military, don’t you think that would have an effect?
If we hadn’t gotten the ball rolling on that, then someone would have, and I’m not upset that we were the first ones to play with them. I think that others may have used them even more responsibly.
But, as to MAD, it’s not exactly mutually assured destruction if we go to conventional war with another country, it’s just their assured destruction (other than nuclear powers, which goes back to MAD). This does have the effect of keeping the peace across the world a bit. And, the post WWII period has been one of the least violent times in history, so I would say that it does work.
Our military does a number of things that are not in the killing people and breaking things categories, and I wouldn’t mind having a large force that does these other things.
You would agree that there’s a range of military actions that range from necessary to unnecessary, correct? If Canada starts genocidal killing of all its French speakers, I believe we’d all be pretty appalled. I would support expelling Canada from NATO and then the remaining NATO nations, including the US and UK, banding together to stop the genocide through military action. Going to the other extreme, I would oppose a US invasion to take over the Alberta oil fields. Military action supporting the Syrian rebellion against the Assad regime is going to fall somewhere in the middle.
Suppose a young, able-bodied person is opposed to the hypothetical Canadian genocide, but feels they have no military aptitude. Should they be allowed to oppose it without being subject to social shaming, or not? Now move to the military action in Syria. Assad used chemical weapons against his own people, including children. Pretty horrific right? Is it okay to support airstrikes to discourage chemical weapons attacks? Part of the rebellion against Assad came from the Kurds, who are allies of the US. The US conducted military actions in support of the Kurds, including air strikes and on-the-ground support. Is it okay to support backing up US allies in opposition to a murderous regime? Increase the level of military action and support and you’re going to reach a point where I think the US use of military force would be going too far. I don’t think a full-scale US invasion of Syria could be successful and would oppose that. However, other people might think that Assad is so evil that the invasion is justified. I think those people are entitled to their opinions, and should have the opportunity to express them without being shamed, just the same as I think someone supporting military intervention against genocide is entitled to their opinion. Ultimately I want everyone discussing and considering the potential outcomes and costs of military action and deciding if the desired outcome is achievable and probable, and if it’s worth the cost. Shaming people into not expressing their opinions by branding them as gutless cowards prevents that discussion.
So, the ability to beat the living shit out of almost any country in the world is a good thing, world peace-wise. And the fact that the U.S. does indeed occasionally beat the living shit out of countries is a completely disconnected fact for you. OK. Thank you for insightful wisdom.