Would it be politically sound to recruit an army of nobodies?

Great Debates
1

Suppose a government recruits under very specific guidelines- they only recruit people who are single with no direct family members. So orphans, for example. Yes, there wouldn’t be a very large pool of people to draw from, but here’s why I said orphans-

If these people die, who will miss them? They have no families to mourn them, no widows to leave flowers at their tombstones. They are nobodies, just a bunch of strange faces. Would a populace be able to tolerate more casualties if all the people that are dying are strangers to them, with virtually no social connection to the civilian world?

2

Nobodies? What a great recruiting idea! Come join the army because we don’t think anyone would miss you if you die! So all single people without parents are nobodies? Suppose you turn 18 and your parents die, can you become a nobody? And just because you have no family, it means nobody cares about you?

3

So I assume we’re talking about only orphans who were never adopted…probably not a great pool due to possible social maladjustedness, but assuming we say they’re all fine:

These people have no friends? No girl/boyfriends? People who really have no social connections are few and far between.

Also: it’s kind of cruel to the recruitees. “Well, we can’t think of anyone who’d mind if you weren’t around anymore, so…”

But to actually address your question, I don’t really think their deaths would be any more acceptable to the populace as a whole. The people I know don’t object to soldiers’ deaths because their families will miss them; they object because they’re deaths. Seeing news reports with grieving widows and parents and such adds an extra emotional element, but that’s not what really causes the reaction.

I, personally, would be even more upset by having to hear about the deaths of massive numbers of people who were (for the sake of argument here) unloved. How awful to live your life without a family, to not have a significant other at home who missed you, and then for this reason to be judged expendable.

4

They are American citizens/residents and human beings. They are not “expendable”, just because they don’t have relatives.

Sometimes wars are necessary and soldiers must die in combat. As a country, we have an obligation to the members of our armed forces to treat their lives as if they were our own.

5

Basically that’s the idea behind the French Foreign Legion.

6

Well put. This is something I meant to convey and I see on rereading my post that I failed.

7

Plus with all the single males overseas fighting and dying, several important US industries such as roleplaying games and pornography will see thier sales plumet, doing irreprible harm to the economy.

Also what everyone else said. I don’t know anyone whose lost a family member in Iraq, but those 1100 deaths still disturb me.

Now if you were to say a droid army, then you might have something.

8

The Jannissaries were a good example of “nobodies” that worked quite well militarily. The were “recruited” by taking children from christian subjects of the Turks and then were raised together for the sole purpose of serving the Sultan.

Eventually they got overly pampered and dethroned several masters… but not due to their raising I suppose.

In modern times I’m not so that is a good idea… human rights, civil rights are “small” obstacles. Especially if people are already a little bit to willing to sacrifice soldiers nowadays…

9

The US Army recruiting slogan is “Be All You Can Be”.

Without changing the meaning much we can simplify it to:

“Be SOMEBODY”

Without changing that much, we get the essence of the original slogan:

“You are now a nobody, join us to change that.”