this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025
549 points (99.5% liked)

politics

23989 readers
3550 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dragontamer@lemmy.world 7 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Resignations are only useful in the short term.

In the long term, Resignations provide new opportunities for the loyal to gain power and recruit.

[–] astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz 5 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Yep, but those who resign for moral reasons will be more likely to take actual actions to protest/stop what's happening. The military will have a hard time recruiting competent people in that environment, though, and the people taking the vacancies will likely have diminishing competence as time goes on.

To put it in perspective, if more officers retire at 20, they'll generally be O-5s (Lieutenant Colonels or Commanders), and so the next year's promotion cycle will need to promote more O-4s to cover the vacancies. This will then trickle down, and suddenly, you have officers who have been O-3s for just a couple of years being promoted to O-4 rather than waiting longer and gaining experience.

In that scenario, there will be less efficiency in planning and execution and far more incompetence, and if being used against civilians, more brutality. But incompetence is easier to defeat in the long run. Seeing the incompetence and brutality will deprive the military of the smartest recruits who staff the important IT, intelligence, cyber, etc. communities. So, while they may get true believers, a lower proportion will be competent.

No matter how it shakes out, it will get very bad.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Yep, but those who resign for moral reasons will be more likely to take actual actions to protest/stop what’s happening

No. They won't. Or, to be more blunt, the people who would actually be useful won't. Because they are the ones who understand the world isn't Call of Duty and a single guy with a pistol isn't actually going to Jack Bauer his way through an entire armed escort.

The military will have a hard time recruiting competent people

They already do. That is why the military is dumb as a door knob and full of the kind of people who just want an excuse to shoot some folk whether they are brown or not.

This will then trickle down, and suddenly, you have officers who have been O-3s for just a couple of years being promoted to O-4 rather than waiting longer and gaining experience.

Oh, well then. That will solve everything.

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 1 points 31 minutes ago

Breathe. We will get through this, and how is question worth considering, as the commenter above did. If you need to share this burden of despair with someone, my DMs are open.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 2 points 9 hours ago

The ASVAB was pretty basic when I took it. Fortunately, a health condition at the time kept me from basic.