Chess Online

Play online chess!

From	Message
matthew_romoser 07-Oct-05, 17:22	A new branch of military service? I've often thought that there should be a new "sixth" branch of the military (or would that be "Seventh"? .... Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard .... are the Merchant Marines still considered a branch? I don't think they are). Call it whatever you want, Homeland Corps, Minuteman Corps, Relief Corps, etc. Retirees and recently deactivated reservists could opt to be called up to either active military duty in the armed services during times of war, or to be called up in the Homeland Corps (I just chose one) to serve in times of national crisis. In addition, people with no prior military experience could enlist directly into the Homeland Corps. Like any branch of the military, this Homeland Corps would have officers and enlisted personnel. A Homeland Corps Academy could be established to graduate full-time officers. "Basic Training" in the Homeland Corps would include maintaining law and order (basic police work), responding to natural disasters of various types, setting up and maintaining field hospitals and shelters, search and rescue, basic infrastructure repair in disaster areas (temporarily patching levees, roads, bridges, etc. so basic services can be restored quickly), evacuation protocols, border patrol / drug intervention, etc. Basically this branch would be similar to the Coast Guard, but would operate primarily on land. They would also be trained to work in concert with national relief agencies such as FEMA and the Red Cross as well as hospitals and local law enforcement and response ... additionally, FEMA, the Red Cross and local responders would have to be retooled to work in concert with the Homeland Corps. Basically, if an emergency is declared, then those agencies would be subordinated to the Homeland Corps for the duration of the emergency. Emergencies require dicipline and execution ... something I think is drilled into the military but is lacking in FEMA and the Red Cross. Having a "military-like" Homeland Corps would bring that dicipline and execution to the equation. In addition, it would give people in our country another option for serving their country. If somebody is opposed to the violence inherent in the military arm (Army, Navy, etc.), then they could serve just as effectively and honorably in a Homeland Corps. It would also help better define the mission of the National Guard. I know there are many people, two of my cousins included, who signed up for the National Guard expecting (for the most part) to be doing disaster relief. They did know they could be called up for combat duey, but they did not expect that the National Guard would be mobilized for years at a time - a few months perhaps, but not years. That, in their mind, was the domain of the full-time active duty military. If disaster relief was shifted to the Homeland Corps, then people who join the National Guard would go into the Guard with their eyes "more open" regarding the possibility of their unit being called up for combat duty since disaster relief will no longer be their "primary function". I would also make at least 2 years full or part-time service mandatory for all men and women after high-school. (i.e. at least join the reserves for 2 years after high-school and put in your 2 weekends a month). Just my 2 cents again.   Matt
anomalocaris 07-Oct-05, 21:39	matt i think its a great idea.
chuckventimiglia 08-Oct-05, 06:47	Yes it is a great idea with one BUT. The retired military should have the option to serve again, not be forced. They should only be forced if and when all able bodied people up to the age of 55 have been called up to serve. I, for one, would gladly serve again in my home area.
leo_london 11-Oct-05, 07:06	Peace Corps.. You have the Peace Corps, which is voluntary. Could that not be extended, made compulsory ?...their present brief could also be widened to include many of the things suggested.
chuckventimiglia 11-Oct-05, 07:10	I have not heard much lately about the.... "Peace Corps." I think they all went to Iraq.   Honestly though I think the name has changed to something else and I cannot think of it right now. Maybe someone knows? I am a believer in compulsory military training for all 18 yo, male or female that who are physically able. I think it instills responsibility, pride in oneself and a sense of patriotism all of which are lacking in today's American youth.
leo_london 11-Oct-05, 07:32	I haven't heard of it for years, always used to see references in the movies of the 1960's and 70's. I did check and it is still giong, just thought it might provide an answer to the more humanitarian needs both at home and abroad. Also less controversial than compulsory military service.
chuckventimiglia 11-Oct-05, 07:43	Yes ,it is less controversial but our..... country does need a trained military. BTW, is military compulsory in the UK?
leo_london 11-Oct-05, 08:13	Chuck.. No...that finished in the late 50's... I think. Will check on the date for you. Many in the UK agree with you, and would like to see a return of National Service. Not so sure myself, I cant imagine what my feelings would have been if my sons had been sent to Iraq. I am all for " defence of the Realm "...fighting ill-conceived wars based on the whims of Bush/Blair is another thing.
chuckventimiglia 11-Oct-05, 08:47	Yes, I share your concerns but ....... unfortunately we must trust our elected leaders to "do the right thing." I know that is not always the case but we have to trust them or why have elections?
chuckventimiglia 11-Oct-05, 08:49	Our Draft ended in the.... 1970s as a result of Vietnam. We went to the "all volunteer" force which all in all has worked quite well. I do believe that the "all volunteer" force has created apathy towards the military and national defense that was not there when complsory military service was the rule.

GameKnot: play chess online, chess clubs, chess teams, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.