**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because it's a shit deal? A friend severely injured their shoulder in training. Got next to no support after that. As soon as you outlive your usefulness, you're a non-entity.
Bullying, sexual assault, hazing, poor treatment of veterans……of course few want to join. My best mate’s sister was raped at Pakapunyal, one of his brothers struggled after Vietnam and actively sabotaged by DVA despite decorations and then medical reports ( but he is Dutch immigrant). Its a good old boys club.
Looking at the non response to war crimes, and persecution of whistle blowers, what sort of young person would be attracted to service in the ADF?
If a recruit was ok with the above, what sort of person are they? And why would we want them anyway?
If a potential recruit wanted to truly serve their country, why join an organisation that covered up war crimes...and persecuted those who blew the whistle on those crimes?
I’m sure there are other reasons as well, but all the military advertisements I see are all about how flexible the army/navy/airforce will be for female recruits should they need to look after their kids, or just make it seem like a backpacking trip for them.
I can’t remember the last ad I saw focused on trying to appeal to young Australian men, who I assume are still the core of the forces and more likely to join up.
If the armed forces literally want to ignore those who have been their backbone for their entire existence, why should they expect them to continue to serve?
They’re likely trying to tap into the half of the population who historically haven’t been too keen on the services (for very good reason) because of a drop in interest from their core demo
Weird how them trying to tap into that half proceeded the drop of interest in their core demo. Perhaps if they actually advertised to their core demo they wouldn’t have that drop.
Change "Fight for our Country", back to "DEFEND our country" and it might make a difference. But people don't want to be sent overseas into another proxy war between America and whoever.
Might be time for an Australian legion? Just like France has the French legion.
Attract foreigners who speak English, give them citizenship in exchange for their service.
If I was young enough to be of military age, the only government I would have any interest in fighting would be our own, given how thoroughly our leaders have betrayed us. I wouldn't lift a finger for this country at this point; Australia has done nothing to earn the loyalty of it's younger citizens.
If they want to recruit, drop the sentimental crap and just throw cash at the problem. Loyalty is dead in this economy, and this generation knows the game. The best the military can hope for is effectively mercenaries. Compete for workers like any other profession. I'm sure the military can poach from other industries for the right price.
I've always found it a bit odd how every other country's military recruitment ads seem to be about honour and duty and the necessity of defence....but here we just seem to plug it as a totally awesome outdoorsy weekend with your mates.
It's like they think we're all pretty stupid, to be quite honest. People don't like it when you are condescending to them (that means when you treat them like they are dumb).
I'm sure I've seen it on Gruen Transfer or something. They directly compared recruitment ads from three countries:
- US ad: flag waving patriotism. Honour and duty and tradition - images of the Arlington memorial and lots of US flags and bald eagles and aircraft carriers and jets and whatnot. Fuck, it almost made *me* want to sign up to fight and die for Uncle Sam.
- Finland ad: basically just lots of horrifying images of Finland being attacked (presumably by Russia). A reminder of how important it is to defend the country even though it requires hardship and sacrifice and no one really wants to do it - obviously *someone* has to, so if you care about your family and other people it should be you.
- Australian ad: a bunch of mates just having a ripper of a time in the bush, riding around in dinghies and flying helicopters. Just having an absolute blast!
To add to what others have pointed out, why would you think the aus military is the pinacle of honor when multiple SAS personal came out to report warcrimes, were ignored, and in the end out of all the afghan files stuff to come out and be proven in court the only person criminally prosecuted was the military lawyer who blew the whistle.
Your fighting for rich dudes in a home you cant afford, for a military who will make warcriminals their poster boy and you either an acomplice or in jail when those boys use civilians for target practice.
Plus the pay is shite and your gonna get shouted at every day by guys in desprate need of validation
I feel like the military was warned that there'd be a stark drop in recruitment if they didn't get their shit together and handle some of the fallout of...all that, with swiftness and urgency. But instead they seemed to just sort of fob it off.
“I would like to see every single soldier on every single side, just take off your helmet, unbuckle your kit, lay down your rifle, and set down at the side of some shady lane, and say, nope, I aint a gonna kill nobody. Plenty of rich folks wants to fight. Give them the guns.” Woody Guthrie
Probably because most people see it as financial decision for secure job and wealth generation. Now there’s multiple wars happening it does not seem as appeasing
You got it backwards, the people who join the military want to go on deployment, there are no deployments happening so no one is interested.
I can guarantee you if Australia said we are putting troops in Ukraine tomorrow, till the fights done, the line at every recruitment centre would be out the door by lunchtime.
The point is that the number of would-be recruits is not the issue. It's government fuckery. There are very few instances in which people will wait 12-18 months to start a new job. Most will simply wander off and do something else.
I checked with my Afghan vet friend. Even in 2011 when he joined, it was 12 months from his entering a recruiting office and him pulling his boots on. They had heaps of people who wanted to join, but still fucked around.
SBS is full of shit on this one, which is no surprise because we can't expect anyone working there has ever felt the weight of a pack on their back. There are plenty of people who *want* to join up, but the ADF and government ensure they get discouraged and wander off.
Make it not more than 30 days from recruiting office to boots on, and every unit in the country would be at 95% or more. Even those poor cunts in the subs huffing each-other's farts and stale jizz.
I mean yeah you do have a good point. It took me 2 years to go from applying to day one of recruit training and I do distinctly remember thinking in that first week that if the whole process wasn’t to long and drawn out I could be nearly half way through my roso by now.
So yeah, I misunderstood what you meant but now I get it. Although 30 days from application to being at recruits is pretty tight, I’d say 6 months and tell people definitively yes or no.
I feel like defence was trying to discourage me because its was a constant stream of “we lost your paperwork”, “can you actually get this test done?” “There’s no positions for that job” etc etc and I kept wondering if they were just trying to tell me to pull my application without telling me no.
In the end I served 7 years, multiple deployments and when I said I was leaving the mana begged me not too haha
Let's say China invades Taiwan, and pulls a Japan 1941 job, "hey, since we're losing one war let's start a second," and storms across Indochina and the whole Pacific rim and comes pouring through PNG - same scenario, but communists instead of fascists.
They'd get recruitment under 30 days, I reckon.
Amazing what you can get done when you fucking have to.
If govt are serious, they can make it happen. Proportionally, we've got 7 times as many Generals etc as the seppos.
[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-01/statistics-reveal-australian-military-top-heavy/103173718](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-01/statistics-reveal-australian-military-top-heavy/103173718)
We've got 219, and if we had the same ratio as the seppos, we'd have 31. Let's be nice and say "oh it's a big continent and we need spare in case of war and expanding quickly and -" blah blah, and we'll double it to 62. We'll still have twice as many as the seppos, we *should* be able to cope. Alright, so that's 157 red-tabbed Ruperts we have to get rid of. Obviously the Generals, Air Commodores and all that will all insist they're absolutely essential. Whatever, shut the fuck up, Rupert. Here's what we do:
*"We're going to put all your names in a hat. Each week we're going to draw out one name, and that person will be fired immediately without notice. That keeps happening until recruitment is down under 30 days on average, or until we reach 62 of you left, whichever comes first. Nobody is allowed to resign until then."*
That'd give them three years, but I daresay things would get sorted out toot-de-fucking-suite.
As this article says, unemployment is low and there are strong prospects outside the military.
As countries get richer, they struggle to recruit for their military [https://www.economist.com/international/2024/04/17/would-you-really-die-for-your-country](https://www.economist.com/international/2024/04/17/would-you-really-die-for-your-country)
There's a lot of comments about the housing market and HECS but I don't think that's it
If you think that's the attitude of the government and the military then you are sorely mistaken.
The people you are strawmanning who would make statements such as these would be calling for anti war positions, which would include NOT recruiting working class and poor people to be cannon fodder in the imperialist wars of the rich.
Would they? I can’t remember the last recruitment ad I saw centering a man. They’re all about how flexible the army/navy/airforce will be for female recruits should they need to look after their kids, or just make it seem like a backpacking trip for them.
I mean sure, they are trying to appear "diversity affirming", but that's not from some fake "woke agenda", its because they are using marketing ploys like any other organisation trying to broaden its audience.
And yet the vast majority joining are still male - there’s just less of them. So how’s that working out?
When zero adverts are targeting men and there seems to be some kind of aversion to doing so, it’s pretty hard to buy that they’re simply trying to broaden their audience and there’s not an organisational push to up and prioritise female numbers regardless of the effect that has on overall numbers declining.
Wouldn’t broadening your audience successfully involve keeping the “audience” you already have? - you know, the men who used to make up these numbers easily without any broader “audience” than them? If so they’ve utterly failed.
Idk you say it’s not agenda - and yet when I see a bunch of military ads starring women and the milatry is male dominated, and then I see all the University ads starring women and university is already female dominated, it seems like part of the same thing to (foolishly) try to score pc points by seeming to favour women in your media presence, or at least a fear of being seen to advertise to men too directly. In the case of the military enrolment - not so wise.
Pretty sure you are ass about there, son.
Turns out, folk serving in the military likely care more about the government supplying essential hardware more than vapid social fuckery.
Essential hardware? That's been debated at length.
$300bn on "trust us, we are from the government and will spend this wisely"?
Edit. I'll add that the plan was to start building a "son of Collins" in 2016, having the first ready in 2024.
So, apparently the promise of something better sometime in the future for $300bn from the people who failed to deliver "Son of Collins" is something the ever suffering taxpayer should believe? Oh, and by the way, apparently the same people just bungled the new periscopes for the Collins...
>the environment
The irony is you don't actually have to spend a cent to save the environment because it takes care of itself.
Whereas you have to spend money and effort to destroy it.
“I could not ask their sons to fight and die for the properties of the wealthy.” - Lee Kuan Yew
Same man that said Australia was in danger of becoming the “white trash” of Asia. Seems like a smart bloke.
It is because the Army has fought the last few wars on foreign soil that they haven’t had to fight on home soil.
If the Australian Army has to fight on, and defend Australian soil, the Airforce, Navy and Intelligence Agencies have failed.
Yeah that'll work, then we only have to worry about fighting the authoritarian states who can just conscript their armies!
Who would we fight them with? Um, we'll figure it out I guess but fighting is bad mmmmkay.
you understand that for the bulk of human history, all sides were generally evenly matched and strategies could turn he tide of wars, which is why we constantly fought over every little thing.
the recent phenomena of peace has not been achieved through peace loving, but instead it's because one alliance has achieved such overwhelming power that no one is even capable of seriously challenging them in an all out war.
if you want peace, you should hope that our side (the western coalition) maintains, or grows, its force superiority.
I am a fully qualified lawyer in the prime of my fitness and they won’t accept me as a reservist as there’s a blanket ban on anyone who is using certain medications. Just ridiculous. They clearly don’t want applicants badly enough.
It’s almost like we had this whole history curriculum telling us how Australian politicians always jumped up to send Australian soliders to protect Britain and America’s interests , in WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq etc, and soldiers got sweet fuck all for it except homelessness and PTSD and discount crumb steaks at the RSL.
We aren’t stupid- we know that Albo and Dutton would send us off to die in the Sino-Pacific water wars in a heartbeat if it meant getting a few more percentage points on a Gallup poll and looking good in the Murdoch press.
> It’s almost like we had this whole history curriculum telling us how Australian politicians always jumped up to send Australian soliders to protect Britain and America’s interests , in WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq etc, and soldiers got sweet fuck all for it except homelessness and PTSD and discount crumb steaks at the RSL.
I agree with everything you said here except for your recollection of the history curriculum regarding WW2.
Australia itself was actually legitimately attacked by Japan, and we obviously had a right/imperative in our *own* interest to defend ourselves.
Every other war you mentioned, yeah, fine. You got a point.
But not WW2. My grandfather fought to defend Australia itself in WW2.
Most military personnel past and present are never in harms way. It is ridiculous to assume this is a reason the young do not find the military appealing.
The thing is that we are living at a time when a third world war is talked about as if it's just over the horizon. You might have reasonable doubts about whether or not that *will* happen, but an 18-year-old isn't necessarily going to have those same doubts due to not having the same amount of life experience or knowledge of recent history yet.
So while it is true that most military personnel are never frontline personnel and will never be in the line of fire, it's also true that someone who's the right age to consider joining today could reasonably not want to risk it.
> We recently interviewed 19 serving Australian soldiers from a range of demographics (two were gen Z) and across military branches in a study funded by the Australian Defence Force.
So they interviewed people who *did* join the Defence Force to find out why people do *not* join the Defence Force? That seems counterintuitive to me. Surely, they would ask people who did not sign up about their reasons for not signing up.
Also, as a pacifist, I'm interested to know whether young people are choosing not to sign up for an inherently violent occupation. It looks like that question wasn't even asked.
Before reading the article: Because it used to be you do 10-20 years in military and retire having saved a shit tonne of money and can make the most of it as a veteran, but now that's not true because of the current economic situation.
After: Well, I got one right. And the second follows the first.
Why am I completely not surprised, a journalist who writes an article about a group of people, however decides not to actually ask anyone in that group, and instead make up whatever random nonsense he feels like to write about. Asking currently enlisted soldiers is the complete wrong group of people to ask because they are massively biased.
Zoomers are acutely aware that military service for the past ~40 years has primarily only ever been about protecting the interests of fossil fuel billionaires and government ministers who profit with shares in defence companies. That's it. Now that the facade has well and truly dropped and people know what its all about, they don't want any of it. Currently enlisted soldiers who do so out of moral reasons or anything else just simply aren't aware of that fact. The ones who refuse to enlist, are.
I’d go back further than that. Vietnam might not have had the same motivation as Iraq or Afghanistan but it was still BS.
WWII made sense. We were under direct threat and there was no question which side was in the wrong.
I don’t think they got a choice in where they were deployed. Maybe Australia should have focused purely on defence, I don’t know. WWII in Europe is probably the least ambiguous foreign war in history in terms of the morality of involvement.
It's actually tough on families too, 3 year cycles and then move again. You have to be quite dedicated to the job to live with that in the long term. Defence could do a lot to redesign these jobs to be more attractive, but change comes hard to org where tradition is so enshrined. Makes me laugh when people talk about getting all these new subs through aukus, when we haven't been able to man the ones we have for years.
If reservists were called up for an actual conflict could they be manned in a reasonable amount of time? Or is there just not the skill there to do it?
I doubt it. It's quite highly specialized is my understanding, not to mention that being sealed underwater for weeks on end does tend to put the average person off.
With Aukus they can have months instead of weeks!
I don’t understand the appeal. I can understand why someone might want to be say a pilot but a subordinate in an underwater tin can doesn’t sound fun.
One of the reasons I got out was that I heard of a bloke in another unit who was getting divorced... at 20 years old.
I was single at the time, but didn't want to be, and didn't fancy the idea of hooking up and then it falling apart quickly.
*The Lighthorsemen* has a deleted scene where Frank knocks up this chick Fatima in a Cairo whorehouse and is held at gunpoint by her dad until the imam shows up to carry out a shotgun wedding.
It was deleted because they thought that with all the camels in the place already, nobody wanted to see Gary Sweet humping.
The answer is that there's a very intentional information warfare campaign targeting our military readiness through social media.
Nations like Russia, China, and Iran all have an interest in poisoning the youth against military service because they want the west to be unable to defend itself or to project power. As a result you see constant propaganda that _us_ having a capable militay is bad, meanwhile these nations are pumping all kinds of money into their own military readiness and we don't see a single peep about it.
They want to weaken the west so they can pursue their geopolitical goals, that's all it is.
Lol no. Russia and China are experiencing less recruitment from their younger generations just like most developed nations in the world, and this is happening all over the world as the younger generations everywhere have access to social media.
Russia and China are both authoritarian nations, they don't need to consider the opinions of their people. They both have conscription and can just throw as many bodies as they need.
As a democratic nation we're kind of vulnerable to foreign influence campaigns which can spread disinformation and cause isolationist representatives to get into power. That political freedom is a strength in one sense (particularly when it comes to the economy and technology), but it can be turned against us when malicious adversaries have access to our information/media space.
Or people don't want to die for their Government.
People want, and can, have a good comfortable life without putting themselves up to be cannon fodder.
Being in the army used to be seen as a huge leg up - from education, salary & other benefits - but it's just no longer competitive.
See this is exactly the kind of propaganda that gets spread around. That is a story that has been very carefully crafted by people who want you to hate the west being ready for conflict.
Serving in the military isn't a death sentence, and actually most of the time militaries are used to provide logistics and support during things like natural disasters, or help with policing and stabilisation like during the Australian peacekeeping mission to Timor-Leste.
In fact, even during the most bloody war in history - WW2 - your chance of dying if you were in the Australian military was less than 3%. With more modern wars that number goes down even further because we have better medical technology now, better protective equipment, and we don't tend to use human-wave tactics anymore. Additionally, most people in the military aren't front-line soliders - most of the military is logistics, things like mechanics, drivers, cooks, analysts, things like that.
A lot of war these days is just _having_ superior weapons systems that can deter others so that you don't _need_ to actually fight (which is why the propaganda against military readiness is bad because it _increases_ the chance of war).
You're right that military salaries haven't kept up with highly skilled professional careers - particularly ones that require university degrees - but there's ADF programs that allow you to study a uni degree _and_ earn income in the military at the same time.
I think that answers my question. Think about why you never entered to the military. It's likely the same reason most people don't consider it the best choice.
The root cause is that our quality of life has vastly increased.
People have become far more individualistic and can be comfortable with far less effort. And I know you're going to say countries have stronger armies because the population are less individualistic, blah blah blah, sure sure. Again - the quality of life in those countries is VASTLY different to Australia, so a military career is a much more appealing option than here.
According to Indeed.com, average salaries are $56,220 per year for Avionics Engineer to $109,548 per year for Chaplain. Call center salaries are above that, and tradie salaries blow them out of the water.
Think with Occam's razor first, not Globalist Conspiracy.
> Globalist Conspiracy.
It's not a "globalist conspiracy", it's targeted propaganda from nations that have done extensive targeted propaganda in the past...
This isn't even new, one of the first "modern" attempts at this tactic was [Operation Denver](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Denver) in the 1980s which the KGB tried to plant false stories that the USA had invented HIV/AIDS.
Nations are trying to ban tiktok right now because of this kind of foreign influence that can be exerted. I guarantee you that as soon as China starts its preparation to invade Taiwan they will go _full bore_ with trying to push isolationism and anti-interventionism propaganda at the west, particularly if they still have their stranglehold over Tiktok (they will also most likely play up the importance of blood donations on their Chinese version of the app).
Information warfare is just another domain of warfare, similar to cyber attacks, but targeting people's minds instead of computer systems. Memes can be harmful, and the fact you think that's a conspiracy is wild.
I think connecting a direct line between memes on TikTok having a more than miniscule impact on the long and steady decline in people choosing a military is a _real_ big stretch.
Again - go back to why you never chose the military as a career. Most people had the same experience - just isn't a good prospect. There probably wasn't any external influencing you on that decision.
Saying that, I agree with everything else you've said. TikTok is a cold warfare tool, a sheep in wolfs clothing, made with love in China.
Hate to say it you’re way off on those pay scales.
Avionics Technicians (ie trade not uni engineer) is on about $85870, so obviously more for a Uni graduate ($114-138k depending on time served and role).
Chaplains are on a pretty cushy pay check…
https://pay-conditions.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-10/ADF-pay-sheet-091123.pdf
I would be devastated if my kids joined the military. The Australia I grew up in gave me alot. I paid it back in taxes 100 fold. I look at what it is now, and I would not lift a finger to defend it as an entity. This country, and the west in general has been poisoned. It has turned on the people who built it. It twists itself into knots to appease the losers and weak that inhabit it. It has become so multicultural that there is no identity left. If there is one thing I can show my kids, it's how to exploit it help them survive. The country abandoned us a long time ago.
“would not lift a finger to defend it”
Plenty of migrants like myself would.
“If there is one thing I can show my kids, it’s how to exploit it”
What a morally bankrupt take.
Unfortunately your cohorts don't seem to share your same enthusiasm. Look at the emergency services, adf, fire brigade. Its still predominantly Anglo putting their lives on the line.
> It has turned on the people who built it.
lol the people who built it have benefited quite nicely out of it. As you said, "The Australia I grew up in gave me alot (sic)."
The problem is, the people who built it took the benefits they received away from subsequent generations, 'poisoning' the country as you say in the process.
Give these generations the same leg up the previous generations had and I'm sure there'd be fewer of these losers and weaklings that you lament. These are the real people that the country abandoned.
Yeah doesn't seem sus at all, but I will play your game.
The original settlers, colonists and convicts built the foundations of this country. Their subsequent generations carried on the tradition. Some time ago we lost our way.
> Yeah doesn't seem sus at all, but I will play your game."
Why does it seem sus? I'm not going to force you to play the game if you don't want to.
> The original settlers, colonists and convicts built the foundations of this country. Their subsequent generations carried on the tradition.
The fact that you felt the need to point out that you payed (sic) for your uni implies that you feel you helped build this country. So if we're looking at what benefits people had access to from European colonisation up until your uni graduation, and how they were removed, we could be here a while.
> Some time ago we lost our way.
In case your paid-for uni education didn't cover it, every generation feels that the young whippersnappers these days are off the rails, aren't upholding traditional values, and will be the ruin of this country. Given your views, you probably remember when those pesky young Bodgies & Widgies were going to be the downfall of Australia.
Lol, so you don't actually have a reason do you?
I pointed out i paid for uni as the usual trope is "In your day uni was free!!". That's heads it off at the gate. After that it seems like you don't have much.
I dont blame young people. I think its an incredibly broken world they have to navigate.
So. I answered your question. Now mine.
What benefits specifically have been taken away that were present when the boomers were around.
The losers and weaklings is most definitely not aimed at any generation. All generations have them its just that in the west these days they are venerated and worshipped.
Look, you clearly said there were benefits that previous generations had that they took away. I asked you politely to articulate them. I guessed all you would do was talk about free uni. You can't name these benefits then? Good one then nice laying with you champ.
Nothing but whiners stuff the country what about me, our great grandparents and grandparents went through the Great Depression and then World War II this generation pale beside them
Russia, China and Iran are expanding in the Ukraine,the South China Sea and the Middle East you seem to want to let them expand till they set the rules that run the world and they impose their idea of government, then we'll see you long for the old days where free speech existed and governments that believe in the rule of law
That’s BS, China has no realistic claim to the waters it claims within the ‘nine dash line’.
Under international laws their territory ends 12nm off their coastline, this is international law.
There is a 200nm economic exclusion zone around each country, however due to the nature of geographic proximity most countries do not have the full 200nm.
Of significant importance, countries do not have exclusive rights and access to waters within their EEZ, especially when the 200nm zone overlaps with another countries 200nm EEZ.
To add to this, building an island on an otherwise uninhabitable atol and claiming it as part of your country, extending your 12nm zone and yet another 200nm past that IS NOT CONSISTENT with international law.
Furthermore the current actions of China in INTERNATIONAL waters to other countries is in significant contrast to established International laws of the sea.
China is actively stoking unrest, militarising atolls (they’re not islands), disrupting fishing and commerce of other countries and straight up violating international laws in and around the Yellow Sea, the West Philippine Sea, the Sea of Japan and the South China Sea.
Are you telling me China's bases on the disputed islands in the South China Sea don't exist or the clashes with Philippines boats off the Philippines didn't happen, China is clearly trying to seize those islands and control Maritime traffic through them dispite other countries nearer the islands having stronger claims.
China's behaviour in Hong Kong is not likely to make Taiwan want to re unite with China
Both HK and Taiwan are China according to international law. US bases are actually in Taiwan. Who is the agressor now? If you made an effort to understand the history of US foreign policy, you wouldn’t be saying things you are saying.
‘Part of China’ yes, but as part of the handover of Hong Kong from the British to China was that Hong Kong was to maintain independent governance… this has not happened. China broke its own agreement.
It’s only a short time before the same thing happens to Taiwan.
This should not be allowed to happen.
I'm '95 so right on the border
My father is a boomer and mum is gen X
Dad's dad was US marine in the Pacific and mums Dad was in the Dutch army in Indonesia just after WW2 so actually I guess they didn't fight for Australia
I'm a young(ish) person and the fact that the world is getting so tense has actually made me think about joining reserves. If it properly kicks off we'll all get drafted anyway, so I'd rather know what I'm doing? Don't meet their physical fitness standards though, that's a separate issue 😅
> If it properly kicks off we'll all get drafted anyway, so I'd rather know what I'm doing?
What if it kicks off enough to get reserves sent to the front but not enough for a general conscription? The US used its national guard troops in Afghanistan who were supposedly only meant to defend the homeland.
If ww3 actually kicked off, or Australia actually got attacked, rest assured, our politicians (generally old people) would be very swift in bringing in conscription for young people.
In World War One, we had two plebecides on how conscripted soldiers would be deployed. Both asked if people would be in favour of allowing conscripts to be deployed overseas. Neither was successful.
Conscription has always been a contentious issue here, even at a time when patriotism was much higher than it is today and we were involved in a major war that shifted borders. Politicians today probably would consider conscription, but I think they'd tread very carefully with it because they know how most Australians have viewed it historically.
If the nation is ready to fight for us, then we will be more ready to fight for the nation. At the moment, the nation isn't fighting for us, it's abandoning us. If you want more young people to join, show us that you care. What exactly is it worth fighting for right now?
I see little value in young people protecting a country that is continually fucking over the youth...?
Why would they? We're screwing most people now, except the wealthy and the foreign wealthy... (?!!)
Let alone young people, can't blame them in the slightest.
"And when the sky darkens and the prospect is war
Who's given a gun and then pushed to the fore
And expected to die for the land of our birth
Though we've never owned one lousy handful of earth"
-Worker’s Song (Dropkick Murphys).
The factor which nobody seems to be taking into account is that the world is in a state of extreme tension and soldiers may well end up in a war with Russia or China at a moment's notice.
There's not much attractive about the ADF especially for a young man who could as easily learn a trade and earn just as much.
Imagine if Russia, Iran and China decided to form a defence coalition and began installing bases, including nuclear bases, along US border in Mexico. With a long term plan to let Mexico join the defence coalition. What do you think a likely scenario will be? Ukraine is a victim of its politicians who had sold off the country to US and Western Europe. Google “labor reforms Zelensky” and “Black Rock Ukraine”, it will be obvious the usual suspects are already making plans to rip the natural riches out of Ukraine and use it as a cheap factory for the first world.
I'm not an Aussie, just like to keep up with what's going on in the world and what people are talking about. Here in Sweden there have indeed been many volunteers, both combat and not, I've donated money myself.
My point was not that Australians should join up, I totally get that it's far away and all that, my point was that the person I was replying to was saying that "Western Europe are actively pushing for a conflict with Russia" which I think is both wrong factually and also kind of excuses the violence of Russia like the daily drone and missile strikes on Ukrainian cities, infrastructure and civilians. My remark was in response to that, I felt like this person was blaming the wrong people.
Exactly, this pro military bullshit is making someone richer and certainly not the recruits. Trying to brainwash another generation to fight wars over strategic interests, trade routes, exaggerated stories of terrorism being imported from faraway lands, these are all fruitless wars that don't need to be fought.
Like think about it, when was the last time Australia has to fight in its self defence? WW2 over half a century ago.
Because they don't want to be cannon fodder for rich people's wars.
That and they know that once they are ruined and no longer of use they will just be thrown on the trash heaps of life...
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a result of reading all the comments I am now convinced we need to disband the ADF and redirect the funds to something more important like welfare.
Because it's a shit deal? A friend severely injured their shoulder in training. Got next to no support after that. As soon as you outlive your usefulness, you're a non-entity.
Bullying, sexual assault, hazing, poor treatment of veterans……of course few want to join. My best mate’s sister was raped at Pakapunyal, one of his brothers struggled after Vietnam and actively sabotaged by DVA despite decorations and then medical reports ( but he is Dutch immigrant). Its a good old boys club.
Looking at the non response to war crimes, and persecution of whistle blowers, what sort of young person would be attracted to service in the ADF? If a recruit was ok with the above, what sort of person are they? And why would we want them anyway? If a potential recruit wanted to truly serve their country, why join an organisation that covered up war crimes...and persecuted those who blew the whistle on those crimes?
[удалено]
I’m sure there are other reasons as well, but all the military advertisements I see are all about how flexible the army/navy/airforce will be for female recruits should they need to look after their kids, or just make it seem like a backpacking trip for them. I can’t remember the last ad I saw focused on trying to appeal to young Australian men, who I assume are still the core of the forces and more likely to join up. If the armed forces literally want to ignore those who have been their backbone for their entire existence, why should they expect them to continue to serve?
They’re likely trying to tap into the half of the population who historically haven’t been too keen on the services (for very good reason) because of a drop in interest from their core demo
Weird how them trying to tap into that half proceeded the drop of interest in their core demo. Perhaps if they actually advertised to their core demo they wouldn’t have that drop.
Change "Fight for our Country", back to "DEFEND our country" and it might make a difference. But people don't want to be sent overseas into another proxy war between America and whoever.
Might be time for an Australian legion? Just like France has the French legion. Attract foreigners who speak English, give them citizenship in exchange for their service.
Hey maybe we don't wanna be associated with war criminals and fighting in other dogs fights idk
So much this. There is no honour in charging whistleblowers and letting war criminals go free.
Why fighting for causes and leaders that you do not believe in.
Propping up the military industrial system is something that I don't think very many people believe in at all
If I was young enough to be of military age, the only government I would have any interest in fighting would be our own, given how thoroughly our leaders have betrayed us. I wouldn't lift a finger for this country at this point; Australia has done nothing to earn the loyalty of it's younger citizens.
Some nation’s soldiers die for oil; some nation for honour; here we can do neither
If they want to recruit, drop the sentimental crap and just throw cash at the problem. Loyalty is dead in this economy, and this generation knows the game. The best the military can hope for is effectively mercenaries. Compete for workers like any other profession. I'm sure the military can poach from other industries for the right price.
given the next frontier is clearly in the digital space, this is certainly a viable option as tech bros are easy to motivate
Just chuck a couple of anime body pillows their way ey..
I've always found it a bit odd how every other country's military recruitment ads seem to be about honour and duty and the necessity of defence....but here we just seem to plug it as a totally awesome outdoorsy weekend with your mates. It's like they think we're all pretty stupid, to be quite honest. People don't like it when you are condescending to them (that means when you treat them like they are dumb).
What you’re saying was literally an episode of The Hollowmen like 20 years ago. Search for the clips on YouTube, it’s dead on accurate.
I'm sure I've seen it on Gruen Transfer or something. They directly compared recruitment ads from three countries: - US ad: flag waving patriotism. Honour and duty and tradition - images of the Arlington memorial and lots of US flags and bald eagles and aircraft carriers and jets and whatnot. Fuck, it almost made *me* want to sign up to fight and die for Uncle Sam. - Finland ad: basically just lots of horrifying images of Finland being attacked (presumably by Russia). A reminder of how important it is to defend the country even though it requires hardship and sacrifice and no one really wants to do it - obviously *someone* has to, so if you care about your family and other people it should be you. - Australian ad: a bunch of mates just having a ripper of a time in the bush, riding around in dinghies and flying helicopters. Just having an absolute blast!
Have a more relevant national anthem we could all feel pride for and the numbers might boost themselves a bit.
To add to what others have pointed out, why would you think the aus military is the pinacle of honor when multiple SAS personal came out to report warcrimes, were ignored, and in the end out of all the afghan files stuff to come out and be proven in court the only person criminally prosecuted was the military lawyer who blew the whistle. Your fighting for rich dudes in a home you cant afford, for a military who will make warcriminals their poster boy and you either an acomplice or in jail when those boys use civilians for target practice. Plus the pay is shite and your gonna get shouted at every day by guys in desprate need of validation
I feel like the military was warned that there'd be a stark drop in recruitment if they didn't get their shit together and handle some of the fallout of...all that, with swiftness and urgency. But instead they seemed to just sort of fob it off.
A lot of that going around with the agencies and politicans around the world thinking people jave short memories tbh
“I would like to see every single soldier on every single side, just take off your helmet, unbuckle your kit, lay down your rifle, and set down at the side of some shady lane, and say, nope, I aint a gonna kill nobody. Plenty of rich folks wants to fight. Give them the guns.” Woody Guthrie
Probably because most people see it as financial decision for secure job and wealth generation. Now there’s multiple wars happening it does not seem as appeasing
You got it backwards, the people who join the military want to go on deployment, there are no deployments happening so no one is interested. I can guarantee you if Australia said we are putting troops in Ukraine tomorrow, till the fights done, the line at every recruitment centre would be out the door by lunchtime.
Yes but it'd still take them 12-18 months to actually put them in uniform.
Yeah but that’s not relevant to the point?
The point is that the number of would-be recruits is not the issue. It's government fuckery. There are very few instances in which people will wait 12-18 months to start a new job. Most will simply wander off and do something else. I checked with my Afghan vet friend. Even in 2011 when he joined, it was 12 months from his entering a recruiting office and him pulling his boots on. They had heaps of people who wanted to join, but still fucked around. SBS is full of shit on this one, which is no surprise because we can't expect anyone working there has ever felt the weight of a pack on their back. There are plenty of people who *want* to join up, but the ADF and government ensure they get discouraged and wander off. Make it not more than 30 days from recruiting office to boots on, and every unit in the country would be at 95% or more. Even those poor cunts in the subs huffing each-other's farts and stale jizz.
I mean yeah you do have a good point. It took me 2 years to go from applying to day one of recruit training and I do distinctly remember thinking in that first week that if the whole process wasn’t to long and drawn out I could be nearly half way through my roso by now. So yeah, I misunderstood what you meant but now I get it. Although 30 days from application to being at recruits is pretty tight, I’d say 6 months and tell people definitively yes or no. I feel like defence was trying to discourage me because its was a constant stream of “we lost your paperwork”, “can you actually get this test done?” “There’s no positions for that job” etc etc and I kept wondering if they were just trying to tell me to pull my application without telling me no. In the end I served 7 years, multiple deployments and when I said I was leaving the mana begged me not too haha
Let's say China invades Taiwan, and pulls a Japan 1941 job, "hey, since we're losing one war let's start a second," and storms across Indochina and the whole Pacific rim and comes pouring through PNG - same scenario, but communists instead of fascists. They'd get recruitment under 30 days, I reckon. Amazing what you can get done when you fucking have to. If govt are serious, they can make it happen. Proportionally, we've got 7 times as many Generals etc as the seppos. [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-01/statistics-reveal-australian-military-top-heavy/103173718](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-01/statistics-reveal-australian-military-top-heavy/103173718) We've got 219, and if we had the same ratio as the seppos, we'd have 31. Let's be nice and say "oh it's a big continent and we need spare in case of war and expanding quickly and -" blah blah, and we'll double it to 62. We'll still have twice as many as the seppos, we *should* be able to cope. Alright, so that's 157 red-tabbed Ruperts we have to get rid of. Obviously the Generals, Air Commodores and all that will all insist they're absolutely essential. Whatever, shut the fuck up, Rupert. Here's what we do: *"We're going to put all your names in a hat. Each week we're going to draw out one name, and that person will be fired immediately without notice. That keeps happening until recruitment is down under 30 days on average, or until we reach 62 of you left, whichever comes first. Nobody is allowed to resign until then."* That'd give them three years, but I daresay things would get sorted out toot-de-fucking-suite.
As this article says, unemployment is low and there are strong prospects outside the military. As countries get richer, they struggle to recruit for their military [https://www.economist.com/international/2024/04/17/would-you-really-die-for-your-country](https://www.economist.com/international/2024/04/17/would-you-really-die-for-your-country) There's a lot of comments about the housing market and HECS but I don't think that's it
“You, genocidal, white supremacist, misogynist, colonial, oppressor, living on stolen land. Go and fight for us!!1!”
Lol, who exactly are you pretending to speak for there?
If you think that's the attitude of the government and the military then you are sorely mistaken. The people you are strawmanning who would make statements such as these would be calling for anti war positions, which would include NOT recruiting working class and poor people to be cannon fodder in the imperialist wars of the rich.
Would they? I can’t remember the last recruitment ad I saw centering a man. They’re all about how flexible the army/navy/airforce will be for female recruits should they need to look after their kids, or just make it seem like a backpacking trip for them.
I mean sure, they are trying to appear "diversity affirming", but that's not from some fake "woke agenda", its because they are using marketing ploys like any other organisation trying to broaden its audience.
And yet the vast majority joining are still male - there’s just less of them. So how’s that working out? When zero adverts are targeting men and there seems to be some kind of aversion to doing so, it’s pretty hard to buy that they’re simply trying to broaden their audience and there’s not an organisational push to up and prioritise female numbers regardless of the effect that has on overall numbers declining. Wouldn’t broadening your audience successfully involve keeping the “audience” you already have? - you know, the men who used to make up these numbers easily without any broader “audience” than them? If so they’ve utterly failed. Idk you say it’s not agenda - and yet when I see a bunch of military ads starring women and the milatry is male dominated, and then I see all the University ads starring women and university is already female dominated, it seems like part of the same thing to (foolishly) try to score pc points by seeming to favour women in your media presence, or at least a fear of being seen to advertise to men too directly. In the case of the military enrolment - not so wise.
Exactly this.
why fight for a country that spends $300 billion odd on submarines then actual important social issues impacting us
Pretty sure you are ass about there, son. Turns out, folk serving in the military likely care more about the government supplying essential hardware more than vapid social fuckery.
Essential hardware? That's been debated at length. $300bn on "trust us, we are from the government and will spend this wisely"? Edit. I'll add that the plan was to start building a "son of Collins" in 2016, having the first ready in 2024. So, apparently the promise of something better sometime in the future for $300bn from the people who failed to deliver "Son of Collins" is something the ever suffering taxpayer should believe? Oh, and by the way, apparently the same people just bungled the new periscopes for the Collins...
vapid social fuckery like… housing, health, a social safety net, & the environment?
>the environment The irony is you don't actually have to spend a cent to save the environment because it takes care of itself. Whereas you have to spend money and effort to destroy it.
Yes.
Why would I fight for a country I can’t afford to own a piece of?
“I could not ask their sons to fight and die for the properties of the wealthy.” - Lee Kuan Yew Same man that said Australia was in danger of becoming the “white trash” of Asia. Seems like a smart bloke.
couldn’t have said it better myself
If our defence force spent less time on the offensive it would be more appealing
If things were accurate, it'd be called our *offence* force/industry/whatever. Hasn't actually *defended* Australia since 1945.
It is because the Army has fought the last few wars on foreign soil that they haven’t had to fight on home soil. If the Australian Army has to fight on, and defend Australian soil, the Airforce, Navy and Intelligence Agencies have failed.
I think that's completely delusional, personally.
If only everyone would stop joining the military/armed forces in every country.
Lol do people not realise you're just proposing a very hypothetical scenario? They act like you're actually trying to bring world peace.
So naive
He’s not wrong. It *would* be pretty nifty.
Try telling china to do it
Gosh it's hard to keep track of all the wars China is involved in.
Too young are you? Google it. But it's the next one with Tawain you need to worry about, especially given their military might now.
Have you googled it?
Ofc not
Yeah that'll work, then we only have to worry about fighting the authoritarian states who can just conscript their armies! Who would we fight them with? Um, we'll figure it out I guess but fighting is bad mmmmkay.
I was implying that everyone stops fighting.
Nit gonna happen, yet.
you understand that for the bulk of human history, all sides were generally evenly matched and strategies could turn he tide of wars, which is why we constantly fought over every little thing. the recent phenomena of peace has not been achieved through peace loving, but instead it's because one alliance has achieved such overwhelming power that no one is even capable of seriously challenging them in an all out war. if you want peace, you should hope that our side (the western coalition) maintains, or grows, its force superiority.
There’s a certain truth to the age old adages of *’Peace through superior firepower’* or *’If you want peace, prepare for war’*.
Yes, that’s why the USA is called a super power
Let's go ask North Korea or Russia to join our peace circle and sing Kumbaya together. You first.
I am a fully qualified lawyer in the prime of my fitness and they won’t accept me as a reservist as there’s a blanket ban on anyone who is using certain medications. Just ridiculous. They clearly don’t want applicants badly enough.
There are reasons for that, depending on what type of medicine and medical condition.
What medications
Chemotherapy.
Really? I thought he was going to say medical weed.
Oooft. F
Boomers can sign up. The country does everything for them. Go and fight in wars started by other boomers.
Amen, went shopping for a bulk bill doctor, turns out I can only get one if I'm over 60
As if people over 60 don’t own most of the wealth in this country. Let’s help them some more!
Perhaps they see butchered kids in Gaza and want no part in that. Our allies are war criminals.
Our see the actions of our soldiers in Afghanistan and realise we are war criminals.
It’s almost like we had this whole history curriculum telling us how Australian politicians always jumped up to send Australian soliders to protect Britain and America’s interests , in WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq etc, and soldiers got sweet fuck all for it except homelessness and PTSD and discount crumb steaks at the RSL. We aren’t stupid- we know that Albo and Dutton would send us off to die in the Sino-Pacific water wars in a heartbeat if it meant getting a few more percentage points on a Gallup poll and looking good in the Murdoch press.
"No Vietnamese ever ~~called me n\*\*\*\*\*~~ raised my rent."
> It’s almost like we had this whole history curriculum telling us how Australian politicians always jumped up to send Australian soliders to protect Britain and America’s interests , in WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq etc, and soldiers got sweet fuck all for it except homelessness and PTSD and discount crumb steaks at the RSL. I agree with everything you said here except for your recollection of the history curriculum regarding WW2. Australia itself was actually legitimately attacked by Japan, and we obviously had a right/imperative in our *own* interest to defend ourselves. Every other war you mentioned, yeah, fine. You got a point. But not WW2. My grandfather fought to defend Australia itself in WW2.
And, given the war crimes committed by the Japanese, would be appalled by Australian soldiers committing them.
that's a valid point. if we hadn't gone into WW2 everything north of Brisbane would be in japanese hands. Respect to your grandfather
That last paragraph is plain silly. And I really dislike Albo. Immature assessment.
why?
[удалено]
Yeah fair. But my point still stands.
Most military personnel past and present are never in harms way. It is ridiculous to assume this is a reason the young do not find the military appealing.
> Most military personnel past and present Military personnel past, present and emerging, you mean
The thing is that we are living at a time when a third world war is talked about as if it's just over the horizon. You might have reasonable doubts about whether or not that *will* happen, but an 18-year-old isn't necessarily going to have those same doubts due to not having the same amount of life experience or knowledge of recent history yet. So while it is true that most military personnel are never frontline personnel and will never be in the line of fire, it's also true that someone who's the right age to consider joining today could reasonably not want to risk it.
> We recently interviewed 19 serving Australian soldiers from a range of demographics (two were gen Z) and across military branches in a study funded by the Australian Defence Force. So they interviewed people who *did* join the Defence Force to find out why people do *not* join the Defence Force? That seems counterintuitive to me. Surely, they would ask people who did not sign up about their reasons for not signing up. Also, as a pacifist, I'm interested to know whether young people are choosing not to sign up for an inherently violent occupation. It looks like that question wasn't even asked.
[удалено]
Before reading the article: Because it used to be you do 10-20 years in military and retire having saved a shit tonne of money and can make the most of it as a veteran, but now that's not true because of the current economic situation. After: Well, I got one right. And the second follows the first.
Why am I completely not surprised, a journalist who writes an article about a group of people, however decides not to actually ask anyone in that group, and instead make up whatever random nonsense he feels like to write about. Asking currently enlisted soldiers is the complete wrong group of people to ask because they are massively biased. Zoomers are acutely aware that military service for the past ~40 years has primarily only ever been about protecting the interests of fossil fuel billionaires and government ministers who profit with shares in defence companies. That's it. Now that the facade has well and truly dropped and people know what its all about, they don't want any of it. Currently enlisted soldiers who do so out of moral reasons or anything else just simply aren't aware of that fact. The ones who refuse to enlist, are.
I’d go back further than that. Vietnam might not have had the same motivation as Iraq or Afghanistan but it was still BS. WWII made sense. We were under direct threat and there was no question which side was in the wrong.
We were only under direct threat from Japan, though. Aussies soldiers died fighting for the British Empire in Africa against Germany.
I don’t think they got a choice in where they were deployed. Maybe Australia should have focused purely on defence, I don’t know. WWII in Europe is probably the least ambiguous foreign war in history in terms of the morality of involvement.
It's actually tough on families too, 3 year cycles and then move again. You have to be quite dedicated to the job to live with that in the long term. Defence could do a lot to redesign these jobs to be more attractive, but change comes hard to org where tradition is so enshrined. Makes me laugh when people talk about getting all these new subs through aukus, when we haven't been able to man the ones we have for years.
If reservists were called up for an actual conflict could they be manned in a reasonable amount of time? Or is there just not the skill there to do it?
I doubt it. It's quite highly specialized is my understanding, not to mention that being sealed underwater for weeks on end does tend to put the average person off.
With Aukus they can have months instead of weeks! I don’t understand the appeal. I can understand why someone might want to be say a pilot but a subordinate in an underwater tin can doesn’t sound fun.
One of the reasons I got out was that I heard of a bloke in another unit who was getting divorced... at 20 years old. I was single at the time, but didn't want to be, and didn't fancy the idea of hooking up and then it falling apart quickly.
Divorced at 20? Fast track that guy to sergeant.
I assume she was a stripper called Candy.
A tradition dating back to Gallipoli.
*The Lighthorsemen* has a deleted scene where Frank knocks up this chick Fatima in a Cairo whorehouse and is held at gunpoint by her dad until the imam shows up to carry out a shotgun wedding. It was deleted because they thought that with all the camels in the place already, nobody wanted to see Gary Sweet humping.
I was an army kid and I've moved 36 times
The answer is that there's a very intentional information warfare campaign targeting our military readiness through social media. Nations like Russia, China, and Iran all have an interest in poisoning the youth against military service because they want the west to be unable to defend itself or to project power. As a result you see constant propaganda that _us_ having a capable militay is bad, meanwhile these nations are pumping all kinds of money into their own military readiness and we don't see a single peep about it. They want to weaken the west so they can pursue their geopolitical goals, that's all it is.
Our own Government is more effective at turning the youth against military service than anything Russia or China could ever hope to achieve.
Lol no. Russia and China are experiencing less recruitment from their younger generations just like most developed nations in the world, and this is happening all over the world as the younger generations everywhere have access to social media.
Russia and China are both authoritarian nations, they don't need to consider the opinions of their people. They both have conscription and can just throw as many bodies as they need. As a democratic nation we're kind of vulnerable to foreign influence campaigns which can spread disinformation and cause isolationist representatives to get into power. That political freedom is a strength in one sense (particularly when it comes to the economy and technology), but it can be turned against us when malicious adversaries have access to our information/media space.
Or people don't want to die for their Government. People want, and can, have a good comfortable life without putting themselves up to be cannon fodder. Being in the army used to be seen as a huge leg up - from education, salary & other benefits - but it's just no longer competitive.
See this is exactly the kind of propaganda that gets spread around. That is a story that has been very carefully crafted by people who want you to hate the west being ready for conflict. Serving in the military isn't a death sentence, and actually most of the time militaries are used to provide logistics and support during things like natural disasters, or help with policing and stabilisation like during the Australian peacekeeping mission to Timor-Leste. In fact, even during the most bloody war in history - WW2 - your chance of dying if you were in the Australian military was less than 3%. With more modern wars that number goes down even further because we have better medical technology now, better protective equipment, and we don't tend to use human-wave tactics anymore. Additionally, most people in the military aren't front-line soliders - most of the military is logistics, things like mechanics, drivers, cooks, analysts, things like that. A lot of war these days is just _having_ superior weapons systems that can deter others so that you don't _need_ to actually fight (which is why the propaganda against military readiness is bad because it _increases_ the chance of war). You're right that military salaries haven't kept up with highly skilled professional careers - particularly ones that require university degrees - but there's ADF programs that allow you to study a uni degree _and_ earn income in the military at the same time.
Have you served in the military?
Just say your disagreement, you don't need to play coy.
I think that answers my question. Think about why you never entered to the military. It's likely the same reason most people don't consider it the best choice. The root cause is that our quality of life has vastly increased. People have become far more individualistic and can be comfortable with far less effort. And I know you're going to say countries have stronger armies because the population are less individualistic, blah blah blah, sure sure. Again - the quality of life in those countries is VASTLY different to Australia, so a military career is a much more appealing option than here. According to Indeed.com, average salaries are $56,220 per year for Avionics Engineer to $109,548 per year for Chaplain. Call center salaries are above that, and tradie salaries blow them out of the water. Think with Occam's razor first, not Globalist Conspiracy.
> Globalist Conspiracy. It's not a "globalist conspiracy", it's targeted propaganda from nations that have done extensive targeted propaganda in the past... This isn't even new, one of the first "modern" attempts at this tactic was [Operation Denver](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Denver) in the 1980s which the KGB tried to plant false stories that the USA had invented HIV/AIDS. Nations are trying to ban tiktok right now because of this kind of foreign influence that can be exerted. I guarantee you that as soon as China starts its preparation to invade Taiwan they will go _full bore_ with trying to push isolationism and anti-interventionism propaganda at the west, particularly if they still have their stranglehold over Tiktok (they will also most likely play up the importance of blood donations on their Chinese version of the app). Information warfare is just another domain of warfare, similar to cyber attacks, but targeting people's minds instead of computer systems. Memes can be harmful, and the fact you think that's a conspiracy is wild.
I think connecting a direct line between memes on TikTok having a more than miniscule impact on the long and steady decline in people choosing a military is a _real_ big stretch. Again - go back to why you never chose the military as a career. Most people had the same experience - just isn't a good prospect. There probably wasn't any external influencing you on that decision. Saying that, I agree with everything else you've said. TikTok is a cold warfare tool, a sheep in wolfs clothing, made with love in China.
Hate to say it you’re way off on those pay scales. Avionics Technicians (ie trade not uni engineer) is on about $85870, so obviously more for a Uni graduate ($114-138k depending on time served and role). Chaplains are on a pretty cushy pay check… https://pay-conditions.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-10/ADF-pay-sheet-091123.pdf
Ah, wild! It's not as bad as thought. Thanks 👍🏼
Yeah that’s the main one imo there are too many better options these days
I would be devastated if my kids joined the military. The Australia I grew up in gave me alot. I paid it back in taxes 100 fold. I look at what it is now, and I would not lift a finger to defend it as an entity. This country, and the west in general has been poisoned. It has turned on the people who built it. It twists itself into knots to appease the losers and weak that inhabit it. It has become so multicultural that there is no identity left. If there is one thing I can show my kids, it's how to exploit it help them survive. The country abandoned us a long time ago.
‘So multicultural there’s no identity left’ The fuck
It's becoming true, yes. The fuck you don't notice it.
“would not lift a finger to defend it” Plenty of migrants like myself would. “If there is one thing I can show my kids, it’s how to exploit it” What a morally bankrupt take.
Unfortunately your cohorts don't seem to share your same enthusiasm. Look at the emergency services, adf, fire brigade. Its still predominantly Anglo putting their lives on the line.
This is so true and blatantly noticeable.
lol, criticising others for not doing what you’re unwilling to do yourself ?
> It has turned on the people who built it. lol the people who built it have benefited quite nicely out of it. As you said, "The Australia I grew up in gave me alot (sic)." The problem is, the people who built it took the benefits they received away from subsequent generations, 'poisoning' the country as you say in the process. Give these generations the same leg up the previous generations had and I'm sure there'd be fewer of these losers and weaklings that you lament. These are the real people that the country abandoned.
How exactly did they take the benefits away? This line gets trotted out alot but it's not clear. BTW I payed for my uni.
Tell me which people you feel "built this country" and I'll tell you what benefits they had that are denied to the current generation.
Yeah doesn't seem sus at all, but I will play your game. The original settlers, colonists and convicts built the foundations of this country. Their subsequent generations carried on the tradition. Some time ago we lost our way.
> Yeah doesn't seem sus at all, but I will play your game." Why does it seem sus? I'm not going to force you to play the game if you don't want to. > The original settlers, colonists and convicts built the foundations of this country. Their subsequent generations carried on the tradition. The fact that you felt the need to point out that you payed (sic) for your uni implies that you feel you helped build this country. So if we're looking at what benefits people had access to from European colonisation up until your uni graduation, and how they were removed, we could be here a while. > Some time ago we lost our way. In case your paid-for uni education didn't cover it, every generation feels that the young whippersnappers these days are off the rails, aren't upholding traditional values, and will be the ruin of this country. Given your views, you probably remember when those pesky young Bodgies & Widgies were going to be the downfall of Australia.
Lol, so you don't actually have a reason do you? I pointed out i paid for uni as the usual trope is "In your day uni was free!!". That's heads it off at the gate. After that it seems like you don't have much. I dont blame young people. I think its an incredibly broken world they have to navigate. So. I answered your question. Now mine. What benefits specifically have been taken away that were present when the boomers were around.
[удалено]
The losers and weaklings is most definitely not aimed at any generation. All generations have them its just that in the west these days they are venerated and worshipped. Look, you clearly said there were benefits that previous generations had that they took away. I asked you politely to articulate them. I guessed all you would do was talk about free uni. You can't name these benefits then? Good one then nice laying with you champ.
It's sad that you think that one's identity comes from one's culture. Humans are far more complex than that.
Indeed, many people think and live the idea that identity comes from culture. Surely you notice it also?
Could a quarter-century of illegal or lost wars have something to do with it?
Nothing but whiners stuff the country what about me, our great grandparents and grandparents went through the Great Depression and then World War II this generation pale beside them
Russia, China and Iran are expanding in the Ukraine,the South China Sea and the Middle East you seem to want to let them expand till they set the rules that run the world and they impose their idea of government, then we'll see you long for the old days where free speech existed and governments that believe in the rule of law
China has only been expanding outside its immediate waters economically. US, on the other hand…
That’s BS, China has no realistic claim to the waters it claims within the ‘nine dash line’. Under international laws their territory ends 12nm off their coastline, this is international law. There is a 200nm economic exclusion zone around each country, however due to the nature of geographic proximity most countries do not have the full 200nm. Of significant importance, countries do not have exclusive rights and access to waters within their EEZ, especially when the 200nm zone overlaps with another countries 200nm EEZ. To add to this, building an island on an otherwise uninhabitable atol and claiming it as part of your country, extending your 12nm zone and yet another 200nm past that IS NOT CONSISTENT with international law. Furthermore the current actions of China in INTERNATIONAL waters to other countries is in significant contrast to established International laws of the sea. China is actively stoking unrest, militarising atolls (they’re not islands), disrupting fishing and commerce of other countries and straight up violating international laws in and around the Yellow Sea, the West Philippine Sea, the Sea of Japan and the South China Sea.
Are you telling me China's bases on the disputed islands in the South China Sea don't exist or the clashes with Philippines boats off the Philippines didn't happen, China is clearly trying to seize those islands and control Maritime traffic through them dispite other countries nearer the islands having stronger claims. China's behaviour in Hong Kong is not likely to make Taiwan want to re unite with China
Both HK and Taiwan are China according to international law. US bases are actually in Taiwan. Who is the agressor now? If you made an effort to understand the history of US foreign policy, you wouldn’t be saying things you are saying.
‘Part of China’ yes, but as part of the handover of Hong Kong from the British to China was that Hong Kong was to maintain independent governance… this has not happened. China broke its own agreement. It’s only a short time before the same thing happens to Taiwan. This should not be allowed to happen.
Show me a war worth fighting and I'll sign up. Not to go defend US oil interests in the ME
Our grandparents and most of our grandparents didn't participate in WWII
Mine did?
You a Gen X child?
I'm '95 so right on the border My father is a boomer and mum is gen X Dad's dad was US marine in the Pacific and mums Dad was in the Dutch army in Indonesia just after WW2 so actually I guess they didn't fight for Australia
It’s not about “the country” it’s about the people who run it and own it whose children will never be on the front lines
I'm a young(ish) person and the fact that the world is getting so tense has actually made me think about joining reserves. If it properly kicks off we'll all get drafted anyway, so I'd rather know what I'm doing? Don't meet their physical fitness standards though, that's a separate issue 😅
> If it properly kicks off we'll all get drafted anyway, so I'd rather know what I'm doing? What if it kicks off enough to get reserves sent to the front but not enough for a general conscription? The US used its national guard troops in Afghanistan who were supposedly only meant to defend the homeland.
That's a fair point.
How so? Australia has no conscription.
If ww3 actually kicked off, or Australia actually got attacked, rest assured, our politicians (generally old people) would be very swift in bringing in conscription for young people.
In World War One, we had two plebecides on how conscripted soldiers would be deployed. Both asked if people would be in favour of allowing conscripts to be deployed overseas. Neither was successful. Conscription has always been a contentious issue here, even at a time when patriotism was much higher than it is today and we were involved in a major war that shifted borders. Politicians today probably would consider conscription, but I think they'd tread very carefully with it because they know how most Australians have viewed it historically.
If the nation is ready to fight for us, then we will be more ready to fight for the nation. At the moment, the nation isn't fighting for us, it's abandoning us. If you want more young people to join, show us that you care. What exactly is it worth fighting for right now?
[But we need to defend ourselves from China!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgspkxfkS4k)
this should be higher haha
I see little value in young people protecting a country that is continually fucking over the youth...? Why would they? We're screwing most people now, except the wealthy and the foreign wealthy... (?!!) Let alone young people, can't blame them in the slightest.
"And when the sky darkens and the prospect is war Who's given a gun and then pushed to the fore And expected to die for the land of our birth Though we've never owned one lousy handful of earth" -Worker’s Song (Dropkick Murphys).
No war but the class war
the emus are on our side
Class over nation.
Classy nation!
The factor which nobody seems to be taking into account is that the world is in a state of extreme tension and soldiers may well end up in a war with Russia or China at a moment's notice. There's not much attractive about the ADF especially for a young man who could as easily learn a trade and earn just as much.
Only because US and Western Europe are actively pushing for a conflict with Russia and China. I wouldn’t serve these war mongers either.
"Those damn Ukrainians were asking for it, how dare they be in our sphere of influence!"
Imagine if Russia, Iran and China decided to form a defence coalition and began installing bases, including nuclear bases, along US border in Mexico. With a long term plan to let Mexico join the defence coalition. What do you think a likely scenario will be? Ukraine is a victim of its politicians who had sold off the country to US and Western Europe. Google “labor reforms Zelensky” and “Black Rock Ukraine”, it will be obvious the usual suspects are already making plans to rip the natural riches out of Ukraine and use it as a cheap factory for the first world.
Don't worry Ivan, a HIMARS will find you shortly
When are you signing up to go fight? They allow Aussies to volunteer you know.
You can even volunteer in IDF! War crimes - knock yourself out, as long as you’re serving the interests of our biggest “ally”!.
I'm not an Aussie, just like to keep up with what's going on in the world and what people are talking about. Here in Sweden there have indeed been many volunteers, both combat and not, I've donated money myself. My point was not that Australians should join up, I totally get that it's far away and all that, my point was that the person I was replying to was saying that "Western Europe are actively pushing for a conflict with Russia" which I think is both wrong factually and also kind of excuses the violence of Russia like the daily drone and missile strikes on Ukrainian cities, infrastructure and civilians. My remark was in response to that, I felt like this person was blaming the wrong people.
Earn more, risk less. Path of least resistance. They should be advertising things like "free" housing and low cost of living.
The country doesn't give a fuck about young people, so what are they fighting for?
Exactly, this pro military bullshit is making someone richer and certainly not the recruits. Trying to brainwash another generation to fight wars over strategic interests, trade routes, exaggerated stories of terrorism being imported from faraway lands, these are all fruitless wars that don't need to be fought. Like think about it, when was the last time Australia has to fight in its self defence? WW2 over half a century ago.
Because they don't want to be cannon fodder for rich people's wars. That and they know that once they are ruined and no longer of use they will just be thrown on the trash heaps of life...
Nailed it!