Starship Troopers
Scott Drellishak
Heinlein's writings (in _Grumbles_From_The_Grave_, I think) that the
government in _Starship_Troopers_ did *not* require that a citizen
serve in the military in order to gain the right to vote -- rather, a
term of any kind of civil service sufficed. Now, I re-read ST
recently, hoping to find this stated explicitly in the text, but I
couldn't. Can anyone provide me with a pointer (chapter and
approximate page) to a passage which makes this point clear?
--
/ Scott Drellishak s...@metaphor.com \
| "He would see faces in movies, on TV, in magazines, and in books. |
\ He thought that some of these faces might be right for him..." /
Russell Gold
: I've heard it stated several times, both in this newsgroup and in
: Heinlein's writings (in _Grumbles_From_The_Grave_, I think) that the
: government in _Starship_Troopers_ did *not* require that a citizen
: serve in the military in order to gain the right to vote -- rather, a
: term of any kind of civil service sufficed. Now, I re-read ST
: recently, hoping to find this stated explicitly in the text, but I
: couldn't. Can anyone provide me with a pointer (chapter and
: approximate page) to a passage which makes this point clear?
In Chapter II (p. 27 in my copy), the recruiting sargeant says
"[it's] your constitutional right ... to pay [your] service and
assume full citizenship..."
The context makes it pretty clear that it is specifically *military*
service that is meant. Part of the confusion may come from the fact
that the military is referred to as "Federal Service."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Gold | "... society is tradition and order
russ...@netaxs.com (preferred) | and reverence, not a series of cheap
russ...@aol.com | bargains between selfish interests."
David Dyer-Bennet
>I've heard it stated several times, both in this newsgroup and in
>Heinlein's writings (in _Grumbles_From_The_Grave_, I think) that the
>government in _Starship_Troopers_ did *not* require that a citizen
>serve in the military in order to gain the right to vote -- rather, a
>term of any kind of civil service sufficed. Now, I re-read ST
>recently, hoping to find this stated explicitly in the text, but I
>couldn't. Can anyone provide me with a pointer (chapter and
>approximate page) to a passage which makes this point clear?
Heinlein made the statement that 95% of the voters are what we would
call today retired civil service workers. It's in an essay in, I
think, _Expanded Universe_.
However, I don't see how the actual text of _Starship Troopers_ can be
read to support that view. I did two special re-reads and collected a
file of annotated quotations on the subject, which if the discussion
here gets out of hand I hereby threaten to post :-). While there are
certainly people who haven't faced combat (as there are in our current
military), and while there are a few people who had really silly jobs
(handicapped people who insisted on doing their service), it's very
clear in the book that "veteran" means "former member of the
military".
--
David Dyer-Bennet, proprietor, The Terraboard 4242 Minnehaha Ave. S.
d...@network.com, d...@terrabit.mn.org Minneapolis, MN 55406
Don't waste your time arguing about allocating +1-612-721-8800
blame; there'll be enough to go around. Fax +1-612-724-3314
Jim_...@transarc.com
> Scott Drellishak (s...@soda.berkeley.edu) wrote:
> : I've heard it stated several times, both in this newsgroup and in
> : Heinlein's writings (in _Grumbles_From_The_Grave_, I think) that the
> : government in _Starship_Troopers_ did *not* require that a citizen
> : serve in the military in order to gain the right to vote -- rather, a
> : term of any kind of civil service sufficed. Now, I re-read ST
> : recently, hoping to find this stated explicitly in the text, but I
> : couldn't. Can anyone provide me with a pointer (chapter and
> : approximate page) to a passage which makes this point clear?
>
> In Chapter II (p. 27 in my copy), the recruiting sargeant says
>
> "[it's] your constitutional right ... to pay [your] service and
> assume full citizenship..."
>
> The context makes it pretty clear that it is specifically *military*
> service that is meant. Part of the confusion may come from the fact
> that the military is referred to as "Federal Service."
>
No, its government service in general. However, you don't get the
choice of what kind. You volunteer, then you get assigned. You may get
assigned to clean parks or build roads. Or you may wind up in the
marines.
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
(412) 338-4442
David Mix Barrington
Check out RAH's own discussion of the reaction to _ST_ in _Expanded Universe.
As I recall, that is where the reference to "retired members of the civil
service" is, though I'm not quite certain. I recall but can't verify that
RAH's remarks here are inconsistent with the original text.
I don't think the Terran
Federation _has_ a lot of Federal government apart from the military. The
military (as now) performs many functions other than combat -- the book
mentions scientific research. (Isn't there a quote in the book to the effect
that if you sign up and are fit only for being a guinea pig in a dangerous
experiment, that's what you get? (With the implication being that even if
you're an idiot, if you survive you deserve the franchise for risking your
life.))
My guess is that most of the things we see as "civil service" are either
(1) reserved for retired veterans (this is specific in the book for police
and teaching H&MP, I think) or (2) not Federal Service. Anybody recall any
reference to say, the mayor of a town? I'd guess this is a civilian chosen
by the vote of the eligible electorate, i.e., veterans. Services like
garbage collection and mail delivery are probably privatized, contracted out
by the elected officials if they're tax-supported, but not "Federal Service".
Dave MB
Graydon
Jim_...@transarc.com writes:
>russ...@netaxs.com (Russell Gold) writes:
>> The context makes it pretty clear that it is specifically *military*
>> service that is meant. Part of the confusion may come from the fact
>> that the military is referred to as "Federal Service."
>No, its government service in general. However, you don't get the
>choice of what kind. You volunteer, then you get assigned. You may get
>assigned to clean parks or build roads. Or you may wind up in the
>marines.
hard to find enough dangerous stuff for all the people who are
signing up to do - stuff that counts as Federal Service has a
meaningful chance of killing or maiming you, in other words.
Cleaning parks doesn't count; nor does building most roads.
"testing environment suits on Titan" does, as does military
service (and there's a couple strong hints that the entire
military tries to limit the use of uniformed personnel to
combat arms), but the basic point is that it is dangerous,
whatever it is.
Which leads to the interesting question about how dangerous
such service can be and still work. A 1in10 chance of dying
is a great scincerity check, but a 1in2 chance of dying is
going to lead to a lot of attempts to subvert the system.
Graydon (what, no one has mentioned the resonances with Sparta yet?)
Jim Gifford
s> Heinlein's writings (in _Grumbles_From_The_Grave_, I think) that the
s> government in _Starship_Troopers_ did *not* require that a citizen
s> serve in the military in order to gain the right to vote -- rather, a
s> term of any kind of civil service sufficed. Now, I re-read ST
s> recently, hoping to find this stated explicitly in the text, but I
s> couldn't. Can anyone provide me with a pointer (chapter and
s> approximate page) to a passage which makes this point clear?
Welcome to reality. <grin>
To make an extremely long story short, I used to believe the RAH-stated concept
that "Federal Service" was only partially military nature. After arguing the
concept at length in the Fidonet SF echo, some very persuasive and
well-supported arguments caused me to carefully re-examine the book. I've
repeated the investigation at least twice since then, the last time to write
the entry on TROOPERS for my forthcoming book on Heinlein's works.
Since my book is not a critical volume, the entry does not discuss the
controversy. Here, however, is the chapter note referenced in the entry:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Military Nature of "Federal Service" in Starship Troopers:
I have elected to place this discussion in the end notes so as not to clutter
the entry for Starship Troopers. On the whole, I have tried to avoid criticism
in this book; as the Introduction states, it is neither a work of criticism nor
adulation.
However, it is nearly impossible for a reader to make a fair evaluation of this
novel without understanding the facts behind the controversies. Thus, this
rather lengthy note contains my summary of the debate over the nature of
"Federal Service" and the textual support for each of the two major viewpoints.
Opinion is unavoidable and necessary in this context.
Heinlein's position, as stated in Expanded Universe, is simple: 19 out of 20
veteran-citizens in the society of Starship Troopers are not military veterans,
but what we would term former civil service workers. This position is fostered
by a cursory and uncritical reading of the novel.
However, a careful reading and evaluation of what Starship Troopers actually
says about the nature of Federal Service leads to a conclusion utterly contrary
to Heinlein's statement. It is not possible to quote all relevant material, as
it consists of several thousand words of the novel. However, the arguments (my
arguments) against Heinlein's statement can be summarized as follows. I am
highly interested in hearing any well-wrought counter-arguments:
- In nearly every reference to Federal Service, explicit mention of the
military nature of service is made. All explicit references to Federal
Service types are either distinctly military, or military-auxiliary:
"noncombatant" divisions, logistics, etc.
- There is no explicit reference to any civil-service aspect of Federal
Service. Over and over it is clearly stated that Federal Service is
either military service, an extremely hard, dirty and dangerous
equivalent, or makework ("counting the fuzz on caterpillars") for those
unfit for hard duty who insist on earning a franchise.
- The assumption by all speakers is that Federal Service is military
service--when Rico tells his father he is joining up, the response is a
tirade about "wearing a pretty uniform." There is no assumption by any
character that non-military service is an option.
- Juan Rico's choices for service after failing to pass the tests for pilot
are entirely military, with nothing remaining but "booby-prize" jobs such
as labor battalions. There is no mention of any non-military option.
- It is stated over and over again that Federal Service consists of
"defending the race" and "putting one's own life second to the survival
of society"; that "service" equals "sacrifice." This is not consistent
with Heinlein's definition of civil service work.
- An explicit distinction is drawn at least once between "civilians" and
members of Federal Service.
- It is stated over and over again that trained military personnel are too
valuable to use for non-military service, and that civilians are "hired
like beans" to "do the ant work." It is also stated that "all soft, safe
jobs" and "non-essential jobs" are filled by civilians.
- The oath of service which Juan Rico and his companion Carl take is
strongly military in tone. Rico explicitly mentions after he takes it
that he is no longer a civilian.
- The current form of government was created by army veterans who
established a government in a period of disorders, then only permitted
other veterans to join and vote.
- There is no statement, even once, much less "more than once" that 95% of
veterans served in non-military positions. The closest statement is by
Mr. DuBois, who states that "in peacetime most veterans come from non-
combatant auxiliary services and have not been subjected to the full rig-
ors of military discipline; they have merely been harried, overworked and
endangered." "Non-combatant" and "endangered" strongly imply that the
service is military in nature.
There is only one potential exception, and that is the service of Rico's
friend Carl. He appears to be posted immediately to "starside R&D" on
Pluto, and there is no mention of this being military service. However,
the base on Pluto is attacked and destroyed by the Bugs, which would seem
to imply that it was a military target. Sergeant Ho also treats Carl as
if he is signing up for military service, attempting to scare him off
with his battle-mutilated condition even after Carl states his service
preference. Any vagueness of this unique case is overwhelmed by the
direct and reiterated statements that Federal Service does indeed mean
military or military-support service--not anything resembling what we
know as civil service.
It is possible that Heinlein fully intended to present Federal Service as a
largely "civil" service rather than military, but in writing a novel about the
military side gave inadvertent short shrift to the civilian side. There are a
few faint clues in the novel that this may be the case, but the mass of clear
and direct statements say exactly the opposite.
All of Heinlein's other comments in Expanded Universe regarding critical
complaints about Troopers are correct.
(I am indebted to David Dyer-Bennet for convincing me of the validity of this
argument, in the face of much resistance, and providing the original references
supporting it.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd be interested in all "well-thought-out" responses, either here in r.a.s.w.
or e-mail. (Use e-mail if possible: my newsgroup feed seems to occasionally
lose bundles of messages.)
Please note that I will ignore responses that add up to either "Heinlein said
so, nyah nyah!" or "I got a different impression when I read the book several
years ago." Cogent, supported arguments only, please and thank you.
---
Internet: Jim.G...@ubik.wmeonlin.sacbbx.com
Fidonet: Ubik (1:203/289)
Direct: 916-723-4296 V.32bis 24 Hours
Mark Webster
>I've heard it stated several times, both in this newsgroup and in
>Heinlein's writings (in _Grumbles_From_The_Grave_, I think) that the
>government in _Starship_Troopers_ did *not* require that a citizen
>serve in the military in order to gain right to vote -- rather, a
>term of any kind of civil service sufficed. Now, I re-read ST
>recently, hoping to find this stated exp / in the text, but I
>couldn't. Can anyone provide me with a pointer (chapter and
>approximate page) to a passage which makes this point clear?
If memory serves correctly (it's been a few years since I last
read the book), citizens were not requried to serve in the military
per se. However, when you enlisted, there was not guarantee that
you wouldn't serve in the military either. You stated your
preferences, but the governments needs took priority over your
preferences. In the book, Juan Rico's -LAST- preference was the
infantry.
The one out that you had, and Heinlein was fairly specific about
this, was that if you didn't like your assignment, you didn't have
to report for duty. There was no penalty for failing to report.
However, there was no second chance to enlist and become a full
citizen.
--
Mark Webster | mweb...@reach.com or
Cleveland, OH | af...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
David Barton
(Scott Drellishak) writes:
I've heard it stated several times, both in this newsgroup and in
Heinlein's writings (in _Grumbles_From_The_Grave_, I think) that the
government in _Starship_Troopers_ did *not* require that a citizen
serve in the military in order to gain the right to vote -- rather, a
term of any kind of civil service sufficed. Now, I re-read ST
recently, hoping to find this stated explicitly in the text, but I
couldn't. Can anyone provide me with a pointer (chapter and
approximate page) to a passage which makes this point clear?
Check earlier in the book, where Juan Rico is filling out the list of
services in which he is interested. He explicitly states that he is
not interested in the "non-combatant" services. Recall, also, that
his friend is interested in "Starside R&D, if they'll have me".
I think the overall organization is somewhat different (these may
still be part of the "military"; the entire *government* may be some
version of the military, in some sense); however, some preference for
non-combat positions is clearly possible, and non-combat services
exist.
Dave Barton
d...@wash.inmet.com
Jim Gifford
> service that is meant. Part of the confusion may come from the fact
> that the military is referred to as "Federal Service."
J> No, its government service in general. However, you don't get the
J> choice of what kind. You volunteer, then you get assigned. You may get
J> assigned to clean parks or build roads. Or you may wind up in the
J> marines.
Your service is picked for you, yes, more or less by your qualifications and
present needs of the system. However, the evidence from the book (not from
fuzzy inference or Heinlein's later arguments-by-authority) is that *all*
service is military, military-support, hard and dirty facsimiles thereof, or
make-work for those unfit for military/labor service. There is no substantiated
evidence in the book that "civil service" as we know it is an option.
Graydon
Jim.G...@ubik.wmeonlin.sacbbx.com (Jim Gifford) writes:
>[it's military service]
Sargeant Ho's little speach in the recruitment office makes
it fairly plain that they *have* to take you if you want to
join (same with the fellow who ended up as a cook on a troop
transport - 'you don't have to take a medical'), and that
there aren't 'real' military jobs for that many people.
The system is also *old*; the war in question (the one the
aftermath of which involved the creation of the present
political order) involves the 'modern' set of great powers
(including Britain, which is why 'modern' is quoted; that
was the shooting war we *didn't* have during the Cold War),
whereas, by the time of the novel, there are multiple star
colonies - this takes at least a century.
So the original 'pure military service' has mutated under
population pressure into 'Federal Service' (remember the
description of the Merchant Seaman's guilds? They can at
least make a case (although they can't get it through)
that their guilds should be classed as equivalent to
Federal Service)), which would appear to have the salient
characterisitics that it is not pleasant, and that it
can kill you.
However, the archtype, culturally, of Federal Service is
military service - it's the basis for discussion, as it
were, and the source of terminology.
There is also that Jaun Rico is a member of what is a bizzare
cross between a gang of fighter jocks and an airborne
regiment - he's not precisely a nutcase by present standards,
but he's not going to be the best available source of an
scholarly balanced perspective!
And, of course, it's quite clear that Heinlien wanted to
talk about military service, or the book would have been
about a skywatch programmer or an environment suit tester
or a member of an emergency response crew.
Graydon
Jim Gifford
>Heinlein's writings (in _Grumbles_From_The_Grave_, I think) that the
>government in _Starship_Troopers_ did *not* require that a citizen
>serve in the military in order to gain the right to vote -- rather, a
>term of any kind of civil service sufficed. Now, I re-read ST
>recently, hoping to find this stated explicitly in the text, but I
>couldn't. Can anyone provide me with a pointer (chapter and
>approximate page) to a passage which makes this point clear?
d> Heinlein made the statement that 95% of the voters are what we would
d> call today retired civil service workers. It's in an essay in, I
d> think, _Expanded Universe_.
d> However, I don't see how the actual text of _Starship Troopers_ can be
d> read to support that view. I did two special re-reads and collected a
d> file of annotated quotations on the subject, which if the discussion
d> here gets out of hand I hereby threaten to post :-).
No, no, not THAT! Anything but THAT!
<grin> Didn't know you lurked in this neck of the e-woods. By now, you'll have
seen my post from RAH:ARC, with credit to the appropriate party.
gle...@mwk.com
> to imply that it was a military target. Sergeant Ho also treats Carl as
> if he is signing up for military service, attempting to scare him off
This mention of Sgt. Ho reminds me of a question I've puzzled over
for years...several of the background characters in Heinlein's works
have been amputees. Given that Heinlein (sometimes, at least) wrote
about things he knew about and things from his personal experience,
I have often wondered if he or someone close to him was missing
a limb. Maybe, but then again, maybe he knew a lot of people who
had "bought just a part of the farm" during combat in WWII...waddaya
think?
Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR
Control-G Consultants
gle...@mwk.com
John Schilling
>Jim_...@transarc.com writes:
>>No, its government service in general. However, you don't get the
>>choice of what kind. You volunteer, then you get assigned. You may get
>>assigned to clean parks or build roads. Or you may wind up in the
>>marines.
>Can you cite any passages in the book supporting this view, though?
>It directly conflicts with a lot of things in the book.
In chapter two, the first thing the recruiting sergeant says when
Rico & friend ask to enlist is "labor battalions, eh?" Not "Infantry,
eh?" It is reasonably clear that the default Federal service is
not military. Chapter two gives numerous examples of non-military
Federal service, but does not explicitly discuss the numerical breakdown.
>Also compare to the discussion with the use of civillian labor (on
>Sanctuary and elsewhere) that are hired for the job. Makes no sense
>if there are recruits available.
Clearly, ST's "Federal Service" does not include all government employees,
as does our Civil Service. But it is not purely military, either. It
presumably consists of all positions typically filled by those with a
desire to serve society, rather than those interested in good pay,
job security, career enhancement, etc. The military is a subset of this.
It should also be noted that Heinlein tended towards libertarian (small 'l')
politics. In a libertarian society, a civil service like ours would not
exist, because the government would not be involved in most of the thins
ours is. National defense is one of the few legitimate roles of government
in libertarian philosophy, and therefore the military would represent a
larger fraction of Federal service than it does of modern Civil service.
We really don't know much about the non-military aspect of ST's society,
because the two viewpoint characters (Rico and DuBois) are both career
soldiers. That being the case, and in the absence of conclusive evidence
to the contrary, I am inclined to accept Heinlein's out-of-band statements
on the subject as definitive. Federal service is mostly non-military.
--
*John Schilling * "You can have Peace, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * or you can have Freedom. *
*University of Southern California * Don't ever count on having both *
*Aerospace Engineering Department * at the same time." *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * - Robert A. Heinlein *
*(213)-740-5311 or 747-2527 * Finger for PGP public key *
Gharlane of Eddore
> > choice of what kind. You volunteer, then you get assigned. You may get
> > assigned to clean parks or build roads. Or you may wind up in the
> > marines.
>
> It directly conflicts with a lot of things in the book.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! Heinlein was *adamant* about his opposition to the
draft, and to the right of any human being to earn the franchise
through public service. If you re-read the book, you'll find many
detailed delineations of this; I remember a discussion along the
lines of "What if a blind man insists on volunteering for public
service?" "Then they'll find him a job counting the hairs on a
caterpiller or something."
Heinlein took great pride in the fact that (as he claimed) no member
of his family had ever been drafted. He came from a long tradition
of volunteer service, and felt that any government lacking in volunteers
to defend it deserved to be over-run by conquerors.
He made it very clear that the military was only *one* option available
to fulfill the two-year service requirement necessary to earn a franchise
and full citizenhood; but I'm not sure how much choice an enlistee got
about what kind of service he performed.
If you're curious, just go re-read the book. It's an anti-draft,
anti-standing-military, anti-big-government, Libertarian tract.
And it makes excellent sense, the way it's presented.
> Also compare to the discussion with the use of civillian labor (on
> Sanctuary and elsewhere) that are hired for the job. Makes no sense
> if there are recruits available.
Excuse me? How many recruits can you afford to contract for two years'
service at any one time? Our own military has a good many civilian
employees, because it's the cheapest, lowest-hassle way to approach the
problem.
>--
--
=======================================================================
|| "It's Science Fiction, if, presuming technical competence on the ||
|| the part of the writer, he genuinely believes it could happen." ||
|| --- John W. Campbell, Jr. ||
David Dyer-Bennet
>Anybody recall any
>reference to say, the mayor of a town? I'd guess this is a civilian chosen
>by the vote of the eligible electorate, i.e., veterans.
There was a guy in basic with Juan who was in because he wanted to be
a politician. This doesn't *conclusively* demonstrate that elected
official must be veterans by law; it may simply indicate that the
voters generally won't elect people who aren't veterans.
David Dyer-Bennet
>No, its government service in general. However, you don't get the
>choice of what kind. You volunteer, then you get assigned. You may get
>assigned to clean parks or build roads. Or you may wind up in the
>marines.
Can you cite any passages in the book supporting this view, though?
It directly conflicts with a lot of things in the book.
Also compare to the discussion with the use of civillian labor (on
Sanctuary and elsewhere) that are hired for the job. Makes no sense
if there are recruits available.
Laird P. Broadfield
>>No, its government service in general. However, you don't get the
>>choice of what kind. You volunteer, then you get assigned. You may get
>>assigned to clean parks or build roads. Or you may wind up in the
>>marines.
>Can you cite any passages in the book supporting this view, though?
>It directly conflicts with a lot of things in the book.
>Also compare to the discussion with the use of civillian labor (on
>Sanctuary and elsewhere) that are hired for the job. Makes no sense
>if there are recruits available.
What I'm wondering is if there *are* any jobs other than the military.
I'll admit I haven't re-read ST lately, but as I recall, all of the
people employed by the government (the systemwide government, ignore the
local governments for the moment) were either military or "temps", in
effect.
Any evidence, agreement, disagreement?
--
Laird P. Broadfield lai...@crash.cts.com ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
This is an obnoxious, sixteen line sig with a bad ASCII graphic.
Jim Gifford
g> draft, and to the right of any human being to earn the franchise
g> through public service.
Correct.
g> He made it very clear that the military was only *one* option available
g> to fulfill the two-year service requirement necessary to earn a franchise
g> and full citizenhood; but I'm not sure how much choice an enlistee got
g> about what kind of service he performed.
Not correct. The book does not support the notion of *any* service option that
is not military, military-support, "a hard and dirty facsimile thereof" or
"makework" for those unfit for military service.
g> If you're curious, just go re-read the book. It's an anti-draft,
> Also compare to the discussion with the use of civillian labor (on >
Sanctuary and elsewhere) that are hired for the job. Makes no sense > if there
are recruits available.
g> Excuse me? How many recruits can you afford to contract for two years'
g> service at any one time? Our own military has a good many civilian
g> employees, because it's the cheapest, lowest-hassle way to approach the
g> problem.
There is no indication anywhere in the book that there are *any* service
classifications that do not fit the above categories. It's stated over and over
that "the military hires civilians to do the 'ant work' [such as supply,
medical corps, and the like]."
Graydon
lai...@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes:
>What I'm wondering is if there *are* any jobs other than the military.
>I'll admit I haven't re-read ST lately, but as I recall, all of the
>people employed by the government (the systemwide government, ignore the
>local governments for the moment) were either military or "temps", in
>effect.
>
>Any evidence, agreement, disagreement?
who interviews Johnny, but one of them says something about all
the 'hard and dangerous' jobs they keep having to think up because
it's become fashionable in certain quarters to sign up, do a term,
and get to say you're vetran.
Awhile later, Johnny is discussing the 'theoretical Mobile Infantry'
division, and comments that the MI is proportionally the smallest
military in human history - fewest troops per captia.
My sense of their political system is that Federal Service grew
out of the idea of military service, and that the essential
thing about it is that it has a fair chance of killing you.
It's certainly my opinion that merticocracy works if anyone can
get in, but risks dying to do it (really risks - 1 in 10 chance
or so) and one can find support that Heinlein is presenting
that argument in the chapter on Johnny's time at OCS, during
the detailed History and Moral Philosophy lectures.
Remember, _anyone_ can sign up, you don't have to take a medical.
(counting the fuzz, and the Camp Currie dropout who ended up as
a cook on a troop transport.) So if anyone can sign up, and the
MI is very small, either the Navy is *huge* (which the high
percentage of civilian employess argues against), or many people
doing their Federal Service are not 'military' in the way someone'd
think of the term in a Western country today. (Then again, the
MI aren't, either.) They may be in uniform, or not, there's no
evidence either way, but the basic difference between a civilian
employee and a person doing their FS is there chance of dying.
Graydon
Chris Clayton
>bar...@cs.umass.edu (David Mix Barrington) writes:
>>Anybody recall any
>>reference to say, the mayor of a town? I'd guess this is a civilian chosen
>by the vote of the eligible electorate, i.e., veterans.
>
>There was a guy in basic with Juan who was in because he wanted to be
>a politician. This doesn't *conclusively* demonstrate that elected
>official must be veterans by law; it may simply indicate that the
>voters generally won't elect people who aren't veterans.
Actually, I believe that one of the class discussions, or maybe it's
just Juan talking to himself, indicates that veterans are citizens,
while those who never served are NOT citizens, merely Legal Residents.
Therefore, they cannot be elected, since holding public office
is a right of citizenship. A parallel to our times would be that
a legal, Green Card holding alien cannot be elected mayor, even in L.A.
Joel Polowin
>There was a guy in basic with Juan who was in because he wanted to be
>a politician. This doesn't *conclusively* demonstrate that elected
>official must be veterans by law; it may simply indicate that the
>voters generally won't elect people who aren't veterans.
I guess you missed it when this came around recently on Fido (:-) ); I
advanced exactly that argument, and the following was pointed out to me:
"Under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has
demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the
welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage." -- Major Reid to the
O.C.S. class, chapter XII.
Joel
pol...@silicon.chem.queensu.ca, pol...@chem.queensu.ca,
polo...@qucdn.queensu.ca
Chris Clayton
>It's certainly my opinion that merticocracy works if anyone can
>get in, but risks dying to do it (really risks - 1 in 10 chance
>or so)
Did anyone else notice that almost every character mentioned in
the book is later mentioned as having been killed? This includes
most all of the other inductees and OCS candidates, and Juan's
childhood buddy. The only exceptions that I remember are Juan's
Navy pilot friend (Carlita?), Jelal (got his legs blown off),
Juan himself and his father (but then, the war's not over yet).
The book became a real downer once I realized that the effective
mortality rate seemed to be over 80%.
Danny Diamant
|> for years...several of the background characters in Heinlein's works
|> have been amputees. Given that Heinlein (sometimes, at least) wrote
|> about things he knew about and things from his personal experience,
|> I have often wondered if he or someone close to him was missing
|> a limb. Maybe, but then again, maybe he knew a lot of people who
|> had "bought just a part of the farm" during combat in WWII...waddaya
|> think?
|>
|> Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR
|> Control-G Consultants
|> gle...@mwk.com
--
I think that you are right partly,people who usualy make refrences like that are
usualy veterns themselfs or were hurt during a war or know sombody close that
was an apmutee .
---------Danny D.
Graydon
detail on; Hassan; it's not anything like an 80% loss rate, but
the MI is very hard on officers, they've got a serious lead
from the front tradition and do something that is inherently
crazy in the first place. (oh yeah - Lt. Col. Dubois)
At an average of 2% losses per drop (1 guy out of a platoon
of 50) there per annum loss rate is pretty scary, though.
Anyone got anything _like_ a figure for how often they
tended to drop? Some units count them, but no one tells
us how many is a lot, as I recall.
Graydon
ScottL8724
(Graydon) writes:
I won't try to quote from the extensive discussion of the society of ST,
however, one thing that has always bothered me about the book is as follows: I
agree that there is a clear implication that many recruits are given "civilian
type" alternatives to military service, which are just nasty and dangerous ways
to insure that voting citizens possess "civic virtue". It appears, in part as
a corollary to this, that the most aggressive and able are chosen for actual
military service such as Mobil Infantry. However, RAH also explicitly states
that about 90% of the recruits for MI fail to make the grade. Some may be take
alternate duty, be killed in training, etc., however, it appears reasonably
clear to me that the large majority of these are run off, i.e. so much
preassure is put on them that they quit. A society in which a very large
number of aggressive, able individuals (albeit not quite up to MI standards)
are permanently deprived of a franchise strikes me as being something other
than the stable happy society that RAH portrays; actually it strikes me as
being about as stable as nitroglycerine....
David Bofinger
> In article <098_940...@wmeonlin.sacbbx.com>
> Jim.G...@ubik.wmeonlin.sacbbx.com (Jim Gifford) writes:
>> [it's military service]
> Sargeant Ho's little speach in the recruitment office makes it fairly
> plain [...] that there aren't 'real' military jobs for that many
> people.
A critical point, that I must have missed or forgotten. Can you give a
quote to substantiate? It's true the MI is described elsewhere as
being tiny for the population it defends...
> remember the description of the Merchant Seaman's guilds? They can at
> least make a case that their guilds should be classed as equivalent to
> Federal Service
I'd regard this as supporting Jim's thesis. The merchant navy is a
classic example of a semi-military service, one on the fringes of the
military. The Falklands war involved a lot of activation of merchant
navy reserve commissions. In WW2, which is where Heinlein got his
military experience, being in the Royal Merchant Navy was more
dangerous than (I think) any other service in the western allied
forces. In _Starship Troopers_ the merchant navy is a fringe member
(just excluded) of the Federal Service club. The analogy is compelling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bofinger AARNet: dxb...@huxley.anu.edu.au
Snail: Dept. of Theoretical Physics, RSPhysSE, ANU, ACT, 2601
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is the logic of our times
No subject for immortal verse
That we, who lived by honest dreams
Defend the bad against the worse." -- C.D. Lewis
Gharlane of Eddore
(Jim Gifford) writes:
>
...... a whole buncha stuff disagreeing with points in an entry I made
about "STARSHIP TROOPERS."
>
Oh, GHREAT GHROTTY GHU, I stopped using FidoNet just to get away from
"Slippery Jim" DeGifford, and now someone's let him loose on InterNet
News......
OH well. I bow to the weirdo's thorough background in Heinleiniana.
(Don't argue with this guy, folks. He makes swords in a smithy in
his back yard. Not costume props, *real* swords. We're talking
a world-champion aichmophile, here. Say something bad about
Heinlein, at least something bad that's undeserved, and his
seconds call on you, and you end up getting lectured on alloys
and tempering techniques at swordpoint, while you get your *last*
fencing lesson........)
Graydon
leave voluntarily - they don't kick you out of MI training unless
you do something really stupid (~=criminal) or develop a medical
problem - you have to say 'let me out', and I think that will go
a long way to difusing your nitroglycerine scenario, there is that
it gets made very plain that they don't really *want* a lot of
people. (It is also mentioned in both History and Moral Philosophy
classes that there is constant loud complaining.)
The orginal ideal of service was combat arms - there are too many
people now, so 'Federal Service' is faux combat arms - it has to
be unpleasant, and it has to have fair odds of killing you.
The whole set up has a striking resemblance to the Old Spartan
system, actually, except that service is voluntary.
Graydon
Graydon
dxb...@cancer.anu.edu.au (David Bofinger) writes:
>SAUN...@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Graydon) writes:
>> In article <098_940...@wmeonlin.sacbbx.com>
>> Jim.G...@ubik.wmeonlin.sacbbx.com (Jim Gifford) writes:
>>> [it's military service]
>> Sargeant Ho's little speach in the recruitment office makes it fairly
>> plain [...] that there aren't 'real' military jobs for that many
>> people.
>
>A critical point, that I must have missed or forgotten. Can you give a
>quote to substantiate? It's true the MI is described elsewhere as
>being tiny for the population it defends...
are a good start.
The crucial bits are on page 27 : "So for those who insist on serving
their term -- but haven't got what we want and must have -- we've had
to think up a whole list of dirty, nasty, dangerous jobs that will
either run 'em home with their tails between their legs and their
terms uncompleted. . . or at the very least make them remember for
the rest of their lives that their citizenship is valuable to them
because they paid a high price for it."
It's very clear there and elsewhere that service is _extremely_
voluntary; they'll let you out almost any time that isn't in
the middle of a battle, and they want to make it hard to complete
a term. It's an un-embarrassed meritocracy; be willing to suffer
and die or you don't rate the franchise.
>> remember the description of the Merchant Seaman's guilds? They can at
>> least make a case that their guilds should be classed as equivalent to
>> Federal Service
>I'd regard this as supporting Jim's thesis. The merchant navy is a
>classic example of a semi-military service, one on the fringes of the
>military. The Falklands war involved a lot of activation of merchant
>navy reserve commissions. In WW2, which is where Heinlein got his
>military experience, being in the Royal Merchant Navy was more
>dangerous than (I think) any other service in the western allied
>forces. In _Starship Troopers_ the merchant navy is a fringe member
>(just excluded) of the Federal Service club. The analogy is compelling.
impression that there aren't wars on Earth's surface anymore, and
that the logistical function of surface ocean transport is no
longer at all critical to a military logistics effort.
I expect that there are a considerable number of logistics vessels
with crews doing their Federal Service, but those would be space
ships, not water ocean.
In other words, being a merchant seaman is no longer risky or unpleasant
enough to qualify (it's probably also too rumunerative).
The small numbers of line troops vs the number of volunteers received
plus Sgt. Ho's distinctly un-military list of awful possibilities
make it pretty clear that most of the jobs are just hard and dangerous
and unpleasant, rather than having any military function.
Graydon
Jim Gifford
g> Oh, GHREAT GHROTTY GHU, I stopped using FidoNet just to get away from
g> "Slippery Jim" DeGifford, and now someone's let him loose on InterNet
g> News......
Ain't technology wunnerful? Is that you, Gerhard?
g> OH well. I bow to the weirdo's thorough background in Heinleiniana.
Wanna do some picky-proofing on ROBERT A. HEINLEIN: A READER'S COMPANION? You
had some points on the magazine versions of the juveniles I've forgotten...
g> (Don't argue with this guy, folks. He makes swords in a smithy in
g> his back yard. Not costume props, *real* swords. We're talking
g> a world-champion aichmophile, here. Say something bad about
g> Heinlein, at least something bad that's undeserved, and his
g> seconds call on you, and you end up getting lectured on alloys
g> and tempering techniques at swordpoint, while you get your *last*
g> fencing lesson........)
1) It's a machine shop, not a smithy. Smithing is for hopeless SCA
anti-technos. Smithing aerospace alloys fugs 'em up.
2) It's in my garage, not my back yard.
3) Aichmophiles of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but
your fingers.
4) I use thirds instead of seconds. Cheaper.
5) My fencing technique consists alternately of a steely Clint Eastwood
"I dare you" and a berserker rage, levelling everything within reach.
Not the elegant work Oscar Gordon would appreciate.
Jim Gifford
Not to pick nits, since you're being nice to my thesis, but RAH was at
Annapolis from 1925 to 1926 and in active duty from 1929-1934. He worked as a
civilian engineer for the Navy at Mustin Field from 1942-1945. Other than some
rumored peacetime conflicts for his ships, he never saw combat.
In fact, Heinlein served during one of the worst times to be in the US
military. Funding, morale and perceived importance were at all-time lows.
Probably the only worse time was the latter half of the 1970's...
Speculations on how this might have colored his views of military service are
welcome...
David Bofinger
> In article <dxb105.767517855@cancer>
> dxb...@cancer.anu.edu.au (David Bofinger) writes:
>> SAUN...@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Graydon) writes:
>>> In article <098_940...@wmeonlin.sacbbx.com>
>>> Jim.G...@ubik.wmeonlin.sacbbx.com (Jim Gifford) writes:
>>>> [it's military service]
>>> Sargeant Ho's little speach in the recruitment office makes it fairly
>>> plain [...] that there aren't 'real' military jobs for that many
>>> people.
>> A critical point, that I must have missed or forgotten. Can you give a
>> quote to substantiate? It's true the MI is described elsewhere as
>> being tiny for the population it defends...
> [several paragraphs asserting that service is voluntary deleted.]
This wasn't the point I was concerned with: I'm talking about the idea
that the military doesn't absorb that many personnel, look at the
quoted material.
> Well, the circumstances are very different - one gets the clear
> impression that there aren't wars on Earth's surface anymore, and
> that the logistical function of surface ocean transport is no
> longer at all critical to a military logistics effort.
They presumably do operate ships on other planets though, perhaps
including front line planets? I'm not sure how important ocean
transport was supposed to be, but if it's important to freight (i.e if
it exists at all, which I regard as moderately implausible but it's
stated to) it's quite possibly important to the military.
> The small numbers of line troops vs the number of volunteers received
MI is certainly small, but I'm not sure what other demands the
military had.
> plus Sgt. Ho's distinctly un-military list of awful possibilities
> make it pretty clear that most of the jobs are just hard and dangerous
> and unpleasant, rather than having any military function.
This is more like what I wanted a quote about.
Something I consider a major flaw of the Starship Troopers society:
it's stated that many of the recruits don't have what it takes to do
real jobs, and so they get makework whose purpose is to be unpleasant
and dangerous so they'll only get franchise if they demonstrate they
are prepared to stick it out.
However as soon as you do that you aren't selecting people who are
prepared to put society's good above their own. Instead, you are
selecting people who are prepared to put getting the vote above their
own good. Not at all the same thing.
A person who does dangerous makework, and _knows_ it is makework, has
not demonstrated a desire to serve society. He has demonstrated a
desire to satisfy society's requirements for franchise, nothing more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bofinger AARNet: dxb...@huxley.anu.edu.au
Snail: Dept. of Theoretical Physics, RSPhysSE, ANU, ACT, 2601
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Eccentricity has always abounded where strength of character has also, and the
amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the
amount of genius, mental vigour and moral courage which it contained."
-- "On Liberty", John Stuart Mill
Graydon
dxb...@cancer.anu.edu.au (David Bofinger) writes:
>> The small numbers of line troops vs the number of volunteers received
>> make it pretty clear that most of the jobs are just hard and dangerous
>> and unpleasant, rather than having any military function.
>
>This is more like what I wanted a quote about.
OCS History and Moral Philosophy Instructor) "And have you forgotten
that in peacetime most veterans come from non-combatant auxilary
services and have not been subjected to the full rigors of military
discipline; they have merely been harried, overworked, and endangered
-- yet their votes count."
>Something I consider a major flaw of the Starship Troopers society:
>it's stated that many of the recruits don't have what it takes to do
>real jobs, and so they get makework whose purpose is to be unpleasant
>and dangerous so they'll only get franchise if they demonstrate they
>are prepared to stick it out.
>
>However as soon as you do that you aren't selecting people who are
>prepared to put society's good above their own. Instead, you are
>selecting people who are prepared to put getting the vote above their
>own good. Not at all the same thing.
>
>A person who does dangerous makework, and _knows_ it is makework, has
>not demonstrated a desire to serve society. He has demonstrated a
>desire to satisfy society's requirements for franchise, nothing more.
there is never any sugguestion that it isn't _useful_ - it's all
things people wouldn't ordinarly want to do, but every example is
something useful.
Besides, the point isn't to find people who put society's good
above their own; the point is to find people who recognize that
their own good may involve dying. (Major Reid's discourse on this
subject significantly pre-figures Richard Dawkin's selfish gene
theory, by the way; it's at the very least arguable as biology,
and behaviour proceeds from biology. ('not is dictated by biology',
_proceeds_ from biology.))
Or, in other words, to find people who can abstract 'protecting
my kids' to maintaining society.
Since just about everything about society, and in particular the
rule of law and general education, require that people believe that
things which detriment them directly benefit them indirectly to
a degree which makes up for the direct detriment, it makes a lot
of sensef to test destructively for the willingness and ability
to make that abstraction.
Graydon
John Schilling
>In article <16FA6CDFD...@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, SAUN...@QUCDN.QueensU.CA
>(Graydon) writes, in response to my suggestion that ST would produce a lot of
>disconted people who had failed to make military service:
>"Well, aside from that the majority of those permanently departing
>leave voluntarily - they don't kick you out of MI training unless
>you do something really stupid (~=criminal) or develop a medical
>problem - you have to say 'let me out', and I think that will go
>a long way to difusing your nitroglycerine scenario."
>Actually not all that stupid, since the protagonist comes very close to
>getting kicked out. He also comes very close to quitting, which is my point.
>If you subject people to incredible preassure, and, because they can't take
>it and in a moment of weakness (which, by the way doesn't, it seems to me,
>show any real lack of "civic virtue" which was what RAH was so concerned
>about) they quit and are permanently deprived of a franchise...well I would
>say my nitro scenario remains pretty much undifused.
You make a very valid point. I can see several ways to avoid this, however.
A - We know that people who quit the service altogether lose the
franchise, but there may be a mechanisim whereby people can
quit the MI, be reassigned to the labor battalions, and still
earn the franchise.
B - People who express a desire to quit the MI in a moment of weakness
are *strongly* encouraged to reconsider. Drill Sergeants tend to
be very good at providing such encouragement. Thus, only those
people who really can't rise to the occasion loose their franchise.
C - The Federal Service personell dept. is very good at figuring out
who is or is not susceptible to moments of weakness, and those who
are don't get assigned to the MI. Again, the only people who
drop out are those who really don't have and can't acquire the
right stuff.
D - The bulk of the Federal Service volunteers, and the population in
general, may consist of sunshine patriots who don't have anything
resembling "civic virtue", but merely volunteer because it is
percieved as being trendy or status-oriented. In this case, the
droput rate will be high for all branches, not just MI, and there
will be a lot of discontented dropouts. But they will all, by
definition, be wimps who won't do anything but whine about it.
Any of these, or some combination, could resolve the dropout problem. But
we don't see any of them in operation. Since the book was written from
the point of view of someone who *didn't* drop out, I wouldn't expect the
subject to be dicussed at any length. But, even though I'll give RAH the
benefit of the doubt on this one, I do think he should have included a few
explicit words on the matter.
>"it gets made very plain that they don't really *want* a lot of
>people. "
>Which is sort of my point. I think that RAH confused the requirements of
>creating the type of SEAL Team 6 force that the ST's were and the requirements
>of determining whether people had civic virtue. The former required a vicious
>culling that produced only the very best; the lattar simply required that
>people demonstrate a willingness to place the welfare of society above their
>own. This required subjecting them to a degree of pain and difficulty, but I
>would argue it does not require the sort of controlled torture that elite
>military training does. The problem is you would have a large group that had
>been identified as almost good enough to be soldiers (i.e. aggressive, able
>and smart) who would be nursing a large grudge, stoked by a sense of failure
>and resentment. Like I said, nitro.
If the Federal Service personnell department is doing their job, nearly
everyone who is assigned to MI will be good enough to be an elite soldier,
in terms of aggressiveness, ability, brainpower, etc. The question is
whether they are willing to give 100% to the task, without expectation
of personal reward.
Civic virtue scales with ability. If Donald Trump donates $1,000,000 to
charity and I donate $20,000 (my approximate net worth), which of us has
displayed greater civic virtue? Presumably, the Federal Service assigns
its volunteers to tasks they are capable of doing, but just barely. Those
who fail are deemed (probably correctly) do be unworthy of the franchise
and unable to seriously threaten society.
John Schilling
>
>MI training doesn't strike me as torture; it's *not* the 'destroy
>their self image and put them back together sort of training' (you
>will note that no one tells Johnny that he's stupid unless he does
>something stupid. They do get told that they aren't up to standards,
>but that's done as presenting a goal, rather than decrying their
>failings.) MI training is pretty clearly the 'this is how to cope
>with this sort of reality' training, while keeping the reality
>as stressful as it can go at each particular stage of the training.
>
Amen to that!
One of the things that most impressed me about Starship Troopers, and
which is almost never discussed, is the NATURE of the military training
described. It is not the type of crap that has passed for training
in virtually every army since the seventeenth century. It is a very
practical and, if such a thing is possible, HUMANE way of preparing
people for warfare. Military trainees need to be exposed to extreme
stress in training, but there are better ways to provide that stress
than harrassment from one's own side.
Unfortunately, Heinlein's method would probably not be accepted today.
The high dropout rate, along with the casualties from live-fire exercises,
would arouse immense public opposition by people who don't know any better.
Sigh.
David Dyer-Bennet
>SAUN...@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Graydon) writes:
>> Sargeant Ho's little speach in the recruitment office makes it fairly
>> plain [...] that there aren't 'real' military jobs for that many
>> people.
>A critical point, that I must have missed or forgotten. Can you give a
>quote to substantiate? It's true the MI is described elsewhere as
>being tiny for the population it defends...
Is the MI the only Infantry type in the military of the time? Con:
nothing else large is mentioned. Pro: MI isn't a good choice for
defense, it's too expensive. They seem to me to play the role of the
Marines. In addition to infantry-type forces there are of course all
the Navy jobs, and all the non-combatant arms (just like we have
today) that can't be turned over to civilians because they have to
continue to function under extreme conditions.
>In WW2, which is where Heinlein got his
>military experience, being in the Royal Merchant Navy was more
>dangerous than (I think) any other service in the western allied
>forces.
Heinlein was retired before WWII. He graduated from the Naval Academy
in 1929 (standing 20th in his class) and was retired in 1934 with
tuberculosis. I believe he worked for the military as a civilian
engineer during the war.
David Dyer-Bennet
>The orginal ideal of service was combat arms - there are too many
>people now, so 'Federal Service' is faux combat arms - it has to
>be unpleasant, and it has to have fair odds of killing you.
I have found nothing in the book to support this position (in two
rereadings specifically devoted to the issue of exactly what Federal
Service means). The "faux combat arms" (very nice term) exist for
people who *insist* on serving but are unsuited for anything useful.
I can find no suggestion that this is done because supply exceeds
demand. The discussion tends to focus on blind people in wheelchairs.
David Dyer-Bennet
>"it gets made very plain that they don't really *want* a lot of
>people. "
>Which is sort of my point. I think that RAH confused the
>requirements of creating the type of SEAL Team 6 force that the ST's
>were and the requirements of determining whether people had civic
>virtue. The former required a vicious culling that produced only the
>very best; the lattar simply required that people demonstrate a
>willingness to place the welfare of society above their own.
Heinlein wasn't confused; you are. The MI *was* the equivalent of,
say, the Marines, if not SEAL Team 6. We don't get a description of
the training of K-9 corps members, or pilots, or navy cooks, logistics
corps, or artillery. All we see is the "most combatant" of the combat
arms. So we presumably see the extreme of the training and pressure.
Most people serving franchises get by rather more lightly.
Graydon
d...@terrabit.mn.org (David Dyer-Bennet) writes:
>SAUN...@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Graydon) writes:
>>The orginal ideal of service was combat arms - there are too many
>>people now, so 'Federal Service' is faux combat arms - it has to
>>be unpleasant, and it has to have fair odds of killing you.
>
>I have found nothing in the book to support this position (in two
>rereadings specifically devoted to the issue of exactly what Federal
>Service means). The "faux combat arms" (very nice term) exist for
>people who *insist* on serving but are unsuited for anything useful.
>I can find no suggestion that this is done because supply exceeds
>demand. The discussion tends to focus on blind people in wheelchairs.
"And you have forgotten that in peacetime most veterans come from
non-combatant auxilary services and have not been subjected to the
overworked, and endangered -- yet their votes count."
building: "You can't all be real military men; we don't need that
many and most of the volunteers aren't number-one soldier material
anyhow."
I think it's pretty clear that they get more recruits than they
need, or can possibly use, in combat arms, even in wartime, and
so most 'Federal Service' is indeed faux combat arms - Major
Reid makes it quite clear that the important thing about Federal
Service is that it might kill you, throughout most of pgs 144
and 145.
Peacetime MI recruitment for a year is approximately 400 for
all of earth. (Two camps, assumed about the same size; Currie
graduates 187 plus 14 dead, 13 of whom go on the rolls as
having graduated.)
Assume that the navy is ten times the size of the MI (which is
probably a little big); they induct about 4 000 per year.
Twenty year terms of service give a Terran component to the
thing of about 90 000 persons (which doesn't cover 3 MI divisions
and a ten-times-as-large Navy, which would give a total size
of about 350 000, erring a bit high.)
The lowest percentage quoted as a fraction of the populace who
are citizens is "less than 3%", in some associated territories
on Earth (pg 144, Maj. Reid again), which would give a total
Terran population of 1/.03 times 350 000, which is eleven and
two thirds million, preposterously low.
Assuming that Earth has a population of two billion, and that
half the people who sign up each year complete their terms,
and that the overal Terrestial franchise rate is 3%, all conservative
assumptions. Three percent of 2 billion spread over sixty years
(average age of death being about 80 by that assumption) gives
them a million people _completing_ their term each year, of whom
less than 400 are MI, and, by the above assumption, less than 5 000
are combat arms at all - which fits in pretty well with Heinlein's
assertion that over 95% of those serving did it in a non-combat arms
service.
And no, I don't think there are non-MI infantry branches; MI are
awfully expensive, yes, but it seems clear that they're about what
it takes to be effective given the assumptions about technology
made in the novel.
Graydon
Joel Upchurch
> Which is sort of my point. I think that RAH confused the requirements
> of creating the type of SEAL Team 6 force that the ST's were and the
> requirements of determining whether people had civic virtue. The
> former required a vicious culling that produced only the very best;
> the lattar simply required that people demonstrate a willingness to
> place the welfare of society above their own. This required
> subjecting them to a degree of pain and difficulty, but I would argue
> it does not require the sort of controlled torture that elite military
> training does. The problem is you would have a large group that had
> been identified as almost good enough to be soldiers (i.e. aggressive,
> able aand smart) who would be nursing a large grudge, stoked by a
> sense of failure and resentment. Like I said, nitro.
There is at least one indication that many or even most of the people
washed out of the MI training simply took an administrative transfer
and finished out their terms in some other branch of the Federal
Service. This is from a passage a couple of pages into chapter IV:
Our company shrank to platoon size in the first six weeks. Some of
them were dropped without prejudice and allowed, if they wished, to
sweat out their terms in the non-combatant services; others got Bad
Conduct Discharges, or Unsatisfactory Performance Discharges, or
Medical Discharges.
I suspect a lot of people tried out the MI first and opted to finish
their terms in a different service when they found out they didn't
have what it took to be MI. They probably tried the MI first, because
the military services had a lot more status than the other parts of
Federal Service.
Joel Upchurch @ Upchurch Computer Consulting uunet!aaahq01!upchrch!joel
718 Galsworthy Ave. Orlando, FL 32809-6429 phone (407) 859-0982
Richard Treitel
In article <2pjfhu$7...@eve120.cpd.ford.com>, ccla...@voltage.eve.ford.com (Chris Clayton) writes:
[snip]
|> Actually, I believe that one of the class discussions, or maybe it's
|> just Juan talking to himself, indicates that veterans are citizens,
Both, I think. Altogether, it is made very clear that
(1) only those who have served (and survived) are citizens
(early in the book, Juan's father blusters, "A taxpayer has
*some* rights" but he knows he has fewer than a citizen)
(2) anyone has the right to volunteer to serve, but
(a) you are discouraged at the early stages (remember Sgt. Ho?)
(b) what kind of service you do, and how long for, is decided by
(i) what the government wants,
(ii) what you are capable of,
(iii) what you feel like,
(iv) in that order, with little or no regard for your chances of
survival.
- Richard
Jonathan Burns
> In article <16FA6CDFD...@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>,
SAUN...@QUCDN.QueensU.CA
> (Graydon) writes, in response to my suggestion that ST would produce a
lot of
> disconted people who had failed to make military service:
>
> "Well, aside from that the majority of those permanently departing
> leave voluntarily - they don't kick you out of MI training unless
> you do something really stupid (~=criminal) or develop a medical
> problem - you have to say 'let me out', and I think that will go
> a long way to difusing your nitroglycerine scenario."
>
> Actually not all that stupid, since the protagonist comes very
> close to getting kicked out. He also comes very close to quitting,
> which is my point. If you subject people to incredible preassure,
> and, because they can't take it and in a moment of weakness
> (which, by the way doesn't, it seems to me, show any real
> lack of "civic virtue" which was what RAH was so concerned about)
> they quit and are permanently deprived of a franchise...well I
> would say my nitro scenario remains pretty much undifused.
>
> people. "
>
>
> "The orginal ideal of service was combat arms - there are too many
> people now, so 'Federal Service' is faux combat arms - it has to
> be unpleasant, and it has to have fair odds of killing you."
>
> non-military services there was more unpleastness than risk--
> the sense was that the risk of death was realtively low;
> however, I admit RAH didn't really address that.
Very interesting discussion.
The "civic virtue test" idea is one I find appealing. But it
does look as if the society positively needs genuine risky
work (and not make-risk) to keep the electorate up. In fact,
since technology allows natural and industrial risks to be
kept at teleoperator distance so to speak, _the society needs
enemies_.
Lucky the bugs came along, huh? The Chtorr would have been even
better - might we consider Gerrold's series as ST taken nearer
its logical conclusion?
Absent bugs, and the electorate will grow, by spurts, only when
there's a war. The natural ideology of the Draka! :-) Though
I'm sure Heinlein intended nothing of the kind.
Or there's makerisk. But if the system succeeds in producing
good citizens, I don't see how long they would stand for that.
Or, for the deliberate fragmentation into an American Native
tribal setup.
It reminds me of a scenario I worked up once, in which spaceflight
was so cheap that going forth solo to identify a habitable planet
was a culture's right of passage.
Thanks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jonathan Burns |
bu...@latcs1.lat.oz.au| They are dangerous, Max, because they have what
Computer Science Dept | you don't, a philosophy.
La Trobe University | -Videodrome
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joel Upchurch
> What I'm wondering is if there *are* any jobs other than the military.
> I'll admit I haven't re-read ST lately, but as I recall, all of the
> people employed by the government (the systemwide government, ignore the
> local governments for the moment) were either military or "temps", in
> effect.
>
> Any evidence, agreement, disagreement?
There are two places I recall in the book where this is discussed. In
chapter II when Juan is at the recruiting station and they discuss the
options for types of federal service. There are a lot of non-military
types of service available, but from the discussion it seems to me
that military service has a lot more status.
I suspect that the franchise was originally limited to soldiers and was
gradually extended, since there weren't enough slots available in the
military to satisfy the demand and a lot of the people applying
weren't suitable material anyway.
I don't think that most civil service jobs were filled by veterans.
The doctor at the recruiting center wasn't and they mention in the
book the police and H&MP instructor jobs are reserved for veterans.
This wouldn't make much sense if most civil service jobs are part of
federal service.
In chapter XII, where Juan is taking H&MP at OCS, Major Reid mentions
that peace time most veterans come from non-combatant auxiliary
services. There is also an implication that almost all federal service
jobs are hard, nasty and dangerous by design. Regular civil service
jobs don't meet the test.
Joel Upchurch
> Did anyone else notice that almost every character mentioned in
> the book is later mentioned as having been killed? This includes
> most all of the other inductees and OCS candidates, and Juan's
> childhood buddy. The only exceptions that I remember are Juan's
> Navy pilot friend (Carlita?), Jelal (got his legs blown off),
> Juan himself and his father (but then, the war's not over yet).
> The book became a real downer once I realized that the effective
> mortality rate seemed to be over 80%.
I think this is pretty realistic considering the type of combat going
and the fact that it was going on for years. As I recall paratroop
units during WWII ran up similar figures or higher during the course
of the war. In the type of combat the M.I. was in there are a lot more
ways to be killed out right than wounded.
Michael Milligan
I can't remember for sure but wasn't there something about getting out
of Federal Service faster if you were in a combatant service than a
non-combatant service? I may be confusing this with something else,
it's been a few years since I've read it last.
++Mike Milligan+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ hm...@chevron.com These opinions are mine, mine alone. +
+ 935 Gravier Street, Room 1007B You can't have them and I'm not +
+ New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 going to share. +
Henry Troup
Graydon <SAUN...@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> wrote:
...
>So yeah, I do think it's fair that you can sign up for Federal Service
>and get the 'full treatment' - they have no way to decide who'll pass
>ahead of time, after all, and clearly make some effort to send you to
>an assignment you have hope of succeeding at.
One of the minor characters in the book flunks Camp Currie on a medical
and shows up as a ship's cook later. If he completes the service as a
cook, he gets to vote, presumably.
--
Henry Troup - H.T...@BNR.CA (Canada) - BNR owns but does not share my opinions
Highways are for cars -- surf the Internet!
Graydon
h...@bnr.ca (Henry Troup) writes:
>In article <16FA8135F...@qucdn.queensu.ca>,
>Graydon <SAUN...@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> wrote:
>...
>>So yeah, I do think it's fair that you can sign up for Federal Service
>>and get the 'full treatment' - they have no way to decide who'll pass
>>ahead of time, after all, and clearly make some effort to send you to
>>an assignment you have hope of succeeding at.
>
>One of the minor characters in the book flunks Camp Currie on a medical
>and shows up as a ship's cook later. If he completes the service as a
>cook, he gets to vote, presumably.
pigs' also get to vote; the proceedure is obviously not selecting
for anything except willingness to die.
("We don't _think_ this planet has any micro-organisms that will attack
humans. To be on the safe side, however, you and five hundred other
folks are going to be landed and, while we are waiting to see if you
get sick, you're going to be starting the experimental food crops farms.
There are fifty kilo voracious weasel things in the forest; watch out for
them.")
Graydon
ScottL8724
Schilling) writes:
"One of the things that most impressed me about Starship Troopers, and
which is almost never discussed, is the NATURE of the military training
described. It is not the type of crap that has passed for training
in virtually every army since the seventeenth century. It is a very
practical and, if such a thing is possible, HUMANE way of preparing
people for warfare. Military trainees need to be exposed to extreme
stress in training, but there are better ways to provide that stress
than harrassment from one's own side.
Unfortunately, Heinlein's method would probably not be accepted today.
The high dropout rate, along with the casualties from live-fire exercises,
would arouse immense public opposition by people who don't know any better.
Sigh."
I just want to make clear that I don't necessarily disagree with any of that.
The creation of a truly effective military force might require precisely the
sort of training RAH describes. My disagreement is with the concept that those
requirements, by some sort of happy coincidence, happen to be the same as the
requirements that ought to be imposed for distributing the franchise.
ScottL8724
Dyer-Bennet) writes:
"Heinlein wasn't confused; you are. The MI *was* the equivalent of,
say, the Marines, if not SEAL Team 6. We don't get a description of
the training of K-9 corps members, or pilots, or navy cooks, logistics
corps, or artillery. All we see is the "most combatant" of the combat
arms. So we presumably see the extreme of the training and pressure.
Most people serving franchises get by rather more lightly."
That is absolutely correct, and my point was that when you take a group of
people tht have the potential to be MI, i.e., very able and VERY aggressive,
and flunk out 90% of them, you have created a society that is, to say the
least, ripe for revolution. Yes, I know they have to quit, and this point has
already been raised. But the WORST sort or malocontent is the one that is
motivated in part by a sense of personal failure. For more see my other
responses on this topic.
ScottL8724
writes:
"Our company shrank to platoon size in the first six weeks. Some of
them were dropped without prejudice and allowed, if they wished, to
sweat out their terms in the non-combatant services; others got Bad
Conduct Discharges, or Unsatisfactory Performance Discharges, or
Medical Discharges.
I suspect a lot of people tried out the MI first and opted to finish
their terms in a different service when they found out they didn't
have what it took to be MI. They probably tried the MI first, because
the military services had a lot more status than the other parts of
Federal Service."
That is far and away the best response to my argument yet, and perhaps you're
correct. I really wish that RAH had been a bit more explicit, however. One
presumes they have a good testing system so those chosen for MI should have the
basic physical and mental capabilities; what they're really looking for is what
RAH calls "fighting spirit". But how do they evaluate that, and did they
really call in a whole bunch of folks and say, "we're sorry, you failed
Fighting Spirit 101 so you have to choose between dropping out and picking
another service"? It sounds a bit unreal to me.
ScottL8724
(Graydon) writes:
[I won't try to quote your response and your quotes of my response etc.]
Let me just make a simple challenge. You submit to my training. I get to do
whatever I want to you until you either quit or make the grade, and I decide
what constitutes making the grade. Would you care to place a wager on the odds
that I could make you "voluntarily" drop out, or, in your words "fail"? Do you,
again in your words, "have grounds for complaint"?
There may be one factual point upon which we simply disagree. My impression
from the book is that a large majority of the 90+% that fail quit. Medical
discharges did not appear to be common (and I am aware that those people, like
Carothers, are given another shot) nor should they be; even our current medical
science should have a pretty good chance of determining who has the physical
ability to make it and who does not. To restate my basic point, I believe that
the system postulated by ST takes those who have the potential to be among the
best citizens (since only the best are picked as possible soldiers) and then
puts them in a system that is designed to make a large majority of them quit.
The impression I get is that a lot of these people would have succeeded had
they been given the types of alternative service (test subject on Pluto) that
others are given. My point is not whether or not this is fair, but whether the
result would be a stable society. My guess is, not very. It's important, I
think, to remember, that a political system's stability is not simply a
question of whether it reaches "correct" answers. A system in which a
significant number of people feel unjustly disenfranchised is likely to be
unstable no matter what other virtues it possesses.
One other point. If I gave the impression that I felt that the training system
RAH describes is unfair or faulty, that was incorrect; I believe it is quite
possible that such a system (call it torture or call it rigerous training; a
big part of RAH's message was that, by design, it was no walk in the park)
would be necessary for selecting and training soldiers. I question the concept
that, by a happy coincidence, a system for training an elite brand of soldier
happens to be the same system that is suitable for awarding a franchise.
Graydon
scott...@aol.com (ScottL8724) writes:
>I just want to make clear that I don't necessarily disagree with any of that.
>The creation of a truly effective military force might require precisely the
>sort of training RAH describes. My disagreement is with the concept that those
>requirements, by some sort of happy coincidence, happen to be the same as the
>requirements that ought to be imposed for distributing the franchise.
the MI are a small, verging on tiny, fraction of those serving
their Federal Service, and that one of the points to Federal Service
is that the _only_ reason to complete a term is becuase you decided
to. It's that last that is very important - you have to make a willed
decision to risk you life in the service of your polity, repeatedly,
in order to get the franchise.
Heinlein used the 'beloved home and the war's desolation' quote
because the military service angle gives him access to the best
poetry, that's all.
We're talking about a service where a line infantryman can, *during*
a war, resign *on the troop transport going to the battle*. It's
damn hard to imagine anything more voluntary.
Graydon
Graydon
scott...@aol.com (ScottL8724) writes:
>To restate my basic point, I believe that
>the system postulated by ST takes those who have the potential to be among the
>best citizens (since only the best are picked as possible soldiers) and then
>puts them in a system that is designed to make a large majority of them quit.
>The impression I get is that a lot of these people would have succeeded had
>they been given the types of alternative service (test subject on Pluto) that
>others are given. My point is not whether or not this is fair, but whether the
>result would be a stable society. My guess is, not very. It's important, I
>think, to remember, that a political system's stability is not simply a
>question of whether it reaches "correct" answers. A system in which a
>significant number of people feel unjustly disenfranchised is likely to be
>unstable no matter what other virtues it possesses.
The folks who end up in MI training are the ones who might have 'fighting
spirit' - that is, they might be people who'd rather die than give up -
and have the generally correct physical characterisitics and right IQ
range and general personality tests and who knows what else to be good
infantrymen. (I expect that one of the requirements is that you be
well co-ordinated; clusmsy people in powered armor - shudder.)
So, there are about 4 000 hopefuls per year; something like one in
ten either graduate or die in training, leaving 3 600 people who
flunked in one form or another. Some proportion of these don't
leave the service through refusing a medical, but never mind that for
now.
It's about 2200 AD, time wise; assuming a terrestial population
of 2 billion, that's a disgruntled ex infantry trainee percentage
of ((3 600 * 60)/2 e 9) * 100; this works out to 0.0108% of the
population, or 0.36% of the minimum citizen population quoted.
That's not a large base for a revolution.
The whole point to Federal Service is find out if you can, voluntarily,
decide you're willing to risk dying in order to serve. The
'voluntarily' part is supremely important, and that's what the
franchise hinges on. So if you say 'no, let me out', you've
ceeded your right to a franchise. It's not like there's any
coercion involved.
Getting a franchise is _supposed_ to be hard; in any meritocracy,
better to keep out a little wheat than let in any chaff.
MI training is *not* the standard expectation; it's the high
end as far as dealing with horrible risks goes.
Graydon
David Dyer-Bennet
>In article <1994May1.1...@terrabit.mn.org>
>d...@terrabit.mn.org (David Dyer-Bennet) writes:
>>SAUN...@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Graydon) writes:
>>>The orginal ideal of service was combat arms - there are too many
>>>people now, so 'Federal Service' is faux combat arms - it has to
>>>be unpleasant, and it has to have fair odds of killing you.
>>
>>I have found nothing in the book to support this position (in two
>>rereadings specifically devoted to the issue of exactly what Federal
>>Service means). The "faux combat arms" (very nice term) exist for
>>people who *insist* on serving but are unsuited for anything useful.
>>I can find no suggestion that this is done because supply exceeds
>>demand. The discussion tends to focus on blind people in wheelchairs.
>
>Berkely PB, pg 143, Major Reid, Johnny's H&MP instructor at OCS:
>"And you have forgotten that in peacetime most veterans come from
>non-combatant auxilary services and have not been subjected to the
>full rigours of military discipline; they have merely been harried,
>overworked, and endangered -- yet their votes count."
This is the one quote in the book that's somewhat questionable for my
position, so I'm not surprised you found it; but I think this is
referring to things like the "logistics corps", which was on Johnny's
list of military options.
>pg 27, Sargeant Ho, the fellow at the front desk in the recruiting
>building: "You can't all be real military men; we don't need that
>many and most of the volunteers aren't number-one soldier material
>anyhow."
This is the standard disdain of combat veterans for the non-combatant
arms. Engineers, quartermaster corps, and so forth.
>Peacetime MI recruitment for a year is approximately 400 for
>all of earth. (Two camps, assumed about the same size; Currie
>graduates 187 plus 14 dead, 13 of whom go on the rolls as
>having graduated.)
>
>Assume that the navy is ten times the size of the MI (which is
>probably a little big); they induct about 4 000 per year.
>
>Twenty year terms of service give a Terran component to the
>thing of about 90 000 persons (which doesn't cover 3 MI divisions
>and a ten-times-as-large Navy, which would give a total size
>of about 350 000, erring a bit high.)
Most terms of service are two years, not twenty. Very few people "go
career" in the military. And there are a *lot* of services besides
the ones you list. The idea of running the numbers is a good one, but
you don't have anything like the right information going in the front.
>The lowest percentage quoted as a fraction of the populace who
>are citizens is "less than 3%", in some associated territories
>on Earth (pg 144, Maj. Reid again), which would give a total
>Terran population of 1/.03 times 350 000, which is eleven and
>two thirds million, preposterously low.
Probably low, since you don't include most of the more populous
services. On the other hand, it's a post-cataclysm world, maybe
that's right.
I'll skip commenting on the rest of the numbers, since the major
discrepancies already noted make it not worth following up.
>And no, I don't think there are non-MI infantry branches; MI are
>awfully expensive, yes, but it seems clear that they're about what
>it takes to be effective given the assumptions about technology
>made in the novel.
Given what they face, other forms clearly could have been effective.
And the MI themselves wouldn't be very effective defensively, for
*holding* ground. I still think the MI are the Marines, roughly.
Mark Gonzales
>(Graydon) writes:
>Let me just make a simple challenge. You submit to my training. I get to do
>whatever I want to you until you either quit or make the grade, and I decide
>what constitutes making the grade. Would you care to place a wager on the odds
>that I could make you "voluntarily" drop out, or, in your words "fail"? Do you,
>again in your words, "have grounds for complaint"?
I agree with this. This is one of the fundamental flaws in the society.
If a Stalin-like figure winds up getting elected, he will be in power
for life. All he needs to do is to arrange a *very* high mortality rate
for anyone who showed any anti-government tendancies.
"You selected mostly 'B's on your high school moral philosophy exam. You
can vote if you survive your Federal Service term in the plutonium mines
on Mercury."
Mark
speaking for no-one.
John Schilling
[Dicussion of possible abuse of Federal Service system deleted]
>I agree with this. This is one of the fundamental flaws in the society.
>If a Stalin-like figure winds up getting elected, he will be in power
>for life. All he needs to do is to arrange a *very* high mortality rate
>for anyone who showed any anti-government tendancies.
>"You selected mostly 'B's on your high school moral philosophy exam. You
>can vote if you survive your Federal Service term in the plutonium mines
>on Mercury."
Of course, the system tends to make it difficult for such people to get
elected in the first place. Even if we assume that a would-be tyrant
is willing and able to complete a term of Federal Service himself, he
has to convince a particularly dedicated electorate to vote for him. People
who spent several years at hard, dangerous tasks to earn the franchise are
not likely to be swayed by catchy slogans and fancy TV commercials. They
will pay very close attention to who and what they are voting for.
And if he does get elected, once he shows his true colors he'll have to
contend with an angry electorate composed of people willing to die for
what they believe in. Many of whom are elite combat veterans. He'll
be in power for life, but that might not be very long.
I will agree, though, that if the society of Starship Troopers fails, it
will fail in a big way. Consider it very strong, but very brittle.
Mark Rosenfelder
In article <2q98jb$9...@korrd.usc.edu>,
John Schilling <schi...@korrd.usc.edu> wrote:
>ma...@ichips.intel.com (Mark Gonzales) writes:
>>I agree with this. This is one of the fundamental flaws in the society.
>
>>If a Stalin-like figure winds up getting elected, he will be in power
>>for life. All he needs to do is to arrange a *very* high mortality rate
>>for anyone who showed any anti-government tendancies.
>
>Of course, the system tends to make it difficult for such people to get
>elected in the first place. Even if we assume that a would-be tyrant
>is willing and able to complete a term of Federal Service himself,
And why shouldn't we? Hitler served in WW1; Napoleon was a celebrated
general; Mao was a veteran of long years of war. The class of dictators
and tyrants includes a relatively high proportion of military men.
>he has to convince a particularly dedicated electorate to vote for him.
>People who spent several years at hard, dangerous tasks to earn the
>franchise are not likely to be swayed by catchy slogans and fancy TV
>commercials. They will pay very close attention to who and what they are
>voting for.
And what is this conclusion based on, besides wishful thinking? Again,
Hitler was able to win a plurality of votes, while Napoleon won his
plebiscites outright.
>And if he does get elected, once he shows his true colors he'll have to
>contend with an angry electorate composed of people willing to die for
>what they believe in.
Why should they be angry? Dictators tend to get their strongest support
from the army. And it's far easier to maintain the allegiance of a
small, privileged elite than to keep that of the public at large.
The history of Roman emperors, Communist general secretaries, and Latin
American dictators should be proof of that.
Graydon
Rob Furr <r.f...@genie.geis.com> writes:
>In article <16FA91334...@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Graydon,
>SAUN...@QUCDN.QueensU.CA writes:
>>It is _described_ as makework by folks in the combat arms, but
>>there is never any sugguestion that it isn't _useful_ - it's all
>>things people wouldn't ordinarly want to do, but every example is
>>something useful.
>
>touch," which was offered as an example of possible service for a blind
>individual in a wheelchair, I believe.
Which is the doctor's example of how silly you're allowed to be, not
a statement of policy - want to be they _wouldn't_ find a use for
such a person?
Graydon
Rob Furr
SAUN...@QUCDN.QueensU.CA writes:
>It is _described_ as makework by folks in the combat arms, but
>there is never any sugguestion that it isn't _useful_ - it's all
>things people wouldn't ordinarly want to do, but every example is
>something useful.
Except, of course, for "counting the hair on fuzzy caterpillars by
touch," which was offered as an example of possible service for a blind
individual in a wheelchair, I believe.
Rob F.
Danny Diamant
SAUN...@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Graydon) writes:
>
>MI training doesn't strike me as torture; it's *not* the 'destroy
>their self image and put them back together sort of training' (you
>will note that no one tells Johnny that he's stupid unless he does
>something stupid. They do get told that they aren't up to standards,
>but that's done as presenting a goal, rather than decrying their
>failings.) MI training is pretty clearly the 'this is how to cope
>with this sort of reality' training, while keeping the reality
>as stressful as it can go at each particular stage of the training.
<One of the things that most impressed me about Starship Troopers, and
<which is almost never discussed, is the NATURE of the military training
<described. It is not the type of crap that has passed for training
<in virtually every army since the seventeenth century. It is a very
<practical and, if such a thing is possible, HUMANE way of preparing
<people for warfare. Military trainees need to be exposed to extreme
<stress in training, but there are better ways to provide that stress
<than harrassment from one's own side.
Unfortunately, Heinlein's method would probably not be accepted today.
The high dropout rate, along with the casualties from live-fire exercises,
would arouse immense public opposition by people who don't know any better.
Sigh.
--
*John Schilling * "You can have Peace, *
-----------------
I served in the army and this system is very acceptebal for us,the system
that isused in most armies is NOT acceptebal with us.Allthou we are a
conscript army it unthikable to most of us to try to get out of the army
(=a vertue) ,another thing is that we a lot of volonteer units and they have
a problem to choose from a big selection of volonteers,people that are un fit
phisicly to join usualy volonteer to do somthing (just to serve) .
-----Danny D.
--
Danny Diamant
--
Jim Gifford
j> washed out of the MI training simply took an administrative transfer
j> and finished out their terms in some other branch of the Federal
j> Service. This is from a passage a couple of pages into chapter IV:
j> Our company shrank to platoon size in the first six weeks. Some of
j> them were dropped without prejudice and allowed, if they wished, to
j> sweat out their terms in the non-combatant services; others got Bad
j> Conduct Discharges, or Unsatisfactory Performance Discharges, or
j> Medical Discharges.
j> I suspect a lot of people tried out the MI first and opted to finish
j> their terms in a different service when they found out they didn't
j> have what it took to be MI. They probably tried the MI first, because
j> the military services had a lot more status than the other parts of
j> Federal Service.
Enlistees had *no* choice of service, either in their first assignment or in
whatever they got tossed to after flunking out of that. They could state
preferences, but it's clearly stated that only a small number qualify for MI.
---
Internet: Jim.G...@ubik.wmeonlin.sacbbx.com
Fidonet: Ubik (1:203/289)
Direct: 916-723-4296 V.32bis 24 Hours
ScottL8724
From: SAUN...@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Graydon)
Date: Wed, 04 May 94 01:41:18 EDT
eIn Message-ID: <16FAC17C5...@QUCDN.QueensU.CA writes:
GRAYDON:
In article <2q7497$d...@search01.news.aol.com>
scott...@aol.com (ScottL8724) writes:
RESPONSE:
I must most humbly apoligize; I was unaware that I was
corresponding with one who had been chosen as the final
arbiter of who does and does not understand Heinlein. I
generally assume that other people may reasonably read
different things into books than I do, and that, in any
event, there is always something to be learned from
understanding how others view things. Since I "clearly don't
understand the book", however, I apologize for wasting your
time with my unmistakably erroneous interpretations. (Some
say that irony should drip lightly from the tongue; I say
screw that, go for the bludgeon.)
GRAYDON:
RESPONSE:
However, if you're going to be final arbiter you should
brush up on your simple arithmatic. If only 400 people
become MI every year, assuming that everyone serves their 20
years, and that there are no casualties (both assumptions
being clearly incorrect) that gives you an army of 8,000 for
an entire planet. Yes, I know that the MI is a relatively
small force, but I don't for one minute believe that an
8,000 man army is going to be sufficient, even if they're as
good at soldiering as you think you're good at interpreting
RAH for us mere mortals. Quite apart from that, 8,000 isn't
even enough to make up one division as RAH describes it.
Quite apart from THAT, however, the issue isn't really
numbers; it's the type of person you're talking about. As
you indicate, those who are picked to try out for the MI are
those who are believed to be the very best in terms of
aggressiveness and ability. My point is that if you take
that group and convert 90% of them to bitter disillusioned
non-citizens, you've got trouble, no matter what the numbers
are. If, after all, you believe that 8K highly able
individuals can defend a civilization (I don't buy this, but
apparantly you do) why are you unwilling to assume that 10X
that many can't lead a revolution against it? (I
reemphasize that there can't be that much difference between
those who make it and those who don't--if your taking the
best 4K out of 2 billion, how much better are the top 10%
going to be than the rest? Also, as I've already pointed
out, the hero, who is portrayed as a much better than
average MI--one of the 3% who becomes an officer--comes
within a hairsbreadth of both quitting AND getting kicked
out.) Quite apart from all of THAT, all that we really see
is the MI; if the society postualted in ST is so hopelessly
inept in its development of its best members, why should we
assume it does any better than that with the average slob
who signs up? (I think RAH would strongly agree that,
liberal cant to the contrary notwithstanding, a critical
test of any society is how it treats its most able members.)
I suspect that the MI rejects would find pleanty of
assistance in storming the Bastille...
GRAYDON:
"The whole point to Federal Service is find out if you can,
voluntarily,
decide you're willing to risk dying in order to serve. The
'voluntarily' part is supremely important, and that's what
the
franchise hinges on. So if you say 'no, let me out',
you've
ceeded your right to a franchise. It's not like there's any
coercion involved."
RESPONSE:
Like I said, let's test that; I'll set the rules; you do
whatever I say; how likely is it that we're going to see a
"Graydon, TP"? And can I dismiss any complaint you have by
saying your actions were "voluntary"?
GRAYDON:
Getting a franchise is _supposed_ to be hard; in any
meritocracy,
better to keep out a little wheat than let in any chaff.
Response: That philosophy is well suited for training MI;
however, if you think it is generally applicable to the
allocation of a franchise, the you "very clearly don't
understand" politics. Any system for distributing a
franchise involves achieving a balance. Any system that is
excessively and unduly restrictive is not merely
inequitable; it is unlikely to survive because the polity
doesn't adequately represent the body politic, and is thus
(as I have already observed) ripe for revoloution. I don't
doubt that the whites in South Africa could argue that they
are better qualified to govern and that apartheid just
represents (pardon me, represented) keeping out a little
wheat with the chaff.
"Here endeth the lesson"--David Mamet
"Bite me"--Crow T. Robot
Graydon
d...@terrabit.mn.org (David Dyer-Bennet) writes:
>I'll skip commenting on the rest of the numbers, since the major
>discrepancies already noted make it not worth following up.
of the Federation, Earth plus colonies, and the total size of
the combat arms branches.
I suspect this is hinging on what is described as 'military service';
the definiton used in the book would appear to be one where you have
to cope with the directed hostility of other sentients as well as
the passive hostility of inanimate objects.
I will note that there was a social collapse after a major war,
not an outright cataclysm, since there system of government has
been going on for about a century and started in 1987 or so.
I don't think you can reconcile any probable size of the combat
arms branches with that 3% figure and any plausible population
of earth. (The numbers I cranked through the first time around
were intended to produce some minimums, not accurate breakdowns -
particularly since the population data is missing...)
>>And no, I don't think there are non-MI infantry branches; MI are
>>awfully expensive, yes, but it seems clear that they're about what
>>it takes to be effective given the assumptions about technology
>>made in the novel.
>Given what they face, other forms clearly could have been effective.
>And the MI themselves wouldn't be very effective defensively, for
>*holding* ground. I still think the MI are the Marines, roughly.
you can reliably land MI, then no one's defense are very good;
if you dig in and wait to get hit, you lose.
What other forms were you thinking of?
I'd like to see the faintest _shred_ of evidence from the book
that there are other combat arms analagous to infantry anywhere,
too - it seems pretty clear that infantry is a very specialist
niche, rather than being a major element of the combined arms
team. (Note that Sheol, an entire planet worth of surface battle,
has no non-MI troops mentioned.)
Given that they're fighting interstellar wars, infantry almost
*has* to be a specialized niche - you can't get a decisive result,
in the context of the war, with them. You can't hope to do better
than decisve results wrt planets, few of which are going to be that
important. It's _preferable_ to have a useable planet when you're
done arguing, but it doesn't sound like it's often critical.
Graydon
John Schilling
>In article <1994May4.1...@terrabit.mn.org>
>d...@terrabit.mn.org (David Dyer-Bennet) writes:
[Discussion of MI total numbers, etc. deleted]
>>Given what they face, other forms clearly could have been effective.
>>And the MI themselves wouldn't be very effective defensively, for
>>*holding* ground. I still think the MI are the Marines, roughly.
>
>The technology is obviously in an 'offense dominant' phase - if
>you can reliably land MI, then no one's defense are very good;
>if you dig in and wait to get hit, you lose.
Granted, the MI won all the battles we saw in the book. But it
certainly wasn't presented as a "we can't lose" cakewalk. Rather
the MI came close to loosing on several occasions, which means
their opponents came close to winning.
>What other forms were you thinking of?
I can't speak for Dave, but I would expect that the logical counterpart
of the MI would be the SI (Static Infantry). Guys in foxholes and light
body armor, with hand weapons. Given that the bugs and skinnys came
close to defeating the MI with such troops, it seems likely that the
federation keeps similar forces to defend federation worlds against
enemy MI or equivilant. After all, the federation has cannon fodder
to burn and very limited numbers of MI-capable recruits. Seems reasonable
to use the cannon fodder in local defense.
(Note: 'cannon fodder' is a relative term, and may in this context
include troops very well trained and equipped by 20th century standards)
Depending on the underlying technology, I might also expect to
see equivilants of the modern armor and artillery branches. In
open terrain, a tank built using the same technology as an MI
battlesuit would be a formidable opponent. And artillery lobbing
tacnukes from over the horizion would eliminate some of the problems
associated with using such weapons in a (relatively) close-quarters
infantry battle.
The MI are what you use when you want to attack enemy territory
with a force that can be transported over interstellar distances.
It is unlikely that they are the best force for all possible
situations.
>I'd like to see the faintest _shred_ of evidence from the book
>that there are other combat arms analagous to infantry anywhere,
>too - it seems pretty clear that infantry is a very specialist
>niche, rather than being a major element of the combined arms
>team. (Note that Sheol, an entire planet worth of surface battle,
>has no non-MI troops mentioned.)
>
Yes, but the attack on Sheol was precisely the type of attack the
MI specialized in, and other arms would have been poorly suited for.
We never got a chance to see the federation defending territory
against enemy attack, or conducting extended campaigns on a planet
which was not conquered by the initial invasion force.
There is a lot I would have liked to see in the book, but didn't.
It was one book, written from a single viewpoint, and cannot be
expected to show us everything. It shows us the world of the MI.
I know a man who, after reading one book about the experiences
of a USMC veteran during WWII, sincerely believes that the USMC
totally outclasses the Army in all repects. Were it not for
the fact that he has seen the U.S. Army mentioned in newspapers,
he might well not even realize that it exists. You seem to be
making the same error.
--
*John Schilling * "You can have Peace, *
Graydon
schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) writes:
>>The technology is obviously in an 'offense dominant' phase - if
>>you can reliably land MI, then no one's defense are very good;
>>if you dig in and wait to get hit, you lose.
>Granted, the MI won all the battles we saw in the book. But it
>certainly wasn't presented as a "we can't lose" cakewalk. Rather
>the MI came close to loosing on several occasions, which means
>their opponents came close to winning.
First battle of Klendathu - any battle that ends with 'sauve qui peut'
is *not* a victory.
What I meant is that military technology goes through phases where
offence is dominant, and phases where defence is dominant. This
has a huge effect on your strategic choices. For instance, around
1100, folks in Western Europe got good a building castles, but it
was not clear how to successfully assault them, so defense was
dominant, conquest was difficult, and direct assaults not ussually
possible - the usefull options were treachery, starving them out,
and arranging terms.
A situation in which offense is dominant is one rather like
the strategic situation in the 1950s - if you nuked them first,
you won. Short offensive actions could produce decisive results.
Given that one corvette transport can reliably (MI who don't get
picked up get mentioned, but it's unusual) land a platoon of
MI and *come back and get them*, sending down a landing craft
to do so, no one's orbital interdiction or ballistic defense is
very good, compared to the capabilities of the ships. One platoon
worth of MI drop is a *lot* of bombs.
Which leads to the recognition that the only reason to actually
have a battle on the surface of the planet is that both sides
want the planet in reasonable shape. This does not appear to
happen that often.
>>What other forms were you thinking of?
>I can't speak for Dave, but I would expect that the logical counterpart
>of the MI would be the SI (Static Infantry). Guys in foxholes and light
>body armor, with hand weapons. Given that the bugs and skinnys came
>close to defeating the MI with such troops, it seems likely that the
>federation keeps similar forces to defend federation worlds against
>enemy MI or equivilant. After all, the federation has cannon fodder
>to burn and very limited numbers of MI-capable recruits. Seems reasonable
>to use the cannon fodder in local defense.
got pasted, and they switched sides, and that's all we hear about.
The Bugs, well, there were always an awful lot of bugs, compared to
the number of MI involved (I get the impression that it's generally
orders of magnitude, but can't provide a hard reference.)
Non-mobile infantry would get munched by the sort of battle that's
described (nor is it clear that either the Bugs or the Skinnies
engage in infantry assaults of any description; the Bug 'warriors'
might be the equivalent of local police-and-security forces.)
After loading a fellow down with the anti-NBC gear, the weapons
load, and some sort of light armor, they're not going to be
moving very fast. MI style troops would just go right *over*
them, and then you couldn't catch up, or concentrate. Not very
effective and the Federation doesn't seem to have a cannon fodder
mentality.
>Depending on the underlying technology, I might also expect to
>see equivilants of the modern armor and artillery branches. In
>open terrain, a tank built using the same technology as an MI
>battlesuit would be a formidable opponent. And artillery lobbing
>tacnukes from over the horizion would eliminate some of the problems
>associated with using such weapons in a (relatively) close-quarters
>infantry battle.
battalion, get mentioned, and since it's not unussual for MI to
be lugging around about 10 kilotons each, it's not at all clear
that there is a niche between those little A rockets and the
Naval orbital stuff. There is also the heavy emphasis on moving;
I expect that any artillery that stays put for longer than 10
seconds is in serious trouble.
>The MI are what you use when you want to attack enemy territory
>with a force that can be transported over interstellar distances.
>It is unlikely that they are the best force for all possible
>situations.
nova-bombs you, for starters.
>We never got a chance to see the federation defending territory
>against enemy attack, or conducting extended campaigns on a planet
>which was not conquered by the initial invasion force.
force and frightfulness being implied tends to argue against
it.
>I know a man who, after reading one book about the experiences
>of a USMC veteran during WWII, sincerely believes that the USMC
>totally outclasses the Army in all repects. Were it not for
>the fact that he has seen the U.S. Army mentioned in newspapers,
>he might well not even realize that it exists. You seem to be
>making the same error.
in Johnny's list of choices - logistics, intelligence, specialist
scouts (which is what the K-9 corps would appear to be), and
specifically mentions that Johnny stops listing *after* he runs
out of combatant jobs.
It seems a bit inconsistent that there would be a combatant
branch that didn't make it onto that list.
I agree that the assumptions about force structure made in the
book are exceedingly peculiar, but I think they are internally
consistent as postulates.
Graydon
Gary Wong
stuff like how many MI there would be, I started
thinking, but can't remember, if it ever says how
many worlds make up the federeation. After the last
comment about only 800 MI from Earth, or something like
that, I remembered that there are other worlds that MI
come from. As I recall,( just moved, can't find my
copy of the book to look), there is mention that the colony
worlds have a higher percentage of recruits for MI, and
other branches of Federal Service, than the home world.
I would think that would explain where the rest of the MI
come from.
Just adding my thoughts,
YPG
John Schilling
>In article <2qjuge$d...@spock.usc.edu>
>schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) writes:
>>Granted, the MI won all the battles we saw in the book. But it
>>certainly wasn't presented as a "we can't lose" cakewalk. Rather
>>the MI came close to loosing on several occasions, which means
>>their opponents came close to winning.
>
>uh... no.
>
>First battle of Klendathu - any battle that ends with 'sauve qui peut'
>is *not* a victory.
Sorry, forgot that one. Thanks for the reminder.
>What I meant is that military technology goes through phases where
>offence is dominant, and phases where defence is dominant. This
>has a huge effect on your strategic choices. For instance, around
>1100, folks in Western Europe got good a building castles, but it
>was not clear how to successfully assault them, so defense was
>dominant, conquest was difficult, and direct assaults not ussually
>possible - the usefull options were treachery, starving them out,
>and arranging terms.
>
>A situation in which offense is dominant is one rather like
>the strategic situation in the 1950s - if you nuked them first,
>you won. Short offensive actions could produce decisive results.
Perhaps, but even in offense-dominant situtions people still have
defensive forces. Consider the recources devoted to NORAD in the
50s and 60s. Interceptors, SAMs, ground radar nets, underground
command posts, and a substantial civil defense effort. All in an
offense-dominant era.
These forces may be secondary in importance, but the point is that
they exist.
>
>Given that one corvette transport can reliably (MI who don't get
>picked up get mentioned, but it's unusual) land a platoon of
>MI and *come back and get them*, sending down a landing craft
>to do so, no one's orbital interdiction or ballistic defense is
>very good, compared to the capabilities of the ships. One platoon
>worth of MI drop is a *lot* of bombs.
Or planetary defense may be limited in range. Certainly if one has
expended enormous effort to destroy planetary defenses on/over
a certain location, it might be preferable to insert ground troops
through the gap, than to continue a naval action. Certainly, the
limiting case of destroying one hemisphere's worth of planetary
defenses should work.
>Which leads to the recognition that the only reason to actually
>have a battle on the surface of the planet is that both sides
>want the planet in reasonable shape. This does not appear to
>happen that often.
But it was explicitly explained in the discussions between Rico and
his training instructor (can't remember name offhand) that taking
planets in reasonable shape, controlling rather than destroying
territory and populations, was the whole point of warfare. Certainly,
this is the case in most warfare to the present date, and will probably
be the case in the ST era.
[light, non-mobile infantry proposal deleted]
>Well, there's hardly any evidence about the Skinnies; that one city
>got pasted, and they switched sides, and that's all we hear about.
>
>The Bugs, well, there were always an awful lot of bugs, compared to
>the number of MI involved (I get the impression that it's generally
>orders of magnitude, but can't provide a hard reference.)
>
>Non-mobile infantry would get munched by the sort of battle that's
>described (nor is it clear that either the Bugs or the Skinnies
>engage in infantry assaults of any description; the Bug 'warriors'
>might be the equivalent of local police-and-security forces.)
Certainly, the Bugs might have gotten munched had they tried to attack.
But the Bug and Skinny non-mobile infantry DIDN'T get munched in the
defensive role, which was my whole point. By showing us the effort
the MI had to go through to win against such troops by a narrow margin,
the book implies that non-mobile infantry IS a viable defensive force.
I was not suggesting Static Infantry as a replacement for MI in the
offensive role, but as a suppliment. The numerous SI forces defend
friendly territory, so the small, elite MI forces are free to attack
the enemy.
>After loading a fellow down with the anti-NBC gear, the weapons
>load, and some sort of light armor, they're not going to be
>moving very fast. MI style troops would just go right *over*
>them, and then you couldn't catch up, or concentrate. Not very
>effective and the Federation doesn't seem to have a cannon fodder
>mentality.
Hence the term 'Static Infantry'. And going over them doesn't accomplish
anything if they are sited on, rather than around, the territory you
are trying to take. You have to come back and face them sometime, unless
you have the will and means to nuke the site from orbit, in which case
you wouldn't need the MI in the first place.
And what's this about the Federation not having a cannon fodder mentality?
They have hordes of service recruits that they don't seem to want but need
to find dangerous duty for. How can they not have a cannon fodder menatlity?
Granted, they may not count on the cannon fodder to win wars, but they will
have it in spades.
[Discussion of other possible branches and combat roles deleted]
>Well, possibly. However, the book mentions _everything else_
>in Johnny's list of choices - logistics, intelligence, specialist
>scouts (which is what the K-9 corps would appear to be), and
>specifically mentions that Johnny stops listing *after* he runs
>out of combatant jobs.
>
>It seems a bit inconsistent that there would be a combatant
>branch that didn't make it onto that list.
>
I agree that it seems inconsistent. But then, the book *doesn't* mention
everyting else in the list of combat choices. It lists his top choices
(starship pilot, etc.), then mentions that MI and K9 are at the bottom
of the list. There may be quite a bit in the middle, and I wouldn't expect
RAH to list every possible service branch for the sake of completeness.
Rico might have considered SI service to be preferable to MI, and thus
put it in the undisclosed middle of his list. There are, after all,
people who chose to serve in the Army rather than the Marines. Strange
but true.
Another possibility: The recruiting sergeant mentioned 'labor battalions',
yet danger seems to be a requirement of Federal Service. Perhaps non-MI
troops haven't seen action recently, and are regarded by many as a
non-combatant force. Many nations today use idle military forces for
public works projects, this could be the default operating mode for the
SI. And the combatant MI would naturally use derogitory terminology in
describing them.
Thomas Koenig
>I can't speak for Dave, but I would expect that the logical counterpart
>of the MI would be the SI (Static Infantry). Guys in foxholes and light
>body armor, with hand weapons. Given that the bugs and skinnys came
>close to defeating the MI with such troops, it seems likely that the
>federation keeps similar forces to defend federation worlds against
>enemy MI or equivilant.
Depends... To counter an MI attack, I would probably saturate the area
with drones, just smart enough to recognize the signature of an MI suit
and attack with a small armour - piercing warhead.
The MI are basically a light cavalry or light tank force. Bog them
down in barbed wire or a minefield, so they lose mobility, and they
are lost.
--
Thomas Koenig, ig...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig...@dkauni2.bitnet,
The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double
logarithmic diagram.
Nancy Lebovitz
that the children of non-voters would somehow be much more likely
to die in their course of public service than the children of
voters.
Nancy Lebovitz
na...@genie.slhs.udel.edu
calligraphic button catalogue available by email
"Nerd Pride: Why DO they think that "walking encyclopedia is an
insult?"
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ The above does not represent OIT, UNC-CH, laUNChpad, or its other users. /
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Lebovitz
>
>[Dicussion of possible abuse of Federal Service system deleted]
>
>>I agree with this. This is one of the fundamental flaws in the society.
>
>>If a Stalin-like figure winds up getting elected, he will be in power
>>for life. All he needs to do is to arrange a *very* high mortality rate
>>for anyone who showed any anti-government tendancies.
>
>elected in the first place. Even if we assume that a would-be tyrant
>is willing and able to complete a term of Federal Service himself, he
As I recall, Hitler completed a term of military service and won a
minor medal for heroism.
>has to convince a particularly dedicated electorate to vote for him. People
>who spent several years at hard, dangerous tasks to earn the franchise are
>not likely to be swayed by catchy slogans and fancy TV commercials. They
>will pay very close attention to who and what they are voting for.
And what they're voting for might be abusing the non-voters. I really
can't see any reliable protection for non-voters in under a _Starship
Trooper_ government.
>
>And if he does get elected, once he shows his true colors he'll have to
>contend with an angry electorate composed of people willing to die for
>what they believe in. Many of whom are elite combat veterans. He'll
>be in power for life, but that might not be very long.
It's an interesting question--maybe the mere idea of a dictator
for life would sufficiently offend the franchisees that they'd
revolt, or maybe the dictator could buy them off with an unfranchised
slave or two each.
>
>I will agree, though, that if the society of Starship Troopers fails, it
>will fail in a big way. Consider it very strong, but very brittle.
I've wondered if the standard of stability is necessarily a good
one....maybe it's better to have governments that can make smooth
transitions to improved forms. (I consider electoral systems to be
a first draft of this.)
Nancy Lebovitz
na...@genie.slhs.udel.edu
calligraphic button catalogue available by email
"Nerd Pride: Why DO they consider "walking encyclopedia" an insult?"
Ross Smith
It's been a while since I read ST so I could be mistaken here, but I had
the impression that hardly anyone *wanted* to join the MI. I don't recall
the specific passages involved, but I thought Johnny Rico was fairly typical
in putting MI at the bottom of a long list, and being unpleasantly surprised
when he ended up there.
--
Ross Smith (Wanganui, New Zealand) ... al...@acheron.amigans.gen.nz
GCS/S d? p c++++ l u-- e- m---(*) s+/++ n--- h+ f g+ w+ t+(-) r+ y?
Keeper of the FAQ for rec.aviation.military
"Well, we know what to get you for Christmas. A double lobotomy and
ten rolls of rubber wallpaper." (A J Rimmer)
Graydon
schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) writes:
>[Defensive forces]
>These forces may be secondary in importance, but the point is that
>they exist.
have ended up a programer for is one of them.
However, think about this for a moment; you get assulted from space.
You don't know _where_ you're going to get landed on with any exactness
until the enemy has landed. How do you get normal ground troops
there, especially given that the assult forces don't neccesarily
stay on the ground long, in time to do anything useful?
>>Given that one corvette transport can reliably (MI who don't get
>>picked up get mentioned, but it's unusual) land a platoon of
>>MI and *come back and get them*, sending down a landing craft
>>to do so, no one's orbital interdiction or ballistic defense is
>>very good, compared to the capabilities of the ships. One platoon
>>worth of MI drop is a *lot* of bombs.
>Or planetary defense may be limited in range. Certainly if one has
>expended enormous effort to destroy planetary defenses on/over
>a certain location, it might be preferable to insert ground troops
>through the gap, than to continue a naval action. Certainly, the
>limiting case of destroying one hemisphere's worth of planetary
>defenses should work.
match with a hemisphere's worth of defenses, or that the aforesaid
defenses don't have the range to target a ship in orbit or a boat
that lands on the surface!
It's pretty obvious that stealth or ECM or _something_ is much
better than the technology to _find_ ships, or the whole mad idea
of dropping troops from space would be complete suicide to start
with. (Note that troopers *do* sometimes get hit on the way down
- Johnny's description of the raid on the Skinny planet remarks
that 'no one got hit coming in' or some such, so there *are*
active defenses in the drop zones as a matter of course.)
>But it was explicitly explained in the discussions between Rico and
>his training instructor (can't remember name offhand) that taking
>planets in reasonable shape, controlling rather than destroying
>territory and populations, was the whole point of warfare. Certainly,
>this is the case in most warfare to the present date, and will probably
>be the case in the ST era.
*controled* force, yeah, but there's also the comment about the
what would have happened to Planet P if Operation Royalty hadn't
been in the works. ('rendered uninhabitable by Man or Bug')
>Certainly, the Bugs might have gotten munched had they tried to attack.
>But the Bug and Skinny non-mobile infantry DIDN'T get munched in the
>defensive role, which was my whole point. By showing us the effort
>the MI had to go through to win against such troops by a narrow margin,
>the book implies that non-mobile infantry IS a viable defensive force.
>I was not suggesting Static Infantry as a replacement for MI in the
>offensive role, but as a suppliment. The numerous SI forces defend
>friendly territory, so the small, elite MI forces are free to attack
>the enemy.
For starters, Johnny goes on and on and on about what a terribly
bad idea it is to hold still when there's shooting going on; the
impression is that, particularly in the Skinny raid, if you hold still
for two seconds you're in trouble and if you hold still for five you're
dead. This probably applies to SI forces.
The other reason is that the Skinny 'normal infantry' forces have
a terrible rate of success - fifty MI trash an entire city, at the
cost of three wounded (one of whom later dies). That's a _big_
city, too, spread out over at least ten kilometers.
Bugs also have a pretty lousy rate of success; classically, one
wants to have a three to one advantage in numbers before trying
an attack. MI who are very heavily outnumbered, numerically,
manage to defeat bug ground forces, and the bug weapons aren't
bad (that beam that slices through armor, for instance), so it
almost has to be a question of mobility.
>Hence the term 'Static Infantry'. And going over them doesn't accomplish
>anything if they are sited on, rather than around, the territory you
>are trying to take. You have to come back and face them sometime, unless
>you have the will and means to nuke the site from orbit, in which case
>you wouldn't need the MI in the first place.
a company, keep going, clobber the next company, and so on. It would
be unpleasant, but the situation would be analagous to foot infantry
trying to cope with a mechanized unit. It requires a *huge* numerical
advantage.
>And what's this about the Federation not having a cannon fodder mentality?
>They have hordes of service recruits that they don't seem to want but need
>to find dangerous duty for. How can they not have a cannon fodder menatlity?
>Granted, they may not count on the cannon fodder to win wars, but they will
>have it in spades.
for any reason. The MI's attitude about recovery, and prisoners, are
explicit; any shred of a sugguestion that they want to just get rid of
the non-combatant Federal Service types? (Note that reactions of people,
who are not themselves MI, in Federal Service, is that the Infantry get
the short end of the stick.)
If Static Infantry worked, they might well use it. I'm very
dubious that it could work at the rate of travel given for the
typical assualt force.
>>It seems a bit inconsistent that there would be a combatant
>>branch that didn't make it onto that list.
>I agree that it seems inconsistent. But then, the book *doesn't* mention
>everyting else in the list of combat choices. It lists his top choices
>(starship pilot, etc.), then mentions that MI and K9 are at the bottom
>of the list. There may be quite a bit in the middle, and I wouldn't expect
>RAH to list every possible service branch for the sake of completeness.
do they never come up? Since they are, after all, the obvious targets
for such feelings, which are known to exist. And why does Johnny talk
about 'an army' or 'the army' when discussing order of battle issues
and such? (For that matter, why is the army/navy rivalry with the MI?)
>Rico might have considered SI service to be preferable to MI, and thus
>put it in the undisclosed middle of his list. There are, after all,
>people who chose to serve in the Army rather than the Marines. Strange
>but true.
Given the tech assumptions in the book (which are, no argument,
rather wierd), 'infantry' is an extremely specialized role, and
'armour' and 'artillery' have gone away entirely as 'army' jobs.
Fourty hours is a very long battle, requiring special logistical
preparations. There just doesn't seem to be a 'classic army' role
anywhere, so the Marines and the Army have been conflated into
this wierd thing called Mobile Infantry.
>Another possibility: The recruiting sergeant mentioned 'labor battalions',
>yet danger seems to be a requirement of Federal Service. Perhaps non-MI
>troops haven't seen action recently, and are regarded by many as a
>non-combatant force. Many nations today use idle military forces for
>public works projects, this could be the default operating mode for the
>SI. And the combatant MI would naturally use derogitory terminology in
>describing them.
as building tunnels on the Moon somewhere if I recall correctly) are
organized in a fairly military way; I would just be rather surprised
if they were expected to be militarily effective. Very few of those
'idle military forces' can put down the shovels and pick up rifles
and fight without serious retraining, after all.
There is also that, in the chapter discussing Johnnie's recruitment,
'mobile infantry' and 'the infantry' are used synonomously. There's
also Sgt. Ho - 'all the others are either button pushers or professors'
- which, while not complementary, sure doesn't sound like there's
another Army branch (the MI is explictly 'the Army' in that speach, too)
of combatants.
I find it awfully hard to believe there there is an Army combat
branch that is just somehow never mentioned; Johnie's a much fairer
narrator than that.
Graydon
Captain Button
: Well, perhaps. 'Heavy weapons', in sizes from section through
: battalion, get mentioned, and since it's not unussual for MI to
: be lugging around about 10 kilotons each, it's not at all clear
: that there is a niche between those little A rockets and the
: Naval orbital stuff. There is also the heavy emphasis on moving;
: I expect that any artillery that stays put for longer than 10
: seconds is in serious trouble.
:
I agree. One consequence of an offense dominant environment
would be that anything you can locate you can destroy, IMHO. This
explains the great emphasis on Mobility in the Mobile Infantry,
since you want to be somewhere else by the time the enemy figures
out where you are.
--
- Captain Button but...@io.com
"We'll have to organize some Chaos in the Streets." - Lane Kirkland
Joseph K Mcallister
Graydon <SAUN...@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> wrote:
>In article <2qm3cj$j...@spock.usc.edu>
>schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) writes:
>
It is speed. The corvete drops in, drops out it's load and drops out.
If it were to hang around, then it would have a good chance of being shot.
but beam weapons would not have enough power to hurt the space ship and
rockets would require time to get there. the only possible defence would
be to have killer satilites, which hopefully would already be targeted and
taken out before the combat starts.
>>>It seems a bit inconsistent that there would be a combatant
>>>branch that didn't make it onto that list.
>>I agree that it seems inconsistent. But then, the book *doesn't* mention
>>everyting else in the list of combat choices. It lists his top choices
>>(starship pilot, etc.), then mentions that MI and K9 are at the bottom
>>of the list. There may be quite a bit in the middle, and I wouldn't expect
>>RAH to list every possible service branch for the sake of completeness.
>Possibly, but why, in the several discussions of interservice rivalry,
>do they never come up? Since they are, after all, the obvious targets
>for such feelings, which are known to exist. And why does Johnny talk
>about 'an army' or 'the army' when discussing order of battle issues
>and such? (For that matter, why is the army/navy rivalry with the MI?)
>
Because there was just ONE military. To reach high command one had to
go through the army, then go through the navy BEFORE you got to get
to high command. It was one millitary bunch of folks. Some who drive
ships, some who drive armor.
>preparations. There just doesn't seem to be a 'classic army' role
>anywhere, so the Marines and the Army have been conflated into
>this wierd thing called Mobile Infantry.
>
Yeah, what he said. *grin*
>>Another possibility: The recruiting sergeant mentioned 'labor battalions',
>>yet danger seems to be a requirement of Federal Service. Perhaps non-MI
>>troops haven't seen action recently, and are regarded by many as a
>>non-combatant force. Many nations today use idle military forces for
>>public works projects, this could be the default operating mode for the
>>SI. And the combatant MI would naturally use derogitory terminology in
>>describing them.
>
>Well, perhaps. I don't doubt that labour battalions (who are mentioned
>as building tunnels on the Moon somewhere if I recall correctly) are
>organized in a fairly military way; I would just be rather surprised
>if they were expected to be militarily effective. Very few of those
>'idle military forces' can put down the shovels and pick up rifles
>and fight without serious retraining, after all.
>
They are engineer equivilants. They are part of the army, but don't
do fighting. (see SEEBE's and related stuff)
>There is also that, in the chapter discussing Johnnie's recruitment,
>'mobile infantry' and 'the infantry' are used synonomously. There's
>also Sgt. Ho - 'all the others are either button pushers or professors'
>- which, while not complementary, sure doesn't sound like there's
>another Army branch (the MI is explictly 'the Army' in that speach, too)
>of combatants.
>
>I find it awfully hard to believe there there is an Army combat
>branch that is just somehow never mentioned; Johnie's a much fairer
>narrator than that.
>
>Graydon
Well what else do you need? You have MI in suits which is armor, you
have MI out of suits (they learn hand to hand and other combat)
For hunter/killer/warriors you have MI. To get them there you have
Navy. Everything else is contracted out.
-Joel
John Schilling
>In article <2q98jb$9...@korrd.usc.edu>,
>John Schilling <schi...@korrd.usc.edu> wrote:
[Dicussion of possible abuse of Federal Service system deleted]
>>Of course, the system tends to make it difficult for [tyrants] to get
>>elected in the first place. Even if we assume that a would-be tyrant
>>is willing and able to complete a term of Federal Service himself, he
>As I recall, Hitler completed a term of military service and won a
>minor medal for heroism.
Of couse, Stalin (the original example) very carefully avoided personal
service. And it seems that most of the WWI veteran vote in the 1931
elections in Germany went to Hindenberg, not Hitler. Very difficult
to sell nationalistic militarisim to people who have experienced the
consequences firsthand.
>>has to convince a particularly dedicated electorate to vote for him. People
>>who spent several years at hard, dangerous tasks to earn the franchise are
>>not likely to be swayed by catchy slogans and fancy TV commercials. They
>>will pay very close attention to who and what they are voting for.
>And what they're voting for might be abusing the non-voters. I really
>can't see any reliable protection for non-voters in under a _Starship
>Trooper_ government.
Well, they can always join the service and become voters. Or at least
their children, seeing what their non-citizen parents are going through,
could do so. It would take a deliberate campaign of disenfranchisement
and opression to create the effects you describe. Not impossible, but
not likely to evolve naturally.
>>And if he does get elected, once he shows his true colors he'll have to
>>contend with an angry electorate composed of people willing to die for
>>what they believe in. Many of whom are elite combat veterans. He'll
>>be in power for life, but that might not be very long.
>It's an interesting question--maybe the mere idea of a dictator
>for life would sufficiently offend the franchisees that they'd
>revolt, or maybe the dictator could buy them off with an unfranchised
>slave or two each.
One should keep in mind in this discussion that "Military Dictatorships"
are rarely created by professional armies. They are generally instituted
by bands of uniformed thugs with no military tradition, who call themselves
armies even though they act exclusively in a domestic police role. Were it
not for the difference in uniforms, they would be recognized as the Police
States they are.
There is usually a very big difference between the mentality of people
willing to fight and die for the greater good, with no expectation of
personal gain(*), and that of people who would support dictatorship. Not
always, but usually. Granted, once a dictator was well entrenched in
power, he might offer tangible rewards to future service veterans, but
that won't help him come to power in the first place, when he has to
deal with a relatively honorable and self-sacrificing electorate.
>>I will agree, though, that if the society of Starship Troopers fails, it
>>will fail in a big way. Consider it very strong, but very brittle.
>I've wondered if the standard of stability is necessarily a good
>one....maybe it's better to have governments that can make smooth
>transitions to improved forms. (I consider electoral systems to be
>a first draft of this.)
A valid point of view, though I'm not sure I agree with it.
(*) The franchise itself does not count as personal gain. Elections
are rarely, if ever, decided by a single vote, so a person cannot
directly benefit by voting. It is another example of a personal
sacrifice (of time, in this case) made for the greater good.
Ken Arromdee
John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>There is usually a very big difference between the mentality of people
>willing to fight and die for the greater good, with no expectation of
>personal gain(*),
>are rarely, if ever, decided by a single vote, so a person cannot
>directly benefit by voting. It is another example of a personal
>sacrifice (of time, in this case) made for the greater good.
If N people vote for something that provides a personal benefit to N people,
it's clear that one vote has a value of one personal benefit.
Cases of people voting things for themselves are well-known; you yourself
suggest that nonvoters who are oppressed would become voters and vote away
the oppression; what is that if _not_ a personal benefit? And the concepts
of people voting themselves bread and circuses are also well-known.
There is also the problem that some people may be willing to fight and die for
the greater good, but have different ideas about "greater good" from the
people in charge. (What? Vote into office someone with a better idea of
"greater good"? Sorry, in order to oppose someone's cause via voting them
out, you first have to put your life on the line _for_ their cause.)
Or consider another scenario: the voters decide to send the servicepeople to
do some job. The voters don't care how dirty the job is, because the voters
aren't the ones doing the fighting. (Like the Vietnam War, except that the
voters are exempt because they already have the right to vote, instead of be-
cause they're over draft age.) The voters can exploit the new servicepeople
worse than they (the voters) were exploited when they were the old servicepeo-
ple; it brings them only benefits. So the service job gets worse and worse
from generation to generation.
--
Ken Arromdee (email: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
ObYouKnowWho Bait: Stuffed Turkey with Gravy and Mashed Potatoes
"You, a Decider?" --Romana "I decided not to." --The Doctor
John Schilling
>In article <2qojb1$q...@spock.usc.edu>,
>John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>>(*) The franchise itself does not count as personal gain. Elections
>>are rarely, if ever, decided by a single vote, so a person cannot
>>directly benefit by voting. It is another example of a personal
>>sacrifice (of time, in this case) made for the greater good.
>If N people vote for something that provides a personal benefit to N people,
>it's clear that one vote has a value of one personal benefit.
Yes, but the marginal value of the vote (the only thing that matters to the
voter) is still zero. After all, if the Nth person had stayed home on
election day, we would have the case of N-1 people voting for something
that benefits N people. Exactly the same result.
Unless we are dealing with the unlikely case of an election decided by a
single vote, or an open-ballot system where a politician can hand out favors
specifically to those who voted for him/her, a vote is of zero value to
the voter.
If you hand everyone the franchise at little or no cost, and with some pressure
to excercise it, many people will vote selfishly. Not because they really
expect any tangible benefit from it, but because selfish is their default
mode of thinking. Such people are unlikely to go to great and/or dangerous
effort to obtain the franchise, however. This is the whole point of the
political system in ST. Only those who understand that voting is something
done for the greater good, rather than personal benefit, will go through
Federal Service and earn the franchise.
Todd Walk
>In article <16FB2163...@qucdn.queensu.ca>,
>Graydon <SAUN...@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> wrote:
>>In article <2qm3cj$j...@spock.usc.edu>
>>schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) writes:
>>
>> <how did the transports manage to not get shot while dropping off MI>
>It is speed. The corvete drops in, drops out it's load and drops out.
>If it were to hang around, then it would have a good chance of being shot.
>but beam weapons would not have enough power to hurt the space ship and
>rockets would require time to get there. the only possible defence would
>be to have killer satilites, which hopefully would already be targeted and
>taken out before the combat starts.
By that time in the future beam weapons will very likely have enough
power. If lasers don't, then some sort of particle beam with a laser
to cut the atmosphere in front of it. Put it in a heavily armored
underground shelter and hook it to a fusion reactor and you're ready
to go. Right now if the US gov. was willing to spend say about $500B,
we could make a base like this to take out ICBMs (although it obviously
wouldn't be cost effective, horribly limited in its firing arc, and
easy for countermeasures to be made against).
In the future, bases like this would likely be cheap compared to the
cost of the ships themselves.
RAH would have easily missed this at the time ST was written, lasers
were still *very* primitive, and no one knew if they were really
going to amount to anything yet. On the other hand, RAH (like many
others) knew that with balistic technology, space based targets
would have a *huge* advantage over land based targets.
(BTW, with beam tech., the ship's speed is pretty immaterial (ie.
the ship will be like it's standing still) unless it's up toward
the same order of magnitude of the speed of the beam weapon.
Note also that light weapons cannot be seen until they've already,
hit you...)
--
Todd Walk
wa...@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
ScottL8724
(Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
"My cynical suspicion about the government in _Starship Troopers_ is
that the children of non-voters would somehow be much more likely
to die in their course of public service than the children of
voters."
Actually, I have no strong opinions about how well a system in which some sort
of service was required for a franchise would work; or more specifically, I
think it is clear that it would depend on many specific questions about how it
was administered. My reservations about the administration of the system in ST
have already been noted. On a broader level, what I find disturbing about the
"governmental side" of ST (as opposed to its discussion of how to create an
effective military service) is the notion that the superiority of its system is
demonstrable by reference to some sort of mathematical or logical formula. As
should-have-been Supreme Court Justice Robert Bork has pointed out in a
somewhat different context, any proposal for solving complex legal, social, or
moral problems is like a formula which purports to square a circle; you know
its flawed without even looking at it. (This doesn't mean the system in ST
wouldn't work; it simply means that its performance can't be demonstrated
logically; the only way to find out if it works is to try it.) The concern I
have about a governmental system which purports to be based on logically
provable concepts is that, in its smug sureness that it has all the answers, it
is likely to be a very repressive system. This is demonstrated by virtually
any discussion in ST between someone representing the government and anyone
else; virtually all of them consist of explanations of why the government must
be right and everyone who disagrees must be wrong. As Alexei Panshin has noted
with regard to Colonel Dubois: "He is RIGHT, you see, and hence doesn't have to
explain, refute, or argue, but simply expound his correct opinions. This, I am
all too afraid, is how rigid a government such as Heinlein propounds would
actually be." I reiterate that the troublesome thing here is not basing the
franchise on service or on any other specific aspect of the system; rather it
is the concept that the system as designed MUST be the best system; politics is
too complicated to be reduced to "if->thens.
David Dyer-Bennet
>In article <1994May4.1...@terrabit.mn.org>
>d...@terrabit.mn.org (David Dyer-Bennet) writes:
>>>And no, I don't think there are non-MI infantry branches; MI are
>>>awfully expensive, yes, but it seems clear that they're about what
>>>it takes to be effective given the assumptions about technology
>>>made in the novel.
>>Given what they face, other forms clearly could have been effective.
>>And the MI themselves wouldn't be very effective defensively, for
>>*holding* ground. I still think the MI are the Marines, roughly.
>The technology is obviously in an 'offense dominant' phase - if
>you can reliably land MI, then no one's defense are very good;
>if you dig in and wait to get hit, you lose.
Yes, and it's interesting that defenses aren't better. Given that a
ship can sneak in and lay a bomb that will split the planet, it would
seem to be *very* desirable to keep them away, and therefor a *very*
high priority in the war department budget.
>What other forms were you thinking of?
Real infantry, space-defense groups, military police, conquered planet
reeducation corps, or whatever.
>I'd like to see the faintest _shred_ of evidence from the book
>that there are other combat arms analagous to infantry anywhere,
>too - it seems pretty clear that infantry is a very specialist
>niche, rather than being a major element of the combined arms
>team. (Note that Sheol, an entire planet worth of surface battle,
>has no non-MI troops mentioned.)
Right. There's also no mention of artillery that I remember, but I
can't accept that they don't exist. Also no mention of any kind of
close air support. I think we've just pushed decisively beyond the
confines of the book, and simply won't find clear answers to the
questions we want answered.
>Given that they're fighting interstellar wars, infantry almost
>*has* to be a specialized niche - you can't get a decisive result,
>in the context of the war, with them. You can't hope to do better
>than decisve results wrt planets, few of which are going to be that
>important. It's _preferable_ to have a useable planet when you're
>done arguing, but it doesn't sound like it's often critical.
The industrial output of the planet could be a very strong incentive
to keep it in one piece, not to mention possible ethical positions.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, proprietor, The Terraboard 4242 Minnehaha Ave. S.
d...@network.com, d...@terrabit.mn.org Minneapolis, MN 55406
Don't waste your time arguing about allocating +1-612-721-8800
blame; there'll be enough to go around. Fax +1-612-724-3314
David Dyer-Bennet
>Well, possibly. However, the book mentions _everything else_
>in Johnny's list of choices - logistics, intelligence, specialist
>scouts (which is what the K-9 corps would appear to be), and
>specifically mentions that Johnny stops listing *after* he runs
>out of combatant jobs.
I remember it as containing some sort of an elipsis phrase, which
seemed to me to leave open the possibility that we hadn't seen all the
choices. Um, here it is (page 32 in my old Berkley paperback edition):
The thing I did most carefully was to list my preferences.
Naturally I listed all of the Space Navy jobs (other than pilot)
at the top; whether I went as a power-room technician or as cook,
I knew that I preferred any Navy job to any Army job -- I wanted
to travel.
Next I listed Intelligence -- a spy gets around, too, and I
figured that it couldn't possibly be dull. (I was wrong, but
never mind.) After than came a long list; psychological warfare,
chemical warfare, biological warfare, combat ecology (I didn't
know what that was, but it sounded interesting), logistics corps
(a simple mistake; I had studied logic for the debate tem and
"logistics" turns out to have two entirely separate meanings), and
a dozen others. Clear at the bottom, with some hesitation, I put
the K-9 Corps, and Infantry.
So I'm wrong; there isn't the implication of an ellipsis, there are at
least 12 things explicitly skipped over. So, no, we don't have the
complete list.
>It seems a bit inconsistent that there would be a combatant
>branch that didn't make it onto that list.
This is certainly true.
Joe Brenner
> On a broader
> level, what I find disturbing about the "governmental side"
> of ST (as opposed to its discussion of how to create an
> effective military service) is the notion that the
> superiority of its system is demonstrable by reference to
> some sort of mathematical or logical formula.
You're quite right that this is probably ridiculous, but I
think you should cut Heinlein some slack on this one. It is
after all a science fiction novel full of speculative
notions, and it was a popular idea back then (in some
circles, anyway) that we were on the verge of a breakthrough
in the development of a throughly scientific understanding
of human nature. Compare this to the premise of Asimov's
_Foundation_ series, "psycho-history".
Anyway, I'm sure you could come up with a proof of
Heinlein's ideas using symbolic logic... given the right
assumptions.
> The concern I have
> about a governmental system which purports to be based on
> logically provable concepts is that, in its smug sureness
> that it has all the answers, it is likely to be a very
> repressive system.
Smug certainty is not the sole provence of political
scientists. Systems based on religious faith have worse
problems, for example.
> As Alexei Panshin has
> noted with regard to Colonel Dubois: "He is RIGHT, you see,
> and hence doesn't have to explain, refute, or argue, but
> simply expound his correct opinions. This, I am all too
> afraid, is how rigid a government such as Heinlein propounds
> would actually be."
Panshin's _Heinlein in Dimension_ is certainly worthy of
much respect, but I'm afraid this is one of the cases where
he's a bit unfair... DuBois presents many arguments that are
supposed to show why he's right. They may not convince, but
certainly they're there.
Joel Upchurch
> That is far and away the best response to my argument yet, and perhaps
> you're correct. I really wish that RAH had been a bit more explicit,
> however. One presumes they have a good testing system so those chosen
> for MI should have t basic physical and mental capabilities; what
> they're really looking for is wh RAH calls "fighting spirit". But how
> do they evaluate that, and did they really call in a whole bunch of
> folks and say, "we're sorry, you failed Fighting Spirit 101 so you
> have to choose between dropping out and picking another service"? It
> sounds a bit unreal to me.
I just reread my copy of ST last week and when you know what to look
for it pretty obvious what they are testing for. Part of it is looking
for people with the pride and determination to suck it in and keep
trying no matter how difficult the situation is. They make training as
physically rigorous as possible and make it easy to quit. They make
it dangerous and make it look even more dangerous to get rid of the
cowards. The have things like unarmed combat to shake out the people
who aren't aggressive enough to be good soldiers and other tests to get
rid of the people who are too rash or foolish to be MI. They're
looking for people who can still get the job done when they are tired,
angry, afraid, hungry and hurt.
Joel Upchurch @ Upchurch Computer Consulting uunet!aaahq01!upchrch!joel
718 Galsworthy Ave. Orlando, FL 32809-6429 phone (407) 859-0982
Jim Gifford
d> Panshin's _Heinlein in Dimension_ is certainly worthy of
d> much respect, but I'm afraid this is one of the cases where
d> he's a bit unfair... DuBois presents many arguments that are
d> supposed to show why he's right. They may not convince, but
d> certainly they're there.
Oh, please. Neither _HiD_ nor its then-snotnosed author is worthy of much
respect.
Stuart C. Squibb
>
>Well, possibly. However, the book mentions _everything else_
>in Johnny's list of choices - logistics, intelligence, specialist
>scouts (which is what the K-9 corps would appear to be), and
>specifically mentions that Johnny stops listing *after* he runs
>out of combatant jobs.
>
>It seems a bit inconsistent that there would be a combatant
>branch that didn't make it onto that list.
>
Well, we are introduced to at least one combat branch not on Juan's
list later in the story. In the raid on Planet P (page 201 of my version)
we meet the Combat Engineers:
"Combat engineers are almost as good an outfit as the infantry; it's a
pleasure to work with them. In a pinch they fight, maybe not expertly but
bravely. Or they go ahead with their work, not even lifting their heads, while
a battle rages around them."
Stuart.
--
s...@vectis.demon.co.uk
Hans Rancke-Madsen
>SAUN...@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Graydon) writes:
>>It seems a bit inconsistent that there would be a combatant
>>branch that didn't make it onto that list.
>This is certainly true.
There are bits in the book that clearly implies that the MI is the only
infantry around, but the list, at least, does have one possible out: Rico
applies for 'the infantry' and ends up in 'the Mobile Infantry'. It _is_
possible that the MI is only a subset of 'the infantry' and that there are
other infantry branches.
Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
ran...@diku.dk
------------
"Free speech gives a man the right to talk about the
'psycology' of an amoeba, but I don't have to listen".
Elihu Nivens in 'The Puppet Masters'
Jim Gifford
d> Right. There's also no mention of artillery that I remember, but I
d> can't accept that they don't exist. Also no mention of any kind of
d> close air support. I think we've just pushed decisively beyond the
d> confines of the book, and simply won't find clear answers to the
d> questions we want answered.
Keep in mind that RAH was under pressure (both self and publisher) to keep the
book short. See GRUMBLES, page 81, where he gloats to Blassingame that he was
able to keep it at 60,000 words, nyah nyah nyah.
I suspect that if he'd let it run even another 20,000 words, we wouldn't have
half the questions that are ricocheting around this forum, others, and various
RAHfan brains.
Joe Brenner
> d> Panshin's _Heinlein in Dimension_ is certainly worthy of
> d> much respect, but I'm afraid this is one of the cases where
> d> he's a bit unfair... DuBois presents many arguments that are
> d> supposed to show why he's right. They may not convince, but
> d> certainly they're there.
>Oh, please. Neither _HiD_ nor its then-snotnosed author is worthy of much
>respect.
Oh come on, can't you do better than posting an "Is NOT!"
message? I can think of other problems with _Heinlein in
Dimension_ (for example, he clearly didn't really understand
_The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_), but this book is a classic
work of SF criticism. It deserves respect if only for being
one of the very first in the field. And Panshin himself,
"snotnosed" or not, pretty clearly demonstrates a good feel
for Heinlein's work in his novel _Rite of Passage_. His
Anthony Villers novels are pretty damn good, too...
Rob Furr
s...@vectis.demon.co.uk writes:
>"Combat engineers are almost as good an outfit as the infantry; it's a
>pleasure to work with them. In a pinch they fight, maybe not expertly
but
>bravely. Or they go ahead with their work, not even lifting their heads,
while
>a battle rages around them."
"Their official motto is 'Can do!' while their unofficial motto is 'First
we dig'em, then we die in'em.' Both statements are literal truth."
Rob F.
Graydon
d...@terrabit.mn.org (David Dyer-Bennet) writes:
>Yes, and it's interesting that defenses aren't better. Given that a
>ship can sneak in and lay a bomb that will split the planet, it would
>seem to be *very* desirable to keep them away, and therefor a *very*
>high priority in the war department budget.
Presumably there's a degree of deterence going on - use of nova bombs
leads to more use of nova bombs - but the problem may be 'physics'
under the assumptions involved. If stealthing burns through at x
range per watt of radar emitted, it may simply not be possible to
cover the important volume surrounding a planet very well.
>Right. There's also no mention of artillery that I remember, but I
>can't accept that they don't exist. Also no mention of any kind of
>close air support. I think we've just pushed decisively beyond the
>confines of the book, and simply won't find clear answers to the
>questions we want answered.
artillery. Those little rockets Johnny's using range a long way,
and anything bigger the Navy gets to hammer on from orbit. If one
guy in a suit can't hold still for five seconds, there's also the
problem of protecting the large emissions source of an artillery
piece of whatever description - given the 'offense dominant' phase
of things, it's not likely to be cost effective.
>The industrial output of the planet could be a very strong incentive
>to keep it in one piece, not to mention possible ethical positions.
would be *huge*, and it's not clear that the technoligies are
similar enough in detail that you'd get anything useful.
Ethical considerations, well, they're not nuking Klendathu out
of existence because they want their prisoners back, but it's not
at all clear that the situation isn't one of deliberate genocide
- the psych types must have decided that the bugs don't grok
'surrender'.
As for non-Federation human planets, no data.
Graydon
Anton Sherwood
Boaty-Bits (Pohl & Williamson: FARTHEST STAR) or Tines (Vinge: AFUTD).
How many votes does a composite person get?
And a visitor from another culture shrugs: "Why shouldn't
they get as many votes as they pay for, like anyone else?"
--
Disclaimer: The above is likely to refer to anecdotal evidence.
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DAS...@netcom.com
"The verb _justify_ always takes an indirect object." --T.0.Morrow