Opening graph: "We should, as a society, seriously consider moving away from an all-volunteer force and only fight the next war if everyone shares in the risk and the cost," says military contractor and all-around surveillance-enabler Palantir.

If that's the case, then every war to be fought needs to have the say so of those that will be doing the fighting and not the solitary decision made by a delusional leader that had already circumvented the required process from Congress.

▲

amysox 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Robert Heinlein proposed something like that in his "lost" novel For Us, the Living: instead of declaring war, Congress would authorize a war referendum, in which only those eligible for military service could vote. The catch was, everyone voting "Yes" would thereby automatically sign themselves up in the military for the duration. If a further draft was needed, it would first be composed of those that didn't vote, and lastly those who voted "No."

(In the book, the "future" Congress had called war referenda on three occasions; each time, the vote was overwhelmingly "No," and historians believed those decisions were justified.)

	▲	Arodex 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It seems a good idea, but then I remember the history of World War I: the French and the German populations were very happy and willing to go to war (especially the French). A quick war that will settle it, they thought. And then they ended up in one of the worst meatgrinders of history. Even if they had a referendum system such as the one proposed, I don't think that would make it a better decision. And given how people don't assume the consequences of their decisions, they would just find excuses later on - "we were manipulated, they lied to us" - but the damage will still be done.
	▲	OkayPhysicist 17 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Simpler: Leaders who engage in military engagements should face a public referendum 6 months/1 year later, with exactly 1 question: "Should [Leader] die?". Presidents in the US rarely get elected with less than 40% of the popular vote, and I reckon about 30% of people wouldn't vote to kill someone pretty much no matter what they did. Half of those people are your supporters, so really it's just a matter of avoiding your popularity plummeting to sub 35% because of your warmongering. By that math. By that math, Trump, W. Bush, and Truman would have gotten the gallows. Biden, Carter, and Nixon all fell below 35%, but didn't start any foreign wars.

▲

lokar 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Exactly. Enforce the war powers of congress and require a non-delegatable per-war approval.

Hell, require the approval of 3/4 of governors as well.

▲

teeray 18 hours ago | parent [-]

How about a random sample of registered voters too? It would be nice to have a cohort that cannot be bought and paid for.

	▲	lokar 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		At some level you have to trust a sustained strong majority of elected officials. You could imagine requiring a referendum if the war goes past N years or something.

▲

LoFiSamurai 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Having those sent to fight in a war being the ones to decide if the war should be fought was on of the major points in General Butler’s 1935 book War is a Racket

▲

SJC_Hacker 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I used to think this is a good idea. However, the reality is when you join the military it should be reasonable assumption you are going to be sent somewhere to actually fight at some point.

My proposed alternative would be, when you sign up for the military, you are presented with a list of "regions" in which you are willing to be deployed in a combat role, with pay/benefits scaling accordingly the more regions (and more "in demand" regions) you are willing to be deployed. So you could potentially ahve a group that would not fight in the Middle East but would fight in the Pacific, etc. Of course you can't have too many declining service in too many reasons, but if it starts to get expensive to find recruits willing to fight in a given region thats a clear sign somethings amiss with popular sentiment.

▲

ceejayoz 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Great example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

> Butler, a retired Marine Corps major general, testified under oath that wealthy businessmen were plotting to create a fascist veterans' organization with him as its leader and use it in a coup d'état to overthrow Roosevelt.

	▲	Alive-in-2025 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		And also the us not prosecuting those people in 1935is sadly a precursor of j6 in the US.

▲

raffael_de 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

what war? 'tis but a skirmish ... o.O

▲

duped 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I was going to make a sarcastic comment about how everyone in Russia shared the risks and costs with Nicolas Romanov but then realized it was true. If politicians sending kids to kill and die shared the risk and cost of war then they wouldn't get to come home from Washington when the war is finished.