Creating Military Culture From Scratch

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Why not? A military is not an office.

Any organisation is made of people, and people bring their memes with them. If most of the people that formed the organisation were not infected by hazing and bigotry memes (and are actually infected with memes of justice and civil rights), and there were no or few carriers of these memes already in place, then those memes are much less likely to entrench themselves in the organisation.
Given the amount of memetic engineering Justicarians underwent during the development of Self-Awareness 2.0, it's safe to say that they eliminated bigotry in their ranks. The Zemplari Troops were formed after that. In contrast, most militaries were formed back when sexism and racism and homophobia were par for the course, and, as somewhat conservative organisations, make maintaining those memes easier (e.g. Don't Ask Don't Tell).

Don't get me wrong: Zemplari is not a fuzzy-nice group. It's just that they direct their energy at actually fighting enemies and solving problems, not picking on their own.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

You'd still have a difference between small-unit tactical leaders, battlefield operational commanders, and theater strategic commanders. I have trouble conceiving of a way to do that without an ascending chain of command between them.

One big difference I can see is how war will change when managing an interstellar war. When you get to the level posited by some sci-fis you have to assume numerous "World war II's" going on at once between the same empires on different planets.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Any organisation is made of people, and people bring their memes with them. If most of the people that formed the organisation were not infected by hazing and bigotry memes (and are actually infected with memes of justice and civil rights), and there were no or few carriers of these memes already in place, then those memes are much less likely to entrench themselves in the organisation.
Given the amount of memetic engineering Justicarians underwent during the development of Self-Awareness 2.0, it's safe to say that they eliminated bigotry in their ranks. The Zemplari Troops were formed after that. In contrast, most militaries were formed back when sexism and racism and homophobia were par for the course, and, as somewhat conservative organisations, make maintaining those memes easier (e.g. Don't Ask Don't Tell).

Don't get me wrong: Zemplari is not a fuzzy-nice group. It's just that they direct their energy at actually fighting enemies and solving problems, not picking on their own.

The assumption that the near universal dominance of men in military organizations can only be explained by bigotry is a conspiracy theory. It posits that every military in the world must secretly be cooperating to exclude women for thousands of years, even when that is a military disadvantage which is the end result of the assumption that male dominant military systems are no more then equal in effectiveness to others. Making conspiracy theories about others on the mere basis that they are dominant in a given profession is itself a form of bigotry.

I really can't see exactly the same easily disproved prejudice existing worldwide for untold thousands of years.

[chandley]

Conversely, in a sci-fi setting where you either have power armor or robots doing the fighting, excluding women from the ranks that fight starts to make less and less sense. Whatever your (thread derailing) feelings on the source and justifications of bigotry in a military, the OP has room to come at the question from another direction, and it does make for an interesting difference to current militaries.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

The assumption that the near universal dominance of men in military organizations can only be explained by bigotry is a conspiracy theory. It posits that every military in the world must secretly be cooperating to exclude women for thousands of years, even when that is a military disadvantage which is the end result of the assumption that male dominant military systems are no more then equal in effectiveness to others. Making conspiracy theories about others on the mere basis that they are dominant in a given profession is itself a form of bigotry.

You don't need conspiracy when the status quo is more-or-less homogeneous.
A culture made of species which has identical racial templates for both sexes, contraception is cheap, reproduction is routinely done in exo-wombs, and sex essentially doesn't matter outside the bedroom, will not suddenly develop a bias even in a profession where in other cultures it is common.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by chandley

Conversely, in a sci-fi setting where you either have power armor or robots doing the fighting, excluding women from the ranks that fight starts to make less and less sense. Whatever your (thread derailing) feelings on the source and justifications of bigotry in a military, the OP has room to come at the question from another direction, and it does make for an interesting difference to current militaries.

Fair enough. Robots you have to limit; they sideline the Big Darned Heroes. Powered Armor is different.

[Frost]

Originally Posted by Sindri

Useful list. I get why elections for officers would have difficulty lasting long but why do you think the same of continuity between officers and NCOs?

There are a number of reasons why there isn't nessecarly any continuity between the two roles, all of which have already touched upon by others.

My primary thoughts when including the caveat were the difficulty of establishing a distence between personel and higher leadership, something that friends with military backgrounds have always treated as desirable if not strictly nessecary, on a continuous scale of promotion and the degree of retraining needed in order to progress between NCO and traditional officer ranks.

Actualy my second reason is probably less of a difficulty than I thought- various comonwealth reserve units promote from enlisted to officer on 10-12 weeks (in total) training. Regular units might use a more intensive course i.e. 10-12 weeks full time rather than over one to two years but the actual mechanics should be similar.

I am actualy kicking myself for not including another item on the list namely non-standard or ad-hoc unit organisation particularly at higher (batalion upwards) levels.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Frost

There are a number of reasons why there isn't nessecarly any continuity between the two roles, all of which have already touched upon by others.

My primary thoughts when including the caveat were the difficulty of establishing a distence between personel and higher leadership, something that friends with military backgrounds have always treated as desirable if not strictly nessecary, on a continuous scale of promotion and the degree of retraining needed in order to progress between NCO and traditional officer ranks.

Actualy my second reason is probably less of a difficulty than I thought- various comonwealth reserve units promote from enlisted to officer on 10-12 weeks (in total) training. Regular units might use a more intensive course i.e. 10-12 weeks full time rather than over one to two years but the actual mechanics should be similar.

I am actualy kicking myself for not including another item on the list namely non-standard or ad-hoc unit organisation.

I have sometimes wondered if one of the main weaknesses of the militia system is that the officers are usually commanding their neighbors and are limited in proper heartlessness. However that same objection applies to the earliest examples of the regimental system which were nobles recruiting from their district. Admittedly a squire might think his renters beasts of burden but that was not always the case.

[Frost]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Dropping a separate military code of justice is unlikely unless you want your troops mutinying, being insubordinate, deserting or behaving with cowardice in the presence of the enemy. There are behaviours that are of no or little consequence in civilian life that are potentially deadly in a combat environment.

It may be a mistake, but it wouldn't be unprecidented or out of character for a force intended to operate in strictly defensive roles or as an aid to civil power. Given the nature of the proposed force it is certainly a possibility.

As a real world example, consider that the Japanese Self Defense Forces have been operating on this basis since they were first formed as a branch of the national police in the 1950's.

[jason taylor]

What about songs, marches or battle poetry? Can anyone make anything like that?