Go back
Armed Forces enjoy recruitment surge thanks to ...

Armed Forces enjoy recruitment surge thanks to ...

Debates

g

Pepperland

Joined
30 May 07
Moves
12892
Clock
30 Nov 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3536738/Armed-forces-enjoy-recruitment-surge-thanks-to-the-credit-crunch.html

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has published figures showing a 14.5 per cent increase year-on-year in the numbers volunteering for active service in the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.

More than 3,000 serving men and women are taking advantage of incentive schemes designed to encourage them to stay on. Britain's Armed Forces are now running at 96.8 per cent of its full-time trained strength requirement.
The sudden surge is also being seen in the United States, where new recruits are being told they will have to wait five weeks before entering boot camp because of swelling numbers signing up.
The north of England, where the credit crunch has hit hard, is among the areas where the MoD says recruitment is at its strongest.

Wouldn't this affect the country's economy even more?
Considering that the increase in the number of soldiers would mean the increase in costs for the forces?

P
Upward Spiral

Halfway

Joined
02 Aug 04
Moves
8702
Clock
30 Nov 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by generalissimo
Wouldn't this affect the country's economy even more?
Considering that the increase in the number of soldiers would mean the increase in costs for the forces?
Some proposals of "stimulus packages" aren't very different. They just give transfers to consumers in an effort to increase their spending.

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
Clock
01 Dec 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by generalissimo
Wouldn't this affect the country's economy even more? Considering that the increase in the number of soldiers would mean the increase in costs for the forces?
The number of people serving in the U.K. armed forces is not determined by the number of people voluteering. It is determined by public policy, available funding and military strategy.

AThousandYoung
1st Dan TKD Kukkiwon

tinyurl.com/2te6yzdu

Joined
23 Aug 04
Moves
26752
Clock
05 Dec 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FMF
The number of people serving in the U.K. armed forces is not determined by the number of people voluteering. It is determined by public policy, available funding and military strategy.
Of course it does. You can't just legislate the size of the military. You need people to actually join it too!

Of course you can affect how many people volunteer with funding and other means, but you still need them to volunteer...unless you draft them!

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
Clock
05 Dec 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Of course it does. You can't just legislate the size of the military. You need people to actually join it too! Of course you can affect how many people volunteer with funding and other means, but you still need them to volunteer...unless you draft them!
Oh good Lord! You're not going to start stalking me across the forums, trying to split hairs and being pedantic, are you?

Anyway, you're wrong. The size of the military in the U.K. is a political decision enacted by legislation. It's a relatively small, professional, all-volunteer military. The rate of volunteers may rise and fall, but the military only recruits the number of men and women it needs. A rising number of volunteers means more people turned away. The number of volunteers never falls to a rate that would result in the military falling short of its intended size, although it could have an impact on the quality of the recruits.

AThousandYoung
1st Dan TKD Kukkiwon

tinyurl.com/2te6yzdu

Joined
23 Aug 04
Moves
26752
Clock
05 Dec 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FMF
Oh good Lord! You're not going to start stalking me across the forums, trying to split hairs and being pedantic, are you?

Anyway, you're wrong. The size of the military in the U.K. is a political decision enacted by legislation. It's a relatively small, professional, all-volunteer military. The rate of volunteers may rise and fall, but the military only recru ...[text shortened]... short of its intended size, although it could have an impact on the quality of the recruits.
The number of volunteers never falls to a rate that would result in the military falling short of its intended size, although it could have an impact on the quality of the recruits.

Ok, that makes sense.

zeeblebot

silicon valley

Joined
27 Oct 04
Moves
101289
Clock
05 Dec 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The number of volunteers never falls to a rate that would result in the military falling short of its intended size, although it could have an impact on the quality of the recruits.

Ok, that makes sense.
huh.

AThousandYoung
1st Dan TKD Kukkiwon

tinyurl.com/2te6yzdu

Joined
23 Aug 04
Moves
26752
Clock
07 Dec 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by zeeblebot
huh.
He's saying that there are always too many volunteers so a few more or less won't make a difference.

Of course this assumes there are too many volunteers...that is, the number of volunteers doesn't matter because of all the volunteers.

k

Joined
24 Jun 04
Moves
9995
Clock
08 Dec 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by generalissimo
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3536738/Armed-forces-enjoy-recruitment-surge-thanks-to-the-credit-crunch.html

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has published figures showing a 14.5 per cent increase year-on-year in the numbers volunteering for active service in the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.

More t ...[text shortened]... that the increase in the number of soldiers would mean the increase in costs for the forces?
Another factor that might have an effect is Obama's election victory. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable joining the military at all as it involves signing my rights away, but I'd feel a great deal less uncomfortable joining the military when the US president was someone like Barack Obama, Bill or Hillary Clinton, or Ron Paul than I would with a neocon president.

j

Joined
08 Sep 08
Moves
2040
Clock
12 Dec 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

Signing up for the millytary with the assumption it's safer under someone like Obama as Commander in Chief is silly. The world is more of a dangerous place now. My prediction is that under an Obama admin he'll be sending troops to fight some wars...

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.