I'd argue that any level of "reverence" for a professional military is at best the start of a very dangerous road.
Let's define "reverence," in this context. The base definition to "revere" something is to view something with admiration and/or great respect. In fact, this is the attitude the populace of the United States holds towards its military now. I dunno if other countries have this policy, but for those who don't know, members of the US military can expect a discount for most services and products in the private sector. Furthermore, US servicemen and women tend to shake a lot of hands. Admiration and respect. Considering the harrowing experience of combat, the mental scars and severed limbs that accompany it, it's reasonable to assume that service members of any nation deserve
something for the sacrifice in time, limb, and life they give to their cause. (There are, of course, exceptions. The militias in Rwanda, the forces present in the Balkan War, etc.)
I understand, however, that
@Rat King was making the assertion that militarism of any flavor was anathema to a healthy, democratic state, which doesn't necessarily translate into opposition to my own assertion above. Considering that I've seen a few unabashedly left-wing posters here, I wanted to see if Rat King would agree with the previous paragraph's sentiment. Now, I replied to that assertion with a request for clarification, primarily because I fundamentally disagree with the notion that a democracy or representative republic is mutually exclusive with a strong military that sees moderate use, but I didn't want to misinterpret Rat King's own assertion into a straw man.
I, once again, use the US of A's military as an example, specifically the carrier groups and attached MEUs she has in each sea. During the tsunamis that hit Japan like a meteor in 2011, the 11th MEU was on-site providing humanitarian aid. Positive contribution of a professional fighting force. During Hurricane Katrina, the legendary 82nd Airborne Division provided humanitarian aid to the American populace struck by the storm. This one directly benefited the populace that division is supported by. Even the National Guard, operated by State governments and consisting of troops that only exercise (barring disasters or attack) on the weekend, is a highly centralized and purpose-malleable force capable of responding to anything from natural disaster to suppression of riots. (Baltimore, in 2015. The protests were reasonable, the rioting that followed was not.)
Let us, for the fun of it, go with a more extreme example of militarism from a domestic perspective, but not as excessively as, say, Starship Troopers. Let's say that there was some form of introduction to military thought to students in high school on a nationally mandated level. The US actually has something like this, the JROTC at the high school level, but it's not required. Let's say it is, in this example of extended militarism. This certainly goes further than the two-year compulsory service some European countries require. (Sweden, a fairly forward-thinking liberal democracy, due to some Russians with Rusting Rockets.)
Consider, however, the positives of this experience. Let's say a student decides to study in an Armored Course. This would impart basic knowledge of automobiles and their machinery, paving the way for a civilian, mechanic or heavy machinery career. This theoretical student's mind has been enriched and their opportunities expanded. Taken to its logical conclusion, you would find yourself with students whose knowledge of First Aid, leadership, physics, cybersecurity, and maybe even aviation provides them with a foot in the door in the civilian world. There would always be a steady-stream of workers with valuable skills in important sectors of the market, and you would have a trained general populace to resist foreign invasion to boot! Ancient Athens wishes it could have this democracy.
This doesn't really have an effect on the quest. I don't intend on championing the curriculum brainstormed above. I simply felt that discussing militarism is a healthy thing to do in the context of the quest, especially considering we haven't quite come to a consensus on how to use our military and leverage Burns's perks and baggage in relation to any independent states or settlements we might stumble on... Probably not too healthy, considering I wrote this out an hour and change past midnight.
Our coalition would be rife with bickering and its extreme wings would hate each other, while we would gain no more of a crushing dominant majority in the legislature than we already have anyway for practical purposes.
"Bickering." Kinda harsh, considering these same factions were able to get through the Chicago Accords relatively amicably. Regardless, I disagree on the basis that winning that roll would have likely granted us Legitimacy thanks to the appearance of a highly operable political system. Considering the chief member of the coalition would also be an ideological middle-man, (Social Democratic thought is the true
radical centrism!) bipartisan solutions and political goodwill would create both a stable foundation and a good precedent. Of course, I doubt the coalition could've lasted forever, but it would have been an auspicious start.
I am banking on victoria not coming at us out the gate and us being able to train up our forces. Poptart said that it'll train really quickly.
US Marines train for thirteen weeks, twelve if you shave off the Crucible (which is basically a reaffirmation of everything that you would be taught at that point) so you could have two batches of roughly, basically trained Marines by the time the first turn ends. The Air Force (until very recently) basically trained its Airmen for six weeks, so you could have a shit-ton more roughly, basically trained Airmen by the time Victoria's minimum time-table for engagement rolls around. But those are very old training institutions, and most of the guys who participated in them are dead or too old to do much with it.
