Slashdot Mirror
USAF Counter-Terror Funds Buy "Comfort Capsules"
An anonymous reader writes "The Washington Post reports, 'The Air Force's top leadership sought for three years to spend counterterrorism funds on "comfort capsules" to be installed on military planes that ferry senior officers and civilian leaders around the world ... Air Force documents spell out how each of the capsules is to be "aesthetically pleasing and furnished to reflect the rank of the senior leaders using the capsule," with beds, a couch, a table, a 37-inch flat-screen monitor with stereo speakers, and a full-length mirror.' Congress told the USAF twice that they could not spend the money on this frivolous project, but they did it anyway."
What you should do is have leaders _lead_ the frontline in _spirit_.
Basically, if leaders are going to send troops on an _offensive_ war (not defensive) there must be a referendum on the war.
If there are not enough votes for the war, those leaders get put on deathrow.
At a convenient time later, a referendum is held to redeem each leader. Leaders that do not get enough votes get executed. For example if too many people stay at home and don't bother voting - the leaders get executed.
If it turns out later that the war was justified, a fancy ceremony is held, and the executed leaders are awarded a purple heart or equivalent, and you have people say nice things about them, cry and that sort of thing.
If it turns out later that the leaders tricked the voters, a referendum can be held (need to get enough signatories to start such a referendum, just to prevent nutters from wasting everyone elses time).
This proposal has many advantages:
1) Even leaders who don't really care about those "young men on the battlefield" will not consider starting a war lightly.
2) The soldiers will know that the leaders want a war enough to risk their own lives for it.
3) The soldiers will know that X% of the population want the war.
4) Those being attacked will know that X% of the attackers believe in the war - so they want a war, they get a war - for sufficiently high X, collateral damage becomes insignificant. They might even be justified in using WMD and other otherwise dubious tactics. If > 90% of the country attacking them want to kill them and their families, what is so wrong about using WMD as long as it does not affect neighbouring countries?
You might consider use of WMD evil, well I consider war evil. If a large majority of the people want a war, then they should get one, and too bad if they get completely wiped out in the process. Right now the problem I see is countries starting wars when most of their citizens don't actually want one.