Chinese law written in Chinese language, how dare they! I've already provided the entire law with source, and I've even highlighted the aritcle number. Yet you are still throwing excuses around. But since I have such a soft spot for the borderline retarded, I did this for you:
第十八条　义务兵服现役的期限：陆军三年；海军、空军四年
Article 18 Conscription service term limit: Army 3 years; navy, airforce 4 years
ÖлªÈËÃñ¹²ºÍ¹ú±øÒÛ·¨¡¾1984-05-31¡¿
I got something better for the readers...
In the US military, the non-NCOs are all volunteers. For China, they are conscripts while the NCOs are volunteers. But in reality, the majority of the NCOs are conscripts because that was how they entered into service. They only decided to remain after their conscription time of service is up.
Let's see, one way requires to fill out information on a piece of paper. The other requires you to go in front of recruiter to fill it out along with basic medical check. Yet the latter = serving at the leisure of the governent?
Absolutely. You need to understand the proper contexts of the words 'leisure' or 'convenience' or 'pleasure'. For example, here is what Colin Powell said about his service to the President...
Officials: Powell not expected in second Bush term - CNN
"I don't know what they are talking about," Powell said. "I serve at the pleasure of the president. The president and I have not discussed anything other than my continuing to do my job for him, and this is just one of those stories that emerge in Washington that reflects nothing more than gossip, and the gossip leads to a rash of speculation about who might fill a vacancy that does not exist."
So when a person is called by a conscription policy to present himself for selection, the selection process mean the person's service is at the government's leisure or convenience or pleasure. The government chose him to serve or not.
Your "no pressure" Selective Service Registration:
"
Registration is the law. A man who fails to register may, if prosecuted and convicted, face a fine of up to $250,000 and/or a prison term of up to five years."
Selective Service System: Fast Facts
So what if registration is the law? Do you know how many people have been prosecuted for not registering?
counter-recruitment: Selective Service System prosecutions
I received the following response from the Selective Service System:
There have only been 20 cases since Selective Service came out of deep standby in the spring of 1980. The Government won them all as of the mid 1980s: 15 were convicted and the other 5 registered while their case was going to court.
DOJ confirmed that its policy of not prosecuting non-registrants remains in effect. It is based upon the belief that it would serve no good public purpose to prosecute now because:
U.S. Attorneys are overburdened with higher priority cases; resources are limited.
There will be no draft for the foreseeable future.
Selective Service enjoys relatively high registration compliance.
Most non-registrants are not willfully or knowingly failing to register.
Non-registrants already face the "punishment" of denied government benefits/programs.
In the 30 years passed, only 15 convictions and at the very worst, a non-registrant will receive no government benefits -- such as student loans or government jobs -- as a negative side effect.
Nope, no one being forced at all ~
Nope...No one is compelled to serve in the US military. Unlike China.
Pure speculation on your part. The new NCO rank structure system allows people with technical certificates/diplomas/degrees to become a junior NCO upon entry, bypassing having to serve the three year (soon two) term for those without. In addition, there is a possible 300 thousand force cut later this year. Guess which group gets on the chopping block?
What 'speculation' on my part? Do you even think before you comment? While awarding ranks ahead of others for possessing certain academic degrees or technical certifications is not unusual, even the US military does it, the military also know that process will contribute to an imbalance among all ranks, and as long as the benefits outweighs the negatives, the military will live and deal with the consequences. This gross imbalance of %50 NCOs force wide is what militaries the world over have found to be detrimental no matter the education level. Sounds to me like you have never worked in a large organization and is clueless about manpower issues.
NCOs and officers both provide leadership to the enlisted.
Really...??? Now...If you have any clue about the military, you would know that the 'enlisted' ranks
INCLUDES the NCO corps.
I believe that sentence explicitly stated NCO corps does not include officers. You arrived at that retarded conclusion of yours because you wanted to. Its meaning would not have escaped any person with the slightest hint of intelligence.
Let us take a look at that sentence again...
The number of NCO in the military in 2007 made up roughly half the military enlisted, not counting officers.
Anyone who served would know that the enlisted ranks does not include the commissioned officers. So the entire sentence is redundant and is a hint to the speaker's cluelessness.
There is a conscription policy, but it is not currently being practiced. It is no more conscriptive than your Selective Service Registration.
Wrong...It is more 'conscriptive' in that it compelled the person to appear
IN PERSON and if the person is selected, he has no choice. So what if the government may be generous for whatever reasons and accept his objection to service? If the government refused to accept, what recourse does he has other than medical reasons? None. I worked with many Chinese engineers in a daily on/off basis. They are in the US under work visas. Some have been here for over 15 yrs. Some are considering US citizenship. Some were compelled to serve their
TWO YEARS and their recollections were that they were not even allowed to object. Some were glad to be rejected for legitimate medical reasons. Some tried to fake medical reasons and were threatened with prosecutions before they were rejected anyway for other reasons. Some wanted to serve but were rejected for medical reasons. So do not try to deceive the readers by telling them that China does not practice military conscription.
In 2007, the ratio of NCOs to "conscripts" were 1:1 amongst the non-commissioned ranks. That was more than 3 years ago. Educational level of new recruits and military education system have been steadily improving. That says an increasingly sophisticated force, not some filler material.
First...The proper phrasing should be 'the ratio of NCOs to non-NCOs', not to 'conscripts'. A 'conscript' can still change his mind and remain in service and achieved NCO rank, but that does not change the
HOW of his start of service. Second...The education level argument is a filler material. There is a saying in America...
Too many chiefs and not enough Indians - Idiom Definition - UsingEnglish.com
Idiom Definitions for 'Too many chiefs and not enough Indians'
When there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians, there are two many managers and not enough workers to work efficiently.
An NCO is supposed to be a leader but what good are his education and leadership skills if there is no one to train and to pass on his bit of institutional knowledge? An engineering dept is loaded with university degrees but should not be loaded with supervisors and managers, do you agree? If it is true that the PLA force wide is loaded with NCOs to the tune of %50, then the PLA is heading down a dangerous path to being like that of the Soviets, and we all know what happened to the Soviets, do we?
What you dismissed as 'pure speculation', meaning an imbalance between the NCOs and the lower enlisted ranks, are not speculations but reality experienced by every professional militaries in the world. The USAF recognized this peril a long time ago...
History of Air Force Enlisted Insignia (Rank)
19 MARCH 1991 - General Merril McPeak, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, announced the termination of the E-4 NCO (Sergeant) status, effective 2 May 1991. In place since October 1967, the removal of NCO status for E-4s was due to a number of reasons. Officials cited that with fewer enlisted accessions (due to the mandated drawdown of personnel ordered by the U.S. Congress) ratio between NCOs and Airmen was off balance. Seventy-seven percent of the enlisted force were NCOs, with the E-4 Sergeants accounted for 28 percent of the NCO corps. Yet less than half of them were in positions of responsibility. By dropping NCO status of E-4s, General McPeak believed the Air Force would have a better ratio of NCOs to Airmen. Those in the rank of E-4 Sergeant would continue in that capacit~ until promoted to Staff Sergeant or separated from the Air Force. 3 This action brought Staff Sergeants back as the first level NCO grade as it had been in 1952 through 1967. In addition, a reduction of E-4 Sergeants would reduce the NCO strength of the enlisted force to 52 percent.
The US Congress mandated a reduction of the US military. One method is to reduce recruitment quota. Another is make it more difficult to attain higher ranks and let the normal attrition process runs its course. But the inevitable result is a gross imbalance between 'chiefs' and 'indians' and the potential of a lower quality force increases. The PLA is undergoing the same reduction and suffering the same problems. A conscription policy does not help when the short time in service can only minimally prepare the person for the more simple duties. What saved not just the USAF but the entire US military is that it is a true all volunteer force that works hard to recruit -- not compel -- a person into service for at least four years.
Your 'pure speculation' charge would be valid only if I cannot support my argument. But in this case, not only can I support my argument, I did it with my own military when it confronted the same problems. A 1:1 ratio between NCOs and the lower enlisted ranks is never and has never been a good thing. This is what make you Chinese boys so entertaining to watch, especially when you are confronted with evidences that you cannot deny but too mule-headed to admit you are wrong.
The US Army Advantage: A Professional, All-Volunteer Force - CGSC Student Blog
As the 34th CSA, General Eric K. Shinseki stated: Soldiering is an affair of the heart. In other words, it is precisely the proclivity to serve that gives our Army an overwhelming advantage in combat. No matter how well-intentioned, I do not believe that any form of conscription can possibly match that advantage.
--Major Jack Sander, CGSC Class 10-01, SG 11
If a person volunteer even though the country has a conscription policy, then he is not a 'conscript' but a volunteer. However, a true 'conscript' is one who was never given that option to exercise his proclitivity to serve and so his motivation and enthusiasm will always be in doubt from day one. There is little or no trust of him from his superiors. The shorter the time of service obligation, the less the ability and the desire to give the conscript training to make him a leader and/or a more technically sophisticated soldier. Even for the infantry, a two-year time of service is not enough to make the soldier any good beyond pulling guard duty, let alone aspiring to something like the PLA's equivalents of the US Army Rangers or the US Navy's SEALs.
Assume what you say is true that the PLA recruit NCOs instead of raising them from the ranks, how does that make such a person a true leader when from one day the man was a 'nobody' and the next day he is given some stripes and authority to order other men to their deaths? I doubt that for all your defense of the PLA's policy here, you would be willing to follow this 'leader' into combat or even out to the flightline to start up a jet. You would be less willing if you are an unwilling conscript with less than one year to go before you are free from that sentence. But then again, because I was a volunteer, meaning a person with a 'proclivity to serve' and did served for 10-yrs, I would never know how an unwilling conscript feel upon looking at a sergeant who I know never worked to earn those stripes, authority, and respect. And the Chinese boys here would never know either.
The unit, base upon the person's performance, decide if a future contract is extended to the solider upon the end of his service terms. There is no one forcing him to take the contract. Keep up the comedy act.
Performance not impressive in PLA = no retention by the unit. It's not up to you to decide if you can stay or not, get it? If not, flip open a grade 5 english text and start learning.
Indeed watching you dance around the fact that you do not know what you are talking about is entertaining. Regarding the military, the word 'retention' is not as simplistic as you understood. Retention is about the rate of turnover regardless of
HOW the military create that rate. The best type of the 'how' of retention is voluntary, meaning a low turnover because of low separation. The worst is from denial, meaning when the military refused to let those who completed their obligation to separate. So...What the PLA is doing is nothing new, the expulsion of low performers is common and necessary no matter how high or low is the bar. But regardless of type of military service, voluntary or conscription, the first term retention rate is a good indicator of a sustaining high quality force. You want people with a 'proclivity to serve' to remain and to provide for them well to strengthen that desire to serve. You have a limited understanding of the word 'retention' in this subject.
Who can be retrained and integrated quicker in case of war? Former soldiers or civies?
There are limits and every military leader knows what they are: time, age, experience, technology, training, and accessibility to them. The last part does not mean access to training or technology but to the reservists themselves.
You graduate from high school and gets a notification letter to appear. You go the the recruiter, and does not like the condition or pay in the military so you declined. That was the end of your military career with PLA. You will never be contacted again unless WWIII starts. You are free to pursue post-secondary education or get a job in the private market.
Yeah sounds like a horrible slavery system. Those poor unwilling conscripts being forced out of their lives.
What happens if your objection is denied? Stop tap dancing around the issue. What happens if your objections are not considered? Am not talking about if you can prove that you are the only son and both your parents are on their death beds. It would be eminently humane to let this person go home. But...What about all those who were inducted? Do you really think none have any objections?
Since I spend a good 3 months a year in China and have several relatives serving in different branches of PLA, I think you should keep that ignorant crap to yourself.
Were they volunteers or were they conscripted? Do they know anyone, directly or indirectly, who were conscripted? But no matter what, unless
YOU actually served, you are ignorant.
Again, you've diplayed reading comprehension skills on par with a 5 years old. As if that isn't enough, you kept on inventing ideas in your head and attempt to misrepresent those as mine. Outstanding NCOs are approached by their immediate superiors if there was a spot in officer academies. In no way is the process automatic like that wild claim of yours.
Utter BS. I repeatedly said 'Professional Military Education' (PME) as that they should be automatic, not that being commissioned is automatic. I said that for US, PME is automatic in that they are mandatory, whether the person, enlisted or officer, is outstanding or not.
First you claim that continuing education is optional for NCOs, because you've somehow got the idea that only NCOs being sent to military academies do. When I told you that NCOs have seperate schools for further training than officers, you again invented some gibberish idea that somehow I equate university level course with military education. News flash dumbo, this is all coming out of your head.
News flash, idiot, here are
YOUR words...
They would be given further training, as well as increased pay that normally exceeds local jobs. Some NCOs are even sent to military academies and commissioned as officers later.
The usual requirement for a commission is at least a university degree. As the highlighted, the implication here is that an 'academy' is the equivalent of a university. The PLA's leadership is not stupid and it looks like am giving them far more credit in their wisdom than you do. Regardless of whatever the term is used, the PLA does have 'academies' for their NCOs if the desire is to have a more professional NCO corps. Perhaps you mean:
Some NCOs are even sent to military academies OR commissioned as officers later.? Because for those of us who served, that would mean there are distinct higher education levels for the PLA's NCO corps to increase their professionalism
OR the PLA, like other professional militaries in the world, does have commissioned officers who came from the enlisted ranks.
Wait so you put out some false label and I am suppose to be happy I'm "excused" from it. You are laughable. On top of ignorant, you might want to see a shrink for your narcissism. I guess they cheaped out on your meds in special needs school.
Narcissism? More like relevant experience in the subject does give a person a slight edge. We have a former F-15 pilot who is now an airliner pilot in this forum. Would you be so foolish as to challenge him in matters of flying skills and daily pilot duties, whatever they are that pilots do? To him,
YOU are a 'nobody'. If I, an Air Force guy, is on a sub, I would be a 'nobody' to the 'Chief of the Boat' (COB). So yes, if you are not subject to Chinese laws, then I will excuse you from the label 'conscript reject' because I am a veteran. Being a conscript is bad enough, being a reject from a conscription policy is even worse. Medical reasons are exempted, of course.
...If you support China's decision to increase her nuclear weapons stockpile, then at least be honorable enough to advocate China's withdrawal from the NNPT. You do know what 'honorable' mean, no?
