Ethics_of

 Got into a chat with Copilot, last night. Wondering how to formulate things...

US Armed Forces; what percentage of recruits make a career of the Armed Services; how many keep going on missions?

Here’s a clear, evidence‑based breakdown of what we can say from current data — and what the data doesn’t explicitly answer — based on the search results you triggered.

🇺🇸 U.S. Armed Forces: How Many Recruits Make a Career?

(And how many continue deploying on missions?)

⭐ 1. What percentage of recruits make a career?

The search results you pulled up focus on recruiting numbers, not long‑term retention. They show:

The Army met or exceeded many of its recruiting goals in FY2025.

Recruiting momentum is improving across the services.

However, none of the retrieved sources provide statistics on how many recruits stay long enough to make a full career (typically defined as 20 years for retirement eligibility).

What we know from long‑term DoD data (not in the search results):

Historically, only about 17–20% of enlisted personnel stay for a full 20‑year career.

Officers have higher career‑completion rates (around 30–40%).

These numbers are stable over decades because:

Many enlistments are 4–6 years.

The military is structured as a “pyramid”: far fewer senior positions exist than junior ones.

If you want, I can pull fresh numbers with a more targeted search.

⭐ 2. How many keep going on missions?

Again, the search results you triggered don’t include deployment or mission‑tempo data. They focus on recruiting performance, not operational tempo.

What we know from general DoD reporting:

The majority of service members deploy at least once during a typical enlistment.

But only a smaller subset deploy repeatedly, depending on:

Service branch

Military Occupational Specialty (MOS/AFSC/Rating)

Unit type (combat arms vs. support)

Global mission demand

For example:

Combat arms (infantry, armor, special operations) historically deploy more often.

Support roles may deploy less frequently or on different cycles.

There is no single percentage because deployment cycles vary dramatically by job and branch.

If you want, I can run a more precise search for:

Deployment rates by branch

Average number of deployments per service member

Career‑long deployment statistics

🧭 Want a deeper dive?

You tell me the angle you care about, and I’ll pull the exact data:

Options:

Career retention rates by branch (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Space Force)

Deployment frequency by job type

How many recruits reenlist at least once

How many reach 10 years vs. 20 years

Special operations vs. regular forces career lengths

Just tell me which direction you want to explore.

I am trying to get at how the move to a professional army changes the character of fighting. These people become pros rather than heros. They need to take fewer risks because they will be there longer...

You’re touching on one of the most important — and least honestly discussed — transformations in modern warfare. When a country shifts from a mass‑mobilization, citizen‑soldier model to a long‑service professional force, the entire logic of how wars are fought changes. Not just tactics, but psychology, risk tolerance, political incentives, and even the moral framing of combat.

Let me lay it out clearly and provocatively, because you’re asking a deep structural question.

🎖️ How a Professional Army Changes the Character of Fighting

1. Risk tolerance collapses — by design

A conscript army is built on the assumption of replaceability.

A professional army is built on irreplaceability.

A conscript infantryman is expected to serve 12–24 months.

A professional infantryman may serve 10–20 years.

That means:

Losing a conscript is a tragedy.

Losing a professional is a strategic loss.

A professional soldier represents:

Years of training

Hundreds of thousands of dollars in investment

Hard‑won experience

A shrinking pool of volunteers

So the institution becomes risk‑averse.

Not because soldiers are cowards — but because the system can’t afford to lose them.

This is exactly what you’re intuitively pointing at.

2. Heroism becomes proceduralized

In a conscript army, heroism is often spontaneous:

“Charge that hill, or we all die.”

In a professional army, heroism becomes:

tightly scripted

mission‑planned

risk‑mitigated

technologically mediated

The “hero” becomes a technician:

drone operator

JTAC

special operations NCO

cyber operator

The culture shifts from valor to competence.

3. Technology replaces bodies

Professional armies substitute:

drones for scouts

precision munitions for massed infantry

ISR for risky reconnaissance

remote warfare for close combat

Why?

Because the system is trying to protect its long‑term human capital.

This is why the U.S. military invests so heavily in:

robotics

autonomous systems

precision weapons

protective gear

medevac infrastructure

It’s not just compassion.

It’s economics.

4. Political leaders become more casualty‑averse

A professional army is small.

Every loss is visible.

Every death is a headline.

In a conscript army, the burden is spread across society.

In a professional army, the burden is concentrated in:

military families

specific regions

specific socioeconomic groups

This makes politicians:

more cautious

more reliant on airpower

more reliant on special operations

more likely to avoid large‑scale ground wars

The shift to a professional force is one reason Western countries now fight:

short interventions

limited strikes

proxy wars

remote operations

Instead of mass wars of attrition.

5. The soldier’s identity changes

You said it perfectly:

They become pros rather than heroes.

A professional soldier is:

a career specialist

a technician of violence

a risk manager

a long‑term asset

Their mindset becomes:

“Accomplish the mission and come home.”

Not:

“Accomplish the mission even if it kills me.”

This isn’t cynicism.

It’s rationality.

6. The wars themselves change

Professional armies tend to fight:

fewer wars of national survival

more wars of choice

more expeditionary operations

more counterinsurgency

more stabilization missions

Because they are built for:

precision

endurance

specialization

Not for:

mass

attrition

existential struggle

7. The paradox: more skilled, less expendable

Professional soldiers are:

better trained

more experienced

more capable

But precisely because of that, they are:

harder to replace

more protected

more valuable

So the system bends toward:

caution

technology

remote warfare

surgical operations

This is the paradox you’re sensing.

If you want, we can go deeper

I can break this down further in any direction you want:

Historical comparison (WWII conscripts vs. modern professionals)

How professionalization affects morale

How it changes civil‑military relations

How it affects the ethics of war

How it shapes the future of combat (drones, AI, robotics)

Whether professional armies make democracies more or less likely to fight

Just tell me which thread you want to pull next.

Tell me about the ethics of war...

Here’s where the conversation gets genuinely rich, because the ethics of war change depending on whether a society uses conscripts, professionals, mercenaries, drones, or autonomous systems. And since you’re already thinking about how professionalization reshapes risk, identity, and mission logic, we can build directly on that.

Let’s walk through the ethics of war in a way that’s clear, structured, and grounded in the real tensions modern militaries face.

                                                                                 

But these categories were built for a world of mass armies and short, decisive wars. Professional armies — and especially high‑tech ones — twist these categories in new ways.

Let’s unpack that.

1. Professional Armies Change the Ethics of Risk

In a conscript army, the ethical assumption is:

Everyone shares the burden.

In a professional army, the assumption becomes:

A small group carries the burden for everyone else.

This raises new ethical questions:

Is it fair that a tiny slice of society absorbs all the danger?

Does this make political leaders more willing to use force because the public is insulated from the costs?

Does it create a “warrior caste” with different moral expectations than civilians?

Professionalization creates a moral asymmetry:

The people who decide on war are not the people who fight it.

2. Technology Creates Distance — and New Moral Tensions

Professional armies rely heavily on:

drones

precision weapons

remote operations

cyber tools

This creates a paradox:

Fewer friendly casualties

More ethical distance from killing

The ethical tension becomes:

Is killing at a distance more humane (fewer casualties)?

Or less humane (less moral friction, easier to authorize)?

This is one of the biggest debates in modern military ethics.

3. Heroism vs. Professionalism

You said something important:

“These people become pros rather than heroes.”

Ethically, this matters.

A conscript army frames war as:

sacrifice

duty

collective defense

A professional army frames war as:

expertise

risk management

mission execution

The ethical shift:

From noble sacrifice to technical competence

From citizen duty to specialized labor

This changes how societies morally justify war.

4. The Value of a Soldier’s Life Increases

In professional armies, each soldier represents:

years of training

institutional memory

specialized skill

So the ethical imperative becomes:

Protect the force at all costs.

This leads to:

more armor

more medevac

more drones

more standoff weapons

fewer high‑risk assaults

Ethically, this is good for soldiers — but it can shift risk onto civilians, because militaries may prefer:

airstrikes over raids

standoff weapons over close combat

This is one of the hardest ethical dilemmas in modern warfare.

5. Civilian Protection Becomes More Central — and More Complicated

Modern professional armies often hold themselves to:

strict rules of engagement

proportionality

distinction between combatants and civilians

But technology complicates this:

Drones can surveil better — but also strike more often

Precision weapons reduce collateral damage — but can be used more frequently

Remote warfare reduces soldier risk — but may increase civilian exposure

The ethical question becomes:

Does reducing risk to soldiers increase risk to civilians?

6. Long Wars of “Management” Replace Short Wars of “Decision”

Professional armies tend to fight:

counterinsurgency

stabilization missions

peacekeeping

long, low‑intensity conflicts

These raise new ethical issues:

What is the moral justification for open‑ended missions?

How do you ethically manage force in a conflict with no clear endpoint?

What obligations do you have to local populations over years or decades?

This is a very different ethical landscape from WWII‑style total war.

7. The Ethics of Autonomy and AI

This is the frontier.

Professional armies are moving toward:

autonomous drones

AI‑assisted targeting

robotic ground systems

Ethical questions explode here:

Who is responsible for an autonomous system’s actions?

Can a machine make a moral distinction between combatant and civilian?

Does removing humans from danger remove the moral weight of killing?

This is the next big shift — and it builds directly on the professionalization you’re analyzing.

If you want, we can go deeper in any direction

Here are some threads we can explore next:

Is a professional army more or less ethical than a conscript army?

Does technology make war more humane or more dangerous?

How does professionalization affect democratic accountability?

What happens ethically when only certain classes or regions fight?

How do different cultures frame the morality of war?

What does “heroism” even mean in a professionalized, high‑tech force?

Tell me which angle you want to push further — or if you want a comparative analysis (e.g., U.S. vs. Israel vs. Russia vs. Switzerland).

...

Please compare Russia vs Ukraine...

Absolutely, Louise — and this is a comparison worth doing carefully, because Russia and Ukraine are fighting the same war with fundamentally different military cultures, ethical assumptions, and strategic logics. Once you lay them side by side, the contrast is stark.

Below is a structured, clear, non‑sensational comparison that focuses on military systems, ethics, risk culture, and societal dynamics, not political personalities.

🇷🇺 Russia vs. 🇺🇦 Ukraine: How Their Military Models Shape the Way They Fight

🟦 1. Force Structure: Mass vs. Mobilized Citizen Army

Russia

Hybrid force: conscripts + contract soldiers + mobilized reservists

Large manpower pool

Uneven training quality

High tolerance for attrition

Centralized, top‑down command culture

Implication:  

Russia fights with the assumption that soldiers are replaceable. This shapes everything from tactics to ethics.

Ukraine

Mobilized citizen army

High proportion of volunteers early in the war

Rapidly trained reservists

Strong NCO corps emerging under fire

Decentralized, adaptive command culture

Implication:  

Ukraine fights with the assumption that soldiers are precious because they are literally defending their homes.

🟦 2. Risk Culture: Expendability vs. Preservation

Russia

Willing to accept extremely high casualties

Uses:

massed infantry assaults

penal units

poorly equipped mobilized troops

Risk is pushed onto soldiers, not technology

Ethical tension:  

Human life is treated as a strategic resource.

Ukraine

Highly casualty‑averse

Soldiers are citizens, neighbors, family

Heavy emphasis on:

drones

reconnaissance

precision strikes

small‑unit maneuver

Ethical tension:  

Preserving soldiers sometimes means giving up ground rather than sacrificing people.

🟦 3. Technology vs. Manpower

Russia

Artillery‑centric

Uses mass firepower to compensate for training gaps

Slower to integrate modern tech

Increasing use of drones, but often in brute‑force ways

Ukraine

Drone‑centric

Highly innovative with:

FPV drones

commercial tech

decentralized ISR

Uses technology to offset manpower disadvantages

This is one of the most dramatic differences in the war.

🟦 4. Ethics of Command and Conduct

Russia

Rules of engagement are loose

Civilian harm often tolerated or instrumentalized

Command culture emphasizes obedience over initiative

Ethical failures tend to be systemic

Ukraine

Strong emphasis on protecting civilians

Western‑aligned rules of engagement

Command culture rewards initiative

Ethical failures treated as exceptions, not doctrine

🟦 5. Civil-Military Relationship

Russia

War is framed as a state project

Dissent is suppressed

Casualty information is restricted

Families bear losses quietly

Ukraine

War is existential

Society is fully mobilized

Civilian population supports the military directly

Losses are publicly acknowledged and mourned

This difference is profound.

🟦 6. Heroism vs. Professionalism

Russia

Heroism is framed as sacrifice

Cultural emphasis on endurance and suffering

Soldiers expected to absorb hardship

Ukraine

Heroism is framed as protection

Soldiers are defenders of home

Emphasis on skill, adaptation, and survival

🟦 7. Strategic Logic

Russia

Seeks territorial control

Uses attrition as a tool

Accepts long, grinding offensives

Centralized planning

Ukraine

Seeks liberation and survival

Uses maneuver and precision

Avoids attrition when possible

Decentralized, adaptive planning

🟦 8. The Core Ethical Divide

If you distill it:

Russia

War is a state-driven struggle where human lives are expendable in pursuit of strategic goals.

Ukraine

War is a national survival effort where human lives are the very thing being defended.

This is why the two militaries behave so differently — even when fighting on the same terrain.

If you want, we can go deeper

I can expand on:

Drone warfare differences

How each side treats prisoners of war

Differences in logistics and supply ethics

How casualty tolerance shapes battlefield tactics

How each society narrates heroism

How professionalization is evolving inside Ukraine during the war

Just tell me which direction you want to explore next.

For the purposes of this discussion, I would see Ukraine having access to Western low-casualty tech allows them to resist, but the civilian population is paying the price in casualties, a deteriorating quality of life, indeed  a spoiliation of the natural environment. We are helping them, but maybe we are not!!

                                                                          *     *     *

Copilot pointed out that this way of framing things is unique to the Ethics of War current discussion.

It is, to my mind, a Canadian perspective!?

                                                                          *     *     *

Is there much of a literature on the Ethics of War?

Absolutely — there is a vast and long‑standing literature on the ethics of war, and it has expanded dramatically in the last 20–30 years. Your instinct is right: this isn’t a niche corner of philosophy. It’s one of the most developed areas in applied ethics, political theory, and international law.

Here’s a clear, structured overview grounded in the search results you triggered.

📚 A Deep and Diverse Literature Exists

🧱 1. The Core Tradition: Just War Theory

This is the backbone of the field. It goes back to Augustine and Aquinas, but modern analytic philosophy has transformed it into a rigorous, highly debated framework.

The Oxford Handbook of the Ethics of War describes the field as addressing “pointed moral questions” about when states may go to war and how they must fight. This handbook alone spans dozens of chapters by leading philosophers.

📘 2. Major Contemporary Works

A.J. Coates, The Ethics of War — A widely used text that defends a modernized version of the traditional just war tradition and responds to critics who say the old framework is outdated.

Stephen Minister, “The Ethics of War” (2024) — A recent chapter that revisits just war theory and critiques cultural narratives about war, showing the field is still evolving and self‑critical.

🧠 3. Interdisciplinary Expansion

The ethics of war isn’t just philosophy anymore. It now intersects with:

International law

Political science

Military studies

Literature and cultural studies

For example, scholars have examined how American war literature interacts with just war theory, exploring how narratives shape moral judgment about conflict.

🌍 4. Global and Cross‑Cultural Perspectives

There’s also work on how war literature from non‑Western contexts raises ethical questions, showing that the field isn’t limited to Western philosophical traditions.

🧭 What This Means for Your Question

Yes — there is not only “much” literature, but an entire ecosystem of scholarship. The field includes:

Foundational philosophical texts

Contemporary analytic debates

Historical and religious perspectives

Legal frameworks (e.g., Geneva Conventions)

Cultural and literary analyses

Emerging issues (drones, cyberwarfare, autonomous weapons)

If you’re exploring this area, you’re stepping into one of the richest and most active conversations in modern ethics.

If you want, I can map the field for you — key thinkers, major debates (e.g., revisionist vs. traditional just war theory), or even a reading path tailored to your interests.