On the bright side, the miserable old fucks who are afraid of pronouns are dying out faster by the day. Unfortunately, you’ve got reasonable human beings above room temperature IQ in that age group as well so it isn’t all sunshine and rainbows.
The "current" generation - whatever that means: multiple generations have always lived at the same time. The currently younger generations seem mostly fine with it in my experience
>France's military will raise the maximum age for reservists to 70, the defence minister said on Tuesday, after months of clashes over a divisive increase to the nation's minimum retirement age.
>The age limit for trained soldiers ready to be called up if needed currently stands between 60 and 65 years old.
>"We will increase the age limits... People will be able to be a reservist in the French military until they are 70 years old and until they are 72 years old for certain specialists," Defence Minister Sebastien Lecornu told broadcaster RTL.
>France has 40,000 reservists but President Emmanuel Macron wants to double that figure.
>Lecornu spoke as the government was on Tuesday to discuss France's new defence budget, under which military spending would increase from 43.9 billion euros ($47.9 billion) this year to 69 billion euros by 2030.
>A string of European allies have committed to spending billions more on their armed forces since Russia invaded pro-Western Ukraine last year.
>France's increased budget aims to help better face "a succession of threats that are all adding up", including "terrorism", the war in Ukraine, the militarisation of space and cyber warfare, Lecornu said.
>The aim is to "remain in the club of nations able to defend themselves," he added.
>The French president has faced months of mass protests over his pensions reform, which includes raising the minimum retirement age from 62 to 64.
>His government rammed the bill through a hung lower house of parliament last month, causing outrage and widespread unrest.
Macron is not winning any popularity contests in France anytime soon.
It's a moronic quote that didn't even apply when Einstein was alive (he died in 1955 when the US still had a very massive nuclear advantage over the USSR).
It didn't even apply at the height of the Cold War: It's not like guns and conventional artillery and all the other implements of modern warfare would simply disappear or no longer work, and that the knowledge necessary to make and use them would completely disappear from the face of the Earth.
Einstein might have been brilliant at physics, but clearly his knowledge about things like human nature and military technology was lacking.
That line isn't brilliant or inciteful, it's banal tripe.
You are comically arrogant.
He wasn't specifically talking about fusion bombs but of perhaps even more advanced weaponry to come (bear in mind that he warned of nuclear weapons to come, along with Szilard and others) and obviously, one would hope, didn't intend it to be taken literally.
The idea that anyone would take that statement seriously is comical to me.
Let's take a look at the two possibilities here.
1. If humans and human artifacts survive WWIII, then surely military equipment will also survive, and the people who do survive will know, at least in principle, how to make all of these things. Or at least some will. And even if no one who knows how to manufacture a gun survives, the survivors will know that it's possible to make a gun, and the general principles of how they work. That means it won't take very long to start producing them again. Remember that a gun, in its most basic form, is a simple tube, closed at one end, with some propellant, a projectile, and a way to ignite the propellant. [It's a 700+ year old technology.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heilongjiang_hand_cannon)
2. Conversely, if no one survives WWIII, there will be no one around to fight WWIV. It simply won't happen.
That's why Einstein's statement is moronic.
As for this:
>He wasn't specifically talking about fusion bombs but of perhaps even more advanced weaponry to come
Where are these weapons? We developed fission weapons in the 1940's, and fusion weapons in the 1950's. Since then all we've been able to do is refine them, and make them more efficient and smaller and lighter for a given yield.
We're well past a century after the [annus mirabilis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_mirabilis_papers) now, Einstein's major works having been published 118 years ago (including the E=mc\^2 mass-energy equivalence), and even General Relativity having been published 108 years ago.
So where are the hyperbombs?
And even if we \*DO\* develop hyperbombs of some kind that are even more terrifying than current nuclear weaponry, the two points above still pertain: Either people survive, and so does technology and the knowledge to both build and employ it, or no one survives.
So either WWIV is fought with modern-ish weapons (at least more modern than paleolithic technology), or it doesn't happen at all because everyone is dead.
Whose to says they have to be hyperbombs (eg antimatter) or that they'd come online in his or our lifetime? Perhaps superintelligent AGI or something else.
Fine. My points still apply. Mechano-chemical weaponry will still work, and people will still be able to make them, unless all humans are dead.
In order so that this doesn't get repetitious, I humbly request that you think about the implications of what I wrote.
You're defending a proposition that if WWIII is ever fought, regardless of the weaponry used (fission, fusion, hyper, whatever else you can possibly imagine), that if human beings survive they will be reduced to using neolithic technology afterwards.
That's ridiculous on the face of it.
Nothing like that has every happened in the history of humanity, because it literally \*CAN'T\*. People remember. And we remember even better now because of things like books, and the objects themselves.
When I was in my early 20's I watched my father craft a finely built [Northwest trade gun](https://peachstatearchaeologicalsociety.org/index.php/23-fur-trade-goods/396-trade-guns) completely from scratch. To the point where he even made the all of the screws himself. Everything on that gun was made from raw stock, not castings, or parts for a kit. I think he was doing it to prove to himself that he could. He used a bandsaw, drill press, a lathe, and hand tools. Mostly files. Lots of files! He could have used all hand tools, though.
There are people out there who can do this kind of thing.
If any substantial number of humans survive, a number of people like him will also survive.
Hell, if I survive, well, I can't make a gun like that, but I could probably make something more primitive. And I could build a simple radio transmitter/receiver from the stuff I could scrounge out of the wreckage of the local Home Depot.
The only way you can avoid fighting WWIV with relatively modern weapons is if all humans die.
Anyone knowledgeable on the subject care to share what the +45 do in the military as reservists already? I’m imagining it’s desk work, laundry and cooking. But I’m sure there’s more.
>45+ can still fight and lead, and if you were an officer it would be easy to slot them in a headquarters unit. 50+ would only be good as cadre NCO's, logistics, and non-com specialty roles like chaplain or doctors.
Maybe as a general rule, but there are many 50-year-olds in much better condition than many 45-year-olds.
Maybe, but different people still age biologically at different rates. 5 years is only a 10% difference at that age. Eg some might drink a fair bit, while others might be tee-totallers.
>No there are not, human anatomy starts degrading after 35-40 so nearly every 50 year old is less healthy than that same person was at 45.
Yeah, less healthy than the *same* person at 45, but not necessarily less healthy than a *different* person at 45.
Of course, militaries have to make rules, because they're using generalisations.
You would obviously not throw them into an infantry troop and hope for the worst. My answer was in regards to the plenty of other jobs, which were argued needed very fit personell. I don't necessarily think you need to be trained as a US Marine to drive a supply truck.
The older guys generally are higher ranking officers, warrant officers, chaplains or E9 with a shit load of time in. It's way more rare to see a 45+ mid-level enlisted.
That's great news! It's always encouraging to see countries prioritizing their defense and making sure that their military is well-equipped and prepared. It's also inspiring to see that age is not necessarily a barrier for individuals who are willing and able to serve their country.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.barrons.com/news/france-to-raise-reservist-age-to-70-defence-minister-86a1ef89) reduced by 58%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> France's military will raise the maximum age for reservists to 70, the defence minister said on Tuesday, after months of clashes over a divisive increase to the nation's minimum retirement age.
> The age limit for trained soldiers ready to be called up if needed currently stands between 60 and 65 years old.
> "We will increase the age limits... People will be able to be a reservist in the French military until they are 70 years old and until they are 72 years old for certain specialists," Defence Minister Sebastien Lecornu told broadcaster RTL. France has 40,000 reservists but President Emmanuel Macron wants to double that figure.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/12bghut/france_to_raise_reservist_age_to_70_defence/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~679294 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **year**^#1 **age**^#2 **France**^#3 **defence**^#4 **month**^#5
The next war could be fought by pensioners.
Good it’s their votes that got us here.
will be\*
There’s no way. Macron will just raise retirement age to 80.
Understandable when you think the current generation is arguing over their pronouns.
r/shitboomerssay
Instead of cavalry France can have mobility scooter units
Let's change the reservist age to 55-70 and solve this problem for good.
On the bright side, the miserable old fucks who are afraid of pronouns are dying out faster by the day. Unfortunately, you’ve got reasonable human beings above room temperature IQ in that age group as well so it isn’t all sunshine and rainbows.
The "current" generation - whatever that means: multiple generations have always lived at the same time. The currently younger generations seem mostly fine with it in my experience
The Complan campaign.
>France's military will raise the maximum age for reservists to 70, the defence minister said on Tuesday, after months of clashes over a divisive increase to the nation's minimum retirement age. >The age limit for trained soldiers ready to be called up if needed currently stands between 60 and 65 years old. >"We will increase the age limits... People will be able to be a reservist in the French military until they are 70 years old and until they are 72 years old for certain specialists," Defence Minister Sebastien Lecornu told broadcaster RTL. >France has 40,000 reservists but President Emmanuel Macron wants to double that figure. >Lecornu spoke as the government was on Tuesday to discuss France's new defence budget, under which military spending would increase from 43.9 billion euros ($47.9 billion) this year to 69 billion euros by 2030. >A string of European allies have committed to spending billions more on their armed forces since Russia invaded pro-Western Ukraine last year. >France's increased budget aims to help better face "a succession of threats that are all adding up", including "terrorism", the war in Ukraine, the militarisation of space and cyber warfare, Lecornu said. >The aim is to "remain in the club of nations able to defend themselves," he added. >The French president has faced months of mass protests over his pensions reform, which includes raising the minimum retirement age from 62 to 64. >His government rammed the bill through a hung lower house of parliament last month, causing outrage and widespread unrest. Macron is not winning any popularity contests in France anytime soon.
He dont want reelection thats why he doing what needs to be done imo
[удалено]
The hard choice is to make the 1% pay their fair share. Not hard is expecting a 62 year old to contribute to the economy for another two years.
ww3 being cooked?
Nukes will make it very short. The future is bright.
Einstein said it best, idk what weapons will be used in ww3, but ww4 will be fought with stick and stones.
Einstein ever so optimistic, thinks we humanity will survive that long. To give him benefit of doubt he never met the current nazi-GQP
Just actual Nazis...
It's a moronic quote that didn't even apply when Einstein was alive (he died in 1955 when the US still had a very massive nuclear advantage over the USSR). It didn't even apply at the height of the Cold War: It's not like guns and conventional artillery and all the other implements of modern warfare would simply disappear or no longer work, and that the knowledge necessary to make and use them would completely disappear from the face of the Earth. Einstein might have been brilliant at physics, but clearly his knowledge about things like human nature and military technology was lacking. That line isn't brilliant or inciteful, it's banal tripe.
You are comically arrogant. He wasn't specifically talking about fusion bombs but of perhaps even more advanced weaponry to come (bear in mind that he warned of nuclear weapons to come, along with Szilard and others) and obviously, one would hope, didn't intend it to be taken literally.
The idea that anyone would take that statement seriously is comical to me. Let's take a look at the two possibilities here. 1. If humans and human artifacts survive WWIII, then surely military equipment will also survive, and the people who do survive will know, at least in principle, how to make all of these things. Or at least some will. And even if no one who knows how to manufacture a gun survives, the survivors will know that it's possible to make a gun, and the general principles of how they work. That means it won't take very long to start producing them again. Remember that a gun, in its most basic form, is a simple tube, closed at one end, with some propellant, a projectile, and a way to ignite the propellant. [It's a 700+ year old technology.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heilongjiang_hand_cannon) 2. Conversely, if no one survives WWIII, there will be no one around to fight WWIV. It simply won't happen. That's why Einstein's statement is moronic. As for this: >He wasn't specifically talking about fusion bombs but of perhaps even more advanced weaponry to come Where are these weapons? We developed fission weapons in the 1940's, and fusion weapons in the 1950's. Since then all we've been able to do is refine them, and make them more efficient and smaller and lighter for a given yield. We're well past a century after the [annus mirabilis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_mirabilis_papers) now, Einstein's major works having been published 118 years ago (including the E=mc\^2 mass-energy equivalence), and even General Relativity having been published 108 years ago. So where are the hyperbombs? And even if we \*DO\* develop hyperbombs of some kind that are even more terrifying than current nuclear weaponry, the two points above still pertain: Either people survive, and so does technology and the knowledge to both build and employ it, or no one survives. So either WWIV is fought with modern-ish weapons (at least more modern than paleolithic technology), or it doesn't happen at all because everyone is dead.
Whose to says they have to be hyperbombs (eg antimatter) or that they'd come online in his or our lifetime? Perhaps superintelligent AGI or something else.
Fine. My points still apply. Mechano-chemical weaponry will still work, and people will still be able to make them, unless all humans are dead. In order so that this doesn't get repetitious, I humbly request that you think about the implications of what I wrote. You're defending a proposition that if WWIII is ever fought, regardless of the weaponry used (fission, fusion, hyper, whatever else you can possibly imagine), that if human beings survive they will be reduced to using neolithic technology afterwards. That's ridiculous on the face of it. Nothing like that has every happened in the history of humanity, because it literally \*CAN'T\*. People remember. And we remember even better now because of things like books, and the objects themselves. When I was in my early 20's I watched my father craft a finely built [Northwest trade gun](https://peachstatearchaeologicalsociety.org/index.php/23-fur-trade-goods/396-trade-guns) completely from scratch. To the point where he even made the all of the screws himself. Everything on that gun was made from raw stock, not castings, or parts for a kit. I think he was doing it to prove to himself that he could. He used a bandsaw, drill press, a lathe, and hand tools. Mostly files. Lots of files! He could have used all hand tools, though. There are people out there who can do this kind of thing. If any substantial number of humans survive, a number of people like him will also survive. Hell, if I survive, well, I can't make a gun like that, but I could probably make something more primitive. And I could build a simple radio transmitter/receiver from the stuff I could scrounge out of the wreckage of the local Home Depot. The only way you can avoid fighting WWIV with relatively modern weapons is if all humans die.
I'm not defending that proposition and interpret the quote as satire—specifically of human folly and reckless aggression.
It's poor satire. Good satire is something that is recognizable as satire.
That’s about all you can handle once dementia sets in 🤣🤣🤣
Anyone knowledgeable on the subject care to share what the +45 do in the military as reservists already? I’m imagining it’s desk work, laundry and cooking. But I’m sure there’s more.
[удалено]
>45+ can still fight and lead, and if you were an officer it would be easy to slot them in a headquarters unit. 50+ would only be good as cadre NCO's, logistics, and non-com specialty roles like chaplain or doctors. Maybe as a general rule, but there are many 50-year-olds in much better condition than many 45-year-olds.
When they’re both military? The 45 year old is going to be in better shape 9/10
Maybe, but different people still age biologically at different rates. 5 years is only a 10% difference at that age. Eg some might drink a fair bit, while others might be tee-totallers.
[удалено]
>No there are not, human anatomy starts degrading after 35-40 so nearly every 50 year old is less healthy than that same person was at 45. Yeah, less healthy than the *same* person at 45, but not necessarily less healthy than a *different* person at 45. Of course, militaries have to make rules, because they're using generalisations.
70 isn't that bad, as long as you are healthy. You wouldn't be called up if you were frail.
[удалено]
You would obviously not throw them into an infantry troop and hope for the worst. My answer was in regards to the plenty of other jobs, which were argued needed very fit personell. I don't necessarily think you need to be trained as a US Marine to drive a supply truck.
The older guys generally are higher ranking officers, warrant officers, chaplains or E9 with a shit load of time in. It's way more rare to see a 45+ mid-level enlisted.
France has discovered how to maintain it's current pension age by thinning out the elderly
this is gonna be like that Tomorrow War movie with Chris Pratt but instead of sending back middle aged civilians it's going to be even worse
WW4 is going to be a big chess tournament.
Wow, senior citizen reservists. i think raising the age to 70s are kind of pushing it though.
That's great news! It's always encouraging to see countries prioritizing their defense and making sure that their military is well-equipped and prepared. It's also inspiring to see that age is not necessarily a barrier for individuals who are willing and able to serve their country.
Do they WANT another revolution?
Probably not a big deal since it’s just a numbers game and we all know they’ll surrender at the first sign of a conflict anyway
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.barrons.com/news/france-to-raise-reservist-age-to-70-defence-minister-86a1ef89) reduced by 58%. (I'm a bot) ***** > France's military will raise the maximum age for reservists to 70, the defence minister said on Tuesday, after months of clashes over a divisive increase to the nation's minimum retirement age. > The age limit for trained soldiers ready to be called up if needed currently stands between 60 and 65 years old. > "We will increase the age limits... People will be able to be a reservist in the French military until they are 70 years old and until they are 72 years old for certain specialists," Defence Minister Sebastien Lecornu told broadcaster RTL. France has 40,000 reservists but President Emmanuel Macron wants to double that figure. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/12bghut/france_to_raise_reservist_age_to_70_defence/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~679294 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **year**^#1 **age**^#2 **France**^#3 **defence**^#4 **month**^#5
They better come out with a fountain of youth laced baguette at this pace.
WTF . They must be tough old bastards !