[dragonwriter]

> You are correct, it is satirical.

I don't think that's the case; I think that it isn't simplistically prescriptive the way that shallow readings usually take it, but I don't think its satire either. Its more complicated than that.

I think that there are a number of things that come together in ST:

(1) Heinlein's concern about what he saw as a then-current political current to dismiss what he saw as clear, current, existential threats.

(2) Heinlein's enduring strong opposition to conscription and view that it was equivalent to slavery.

(3) Heinlein's general frustration with the bureaucracy and politics of the day and feeling that it was due in large part to the incompetence and lack of civic mindedness of the governing class and, the electorate more generally.

ST, though, wasn't utopian -- it wasn't describing the way things should be -- it was an exploration of ideas related to these topics (and, in some ways, a release of Heinlein's frustration around them.)

> But its a common misconception that its some sort of military love-letter.

There's definitely an element of military love-letter -- particularly, to the individual infantryman -- to it.

That's actually one of the few things the common shallow readings get right (Heinlein himself has written as much, subsequently.)

[ghaff]

This is probably the most accurate description of the novel in this thread. I agree that there's no particular reason to think that Heinlein is saying we'd all be better off if tomorrow we took away the franchise from everyone who hasn't served in the military. Nor do I think it's fair to say that the novel is pro-war in the sense of glorifying warfare.

At the same time, based on large swaths of what Heinlein has written (including non-fiction), there's also no particular reason to think that we're supposed to roll our eyes and take as satire the various lectures about honor and duty in the book. Nor take it as a general condemnation of the "military mind" or anything like that.

[dragonwriter]

> I agree that there's no particular reason to think that Heinlein is saying we'd all be better off if tomorrow we took away the franchise from everyone who hasn't served in the military.

Even if the novel was strictly prescriptive, it wouldn't be saying that: federal service wasn't exclusively, or even mostly, military; federal service included the military, but it also included pretty much everything that would be considered "civil service" positions in today's system, and those positions significantly outnumbered the military ones.

[ghaff]

That claim gets made but there's nothing in the actual novel to actually support it, e.g. "A term of service isn’t a kiddie camp; it’s either real military service, rough and dangerous even in peacetime . . . or a most unreasonable facsimile thereof. Not a vacation. Not a romantic adventure. Well?" He then goes on to talk about things like "field-test survival equipment on Titan" as an alternative. (It's also explicitly mentioned that the merchant marine isn't included.)

[dragonwriter]

The merchant marine isn't civil service, now, either; to quote Heinlein's own response on this:

In Starship Troopers it is stated flatly and more than once that nineteen out of twenty veterans are not military veterans. Instead, 95% of voters are what we call today "former members of teh federal civil service."

[shepardrtc]

I agree with your assessment. I over-simplified it because I'm lazy and its been 15 years since I read it.