The Latest News
Connect with Us

Notable Releases
From the Store
Game of Thrones Khal T-Shirt
Men’s Khal T-Shirt
HBO US
Featured Sites
License Holders

Jump to content


Photo

Will conscription be used in America again?


128 replies to this topic

#21 WrathOfTinyKittens

WrathOfTinyKittens

    Snuggly, with claws

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,114 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 10:02 PM

Carter - While you're right about the Selective Service, you ignore that we had had conscription prior to WW2 in both the Civil War (on both sides) and WW1.

Lorien - Although there are several militarized with as many or more troops, no one can match the logistical capability of the US to quickly deploy significant numbers of troops and materiel worldwide. So when you say "put boots on the ground" I believe that the US has overwhelming global superiority in this regard.

#22 {Redacted}

{Redacted}

    Landed Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 385 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:20 AM

I doubt that Iran would pose anything like enough of a challenge to require the reinstatement of a draft. That would be enormously unpopular and we have not had much of a problem recruiting sufficient numbers.

Also, though I generally agree with the sentiment that the economy is rigged to largely benefit the wealthy, it is, in my experience, incorrect to posit that the majority of military members are poor. My experience is that the overwhelming majority of service members are from middle class families. Of course as the middle class disappears I suppose that would have to change.

#23 ShowOverBooks

ShowOverBooks

    Landed Knight

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:25 AM

Iran is not significantly better armed than Iraq was. The same techniques will work there.

The draft won't be brought back until the war with China.

#24 ShowOverBooks

ShowOverBooks

    Landed Knight

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:26 AM

In short, no, it won't happen (unless America is itself invaded by an outside power). You're right in thinking the draft was stopped after Vietnam, though upon turning 18 Americans

American MALES.

still have to register in the event there ever is a draft (the draft age was usually 18-36 back in the day).

As for the situation with Iran, air strikes are far more likely than any ground invasion, especially given Iran's rough terrain. America's only interests in Iran revolve around potential nuclear weaponry, so if these could be removed via airstrike, a ground invasion would be pointless.

A ground invasion always takes place. You can't install a puppet regime from the air.

#25 ShowOverBooks

ShowOverBooks

    Landed Knight

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:28 AM

Sounds sexist to me.

Of course it is sexist.

I am sure the feminists are working hard to solve this injustice. /sarcasm

#26 ShowOverBooks

ShowOverBooks

    Landed Knight

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:34 AM

http://en.wikipedia....itary_personnel

The military superiority of the US is its technology and armament. When it comes to the ability to put boots on the ground, there are quite a few nations with more capability.




I can think of only one country that is in that category, which is why I don't want to see the US involve itself in Syria.


Oh, I can think of another nation with plentiful resources and an even less capable military. Think north.

#27 {Redacted}

{Redacted}

    Landed Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 385 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:35 AM

Actually many feminists have come out against male only registration

#28 ShowOverBooks

ShowOverBooks

    Landed Knight

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:36 AM

Actually many feminists have come out against male only registration


Name some. Show me some links.

#29 Shryke

Shryke

    The Wood of the Morning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,720 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:41 AM

Why would they be working hard to solve an injustice that will never matter? They are against it, but it's a non-issue no one with any sense spends more than 10 seconds thinking on.

The draft: It ain't happening. Ever.

No one wants it. The pro-war people hate it, the anti-war people hate, the war-ambivalent people hate it. The draft is supported by no one and with good reason.

Edited by Shryke, 12 December 2012 - 01:42 AM.


#30 ShowOverBooks

ShowOverBooks

    Landed Knight

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:50 AM

Feminists are no more against it, than they are against unequal performance requirements for hiring and unequal sentencing for crimes.

#31 {Redacted}

{Redacted}

    Landed Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 385 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:52 AM

Well here's one at least, it's hard to find anything online since the draft stopped being an issue before there was a WWW.

http://now.org/issue...ies/draft2.html

If that's not enough for you I suggest you believe I'm lying and we'll leave it at that.

Edited by Lexicon Devil, 12 December 2012 - 01:53 AM.


#32 ShowOverBooks

ShowOverBooks

    Landed Knight

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:55 AM

Well here's one at least, it's hard to find anything online since the draft stopped being an issue before there was a WWW.

http://now.org/issue...ies/draft2.html

If that's not enough for you I suggest you believe I'm lying and we'll leave it at that.


I am not saying you are lying, but you DID say "many". I think you are mistaken.

The running of selective service costs money. If it meant nothing - someone would have gotten rid of it.

#33 {Redacted}

{Redacted}

    Landed Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 385 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:59 AM

I think the largest feminist organization in the US drafting a resolution (one that was voted on and passed) would qualify as "many" but I'm not going to spend my evening looking up obscure statements from feminists in the late 70's and the early 80's. it's just not that important to me.

#34 Shryke

Shryke

    The Wood of the Morning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,720 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:03 AM

Feminists are no more against it, than they are against unequal performance requirements for hiring and unequal sentencing for crimes.


What are you basing this on? Where are the pro-draft feminists?

#35 ShowOverBooks

ShowOverBooks

    Landed Knight

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:06 AM

The last thing they said was 30 years ago. Despite it still be the law of the land. They really aren't VERY bothered by it, are they?

I assume there is some legal consequence for failing to report. That would make it a serious matter.

#36 ShowOverBooks

ShowOverBooks

    Landed Knight

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:06 AM

What are you basing this on? Where are the pro-draft feminists?

You don't have to protest, when you agree with the policy. Silence is sufficient.

#37 {Redacted}

{Redacted}

    Landed Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 385 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:07 AM

According to Wikipedia, the last time anyone was prosecuted for failing to register was 1986.

#38 Shryke

Shryke

    The Wood of the Morning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,720 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:10 AM

You don't have to protest, when you agree with the policy. Silence is sufficient.


Ahh, of course.

Just like Feminism's bold pro-implanting-alien-chest-bursters-in-the-intestines-of-men policy they have vigorously supported by being completely silent on the issue.



The last thing they said was 30 years ago. Despite it still be the law of the land. They really aren't VERY bothered by it, are they?

I assume there is some legal consequence for failing to report. That would make it a serious matter.


Have you considered that this is because the draft hasn't been relevant for 30 years?

I dearly hope you have, but I feel I will be disappointed.

Edited by Shryke, 12 December 2012 - 02:11 AM.


#39 ShowOverBooks

ShowOverBooks

    Landed Knight

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:23 AM

According to Wikipedia, the last time anyone was prosecuted for failing to register was 1986.

Good news, but that can be changed on a whim.

#40 Yoadm

Yoadm

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 766 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:32 AM

A draft is extremely uneconomic in an industrialized/hnighly specialized society. Economists have basically ended the possibility of a draft in the US. As much as he was made fun of it in the campaign, Mitt Romney's 'I was too important to be fighting in the war' comment holds true for almost all civilians with skills that can: fund the economy, produce tools for soldiers, etc. When each person can contribute 100 units of effort to an area of the economy, it doesn't make sense to draft them for 20 units of war productivity.



Interesting. Israeli economic studies have shown that if we remove the draft, it would actually create a greater burden on the economy for the same sized army. Ironically, it claimed that the level of recruits, especially in intelligence and electronic units, would significantly degrade.



Reply to this topic