128 replies to this topic

[Shryke]

Yoadm, on 12 December 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

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.

Might be differences between a draft and mandatory service?

I'm curious at what they are basing this reasoning on.

[The Iceman of the North]

Shryke, on 12 December 2012 - 05:30 AM, said:

Might be differences between a draft and mandatory service?

I'm curious at what they are basing this reasoning on.

They have to actually pay professional soldiers decent wages? (Note, I don't know what the pay is in Israel, but when I was in the army in Norway, the pay was something like $10 a day.)

[Ser Robin Hill]

Shryke, on 12 December 2012 - 01:41 AM, said:

The draft is supported by no one and with good reason.

That reason is we have a lot of cowards who are perfectly willing to have others risk their lives to protect their sorry asses.

[IheartTesla]

There hasnt been an external invasion of the US since the 19th century, so I think we are doing fine there without recourse to a draft.

And the second amendment allows for self protection without the need for others to do so, so there is that too.

[Fez]

Rep. Rangel has introduced a bill the first day of every new Congress to reinstate the draft so that more families, particularly those of politicians, have a stake in the military and to hopefully reduce unnecessary hawkishness.  It never goes anywhere and I doubt it every will.

I know the military itself strongly opposes a draft as well.  An all-volunteer force is far better-trained, motivated, and effective.  And there's no shortage of manpower either.  All branches have been exceeding their recruitment goals ever since the economic downturn began.  And between that and an effort to decrease the military size from the buildup it reached during the height of the Iraq war; recruitment standards have been raised.

[Yoadm]

Shryke, on 12 December 2012 - 05:30 AM, said:

Might be differences between a draft and mandatory service?

I'm curious at what they are basing this reasoning on.

For the same sized army, paying 1500$+ per soldier would exponentially raise defense expenditures, which are already the highest in the west by far, one of the highest in the world. Studies have also shown that it lowers the motivation to serve. Reason being, right now, even in the draft in Israel, you can flunk service if you really want to. But most people do serve, in most cases because they feel it is their national duty, and all their friends do it. It is still a bit of a shame to not serve. Once you add monetary value to it, it stops being a 'selfless act', but a job like all others, which you can turn down.

Draft also tends to raise the quality of non-combat troops significantly. Think of it this way, in the US, the brightest , minds generally do not go to the army, because they can get much better pay in the private market. In Israel, they all (or mostly all) serve. The army has a huge yearly pool of graduates, and can choose the near geniuses who will in the future sell start-up companies, and draft to its intelligence, electronic, computer units. It's become a career builder to serve in them, as they train soldiers in programming to a level you can't get in university. Units like Mamram, Talpiot and especially unit 8200 (said to have created the stuxnet virus) are well known internationally, and their graduates are gobbled up later by companies like cisco and Intel.

[Shryke]

Yoadm, on 12 December 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

For the same sized army, paying 1500$+ per soldier would exponentially raise defense expenditures, which are already the highest in the west by far, one of the highest in the world. Studies have also shown that it lowers the motivation to serve. Reason being, right now, even in the draft in Israel, you can flunk service if you really want to. But most people do serve, in most cases because they feel it is their national duty, and all their friends do it. It is still a bit of a shame to not serve. Once you add monetary value to it, it stops being a 'selfless act', but a job like all others, which you can turn down.

Draft also tends to raise the quality of non-combat troops significantly. Think of it this way, in the US, the brightest , minds generally do not go to the army, because they can get much better pay in the private market. In Israel, they all (or mostly all) serve. The army has a huge yearly pool of graduates, and can choose the near geniuses who will in the future sell start-up companies, and draft to its intelligence, electronic, computer units. It's become a career builder to serve in them, as they train soldiers in programming to a level you can't get in university. Units like Mamram, Talpiot and especially unit 8200 (said to have created the stuxnet virus) are well known internationally, and their graduates are gobbled up later by companies like cisco and Intel.

That's really interesting actually.

And confirms that the main difference is mandatory service vs draft. A draft does not create the kind of culture you are talking about above.

[Angeleyes]

That is pretty much exactly correct Yoadm.  Your reasoning is exactly why a mandatory service and draft are different.  It also alleviates the equality argument of Ben Franklin that was posted.  

I don't really have anything else to add to this atm, but if you want to ask something feel free, I took a class on 'Economics of War' a year back, which makes me internet qualified to throw answers out there.

Fun facts:
The US is a net importer of bullets from Israel.
Because Germany imposed high tariffs on agricultural imports previous to WWI due to a glamourizing of the farmer lifestyle, their agricultural sector never modernized and was outpaced by the allies.  By the end of WWI the average German soldier went from 1800? to 1200 calories per day, while an American Doughboy was receiving 2200+.

[Daenerys is my queen]

Lorien, on 12 December 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

That reason is we have a lot of cowards who are perfectly willing to have others risk their lives to protect their sorry asses.

I'm one of them and I regret nothing. But I doubt it'll happen anyway so I'm not too worried.

[Noontidal]

Lorien, on 12 December 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

That reason is we have a lot of cowards who are perfectly willing to have others risk their lives to protect their sorry asses.

I do not support the draft because if this country does not inspire enough volunteers, then it may in fact not be worth saving.  If this country were attacked right now by someone significant, we would see a massive boost in enlistments.

As is, America had no place taking sides in WWI nor was Vietnam our problem.  Korea was also not our problem, and we are paying the price of our actions with Gungan Style.  None of those merited the draft.

[Reposado]

Lorien, on 12 December 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

That reason is we have a lot of cowards who are perfectly willing to have others risk their lives to protect their sorry asses.

and also a lot of people who would rather not have others risking their lives, in effort that makes us no safer and destroys our economy

[ShowOverBooks]

A draft is slavery. I thought that had been outlawed.

[Yoadm]

Shryke, on 12 December 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

That's really interesting actually.

And confirms that the main difference is mandatory service vs draft. A draft does not create the kind of culture you are talking about above.

I fully support mandatory service. Not only because it creates a sense of community, and allows you to meet people from communities and social statuses, cultures, you might not normally interact with before. Ivy league kids and poor kids in the same unit, (For that i also support mandatory service for arabs and orthodox). It creates a sense of community, of common purpose.t But beyond that, if a country protects you, gives you free health care, I feel that 3 years is not an obligation, but a duty to give back.

[Ser Robin Hill]

Daenerys is my queen, on 12 December 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

I'm one of them and I regret nothing. But I doubt it'll happen anyway so I'm not too worried.

Starship Troopers had it right.

Noontidal, on 12 December 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

I do not support the draft because if this country does not inspire enough volunteers, then it may in fact not be worth saving.  If this country were attacked right now by someone significant, we would see a massive boost in enlistments.

As is, America had no place taking sides in WWI nor was Vietnam our problem.  Korea was also not our problem, and we are paying the price of our actions with Gungan Style.  None of those merited the draft.

When all the foes you would have had us take no action against, come knocking on your door, don't look to me to help you out.

Lanza Rota, on 12 December 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

and also a lot of people who would rather not have others risking their lives, in effort that makes us no safer and destroys our economy

The problem is that  too many people cringe at the idea that war should only be waged to destroy an enemy.

ShowOverBooks, on 12 December 2012 - 09:26 PM, said:

A draft is slavery. I thought that had been outlawed.

I guess we should abolish jury duty, as well.

[The Iceman of the North]

Lorien, on 12 December 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

When all the foes you would have had us take no action against, come knocking on your door, don't look to me to help you out.

You lost the war in Vietnam, did Vietnam come knocking on your door? If Germany had won WWI (a stretch even without US intervention), do you think they would have crossed the ocean to knock on your door? If the US had stayed out of Korea, would a communist Korea have come knocking on your door?

[Tempra]

Lexicon Devil, on 12 December 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

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

There are implications beyond criminal prosecution.  Men cannot receive federal financial aid without registering for the selective service, nor can men work for the federal government if they are not registered.

[ericxihn]

Disregarding MacArthur's needless and costly dickwaving in crossing the Parallel, I think the Korean War, in retrospect was a good idea. Certainly modern South Koreans are happy that they're not part of the DPRK.

[The Iceman of the North]

ericxihn, on 13 December 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

Disregarding MacArthur's needless and costly dickwaving in crossing the Parallel, I think the Korean War, in retrospect was a good idea. Certainly modern South Koreans are happy that they're not part of the DPRK.

Yes, but it was not an effort to protect America and American lives, just about protecting American interests.

[Noontidal]

The Iceman of the North, on 13 December 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

You lost the war in Vietnam, did Vietnam come knocking on your door? If Germany had won WWI (a stretch even without US intervention), do you think they would have crossed the ocean to knock on your door? If the US had stayed out of Korea, would a communist Korea have come knocking on your door?

We lost someone else's war in Vietnam, plus it's not as though they had the resources to do anything to the American populace.

If America had cut off good and whatnot in an effort to maintain neutrality, they might have won WWI and avoided a WWII... even if Germany were so inclined, attacking America would have been a much greater mistake than any attack on Russia.

ericxihn, on 13 December 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

Disregarding MacArthur's needless and costly dickwaving in crossing the Parallel, I think the Korean War, in retrospect was a good idea. Certainly modern South Koreans are happy that they're not part of the DPRK.

Gungen Style.  Before that, most would agree, but now I think most are seeing the error of our ways..

[Paladin of Ice]

Lorien, on 12 December 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

That reason is we have a lot of cowards who are perfectly willing to have others risk their lives to protect their sorry asses.

I grew up around a number of ex-soldiers and career military and whenever the subject of the draft came up they pretty much universally hated it and didn't want it instated. Regardless of what function they served in, they said the last thing you wanted in combat (almost all were Vietnam vets) was to have someone who was forced to be there and wanted to be anywhere else guarding your back. Better to have someone who knew what they were getting into and volunteered anyway.

Quote

Starship Troopers had it right.

Starship Troopers had a small, highly capable and technologically advanced volunteer military where there was no draft and most people of that society saw signing up for the military as a dangerous occupation whose benefits were greatly overblown. So basically Starship Troopers agrees with current US policy, aside from the citizenship thing. Glad you feel the same way.

Quote

Rep. Rangel has introduced a bill the first day of every new Congress to reinstate the draft so that more families, particularly those of politicians, have a stake in the military and to hopefully reduce unnecessary hawkishness.  It never goes anywhere and I doubt it every will.

I feel like history has shown that Rangel's rationale is bullshit, or at best highly faulty. Drafts haven't reduced hawkishness in wars like Vietnam, and the sons of politicians and prominent leader/the rich/whatever often had strings pulled for them that made them wind up in safe positions or deferments while poor kids and minorities without that sort of pull disproportionately wound up on the front lines and got killed for it.

Yeah, there'll always be a few fortunate sons who will go to the front lines, but most will wind up in places like the Coast Guard or use legal loopholes to keep themselves from joining in the first place.