I got into a debate with a veteran over on a political forum I go to. Basically, his position is that "there should be a national draft for EVERY single conflict the US gets involved in"*. Now, maybe I'm crazy, but this seems like a really bad idea, since the vast majority of the conflicts the USA has been involved in since WWII have been needless and wasteful (think Vietnam and the Middle-East conflicts of the past decade)
Am I just totally off-base?
~Tim?
*He also thinks that the fact that we don't have this in place is a sign of the moral decay of America, but I digress.
He's crazy. Now I've heard it argued that the US is now wholly unprepared for a conventional war. That it's military personnel and manpower are not sufficient for such a conflict. But we aren't fighting any conventional wars at the moment. We haven't engaged in any wars thus far that need a draft (needless war or otherwise). Unless we plan on doing away with a standing army, drafting up a horde of troops for every little conflict is complete overkill.
LordofHats wrote: He's crazy. Now I've heard it argued that the US is now wholly unprepared for a conventional war. That it's military personnel and manpower are not sufficient for such a conflict. But we aren't fighting any conventional wars at the moment. We haven't engaged in any wars thus far that need a draft (needless war or otherwise).
Conventional, massed-forces warfare is kind of a thing of the past by now, thanks to all the advanced tech we have, not to mention what we've got in development. Why bother putting boots on the ground when you can just take the enemy out with a few drone strikes? And when we do have to resort to ground warfare in the future, we'll just be using land-based drones or a few heavily armed and armored troops.
LordofHats wrote: He's crazy. Now I've heard it argued that the US is now wholly unprepared for a conventional war. That it's military personnel and manpower are not sufficient for such a conflict. But we aren't fighting any conventional wars at the moment. We haven't engaged in any wars thus far that need a draft (needless war or otherwise).
Conventional, massed-forces warfare is kind of a thing of the past by now, thanks to all the advanced tech we have, not to mention the advanced tech we're developing.
~Tim?
Definitely massed forces are of the past. All the US conflicts since Korea have been essentially fighting guerrillas forces with the exceptions of Saddam's forces (which were rendered obsolete by the massive technological gulf between the two sides)
Should the US get into a conflict with another major power it would be over quickly I'd imagine due to the missiles getting flung around
My oldest brother is a Marine and has said several times he would never want a draft. Because the men and women he's been deployed with wanted to serve instead of being forced into it.
Being volunteer only has become a major part of military culture (due in no small part to the negative impact of the draft during Vietnam). EDIT: Well US culture as well, also due to the negative impact of the draft in Vietnam XD. Americans today just really don't like the draft.
hotsauceman1 wrote: No, I think Vietnam showed why that is an EXTREMELY bad idea.
djones520 wrote: It is crazy. We're the top dogs largely because we're all volunteer. I work with the best (mostly) because everyone wants to be here.
I've encountered plenty in my career who don't want to be, and I'm much happier with them being in the vast minority, then the majority.
How can you be forced into the military these days?
You can't be forced in, but there are those who join, then decide they don't want to stay.
We just had one in my unit. Total waste of space, no ambition, drive, anything. His last month here, we literally spent more man hours cleaning up his messes then we got with him being here. A contract was signed though, and it had to be served out. In most extreme cases, types like that can be forcibly separated, and often are.
There are people who join envisioning a life of hot women, exotic locals, and lots of money. Then they realize its not really that glamorous and they regret it. Case and point; Chelsea/Bradly Manning.
Some people just don't realize what they're getting into and they don't react well.
If there ever again is a need for traditional massed warfare with boots on the ground like we had in the World Wars, then, at that point, it's probably already too late for a draft to make a difference, as circumstances would have to be pretty dire indeed.
LordofHats wrote: There are people who join envisioning a life of hot women, exotic locals, and lots of money. Then they realize its not really that glamorous and they regret it. Case and point; Chelsea/Bradly Manning.
Some people just don't realize what they're getting into and they don't react well.
Yes, too often people are sold on the Hollywood glamor of the military, or even on the basic idea of simply "giving up" four years of their life in exchange for an education and other benefits, not realizing how hard just those four years can be.
conscription/drafting of unwilling participants who likely have no aptitude for the actual killing part is pretty much a bad Idea unless you have no other choice,
historically, having a professional, well trained, well motivated army has been the best.
having an army that is as large as it can be, filled with people who are forced into it, and have no talent for it, has also been a historical foible generally.
so pretty much unless there is a threat of total annihilation or close to it that justifies the ENTIRE population being mobilized, there really isnt any need to conscript.
what SHOULD be mandatory, is a few years of civil service in the military/trades/other civil service sector (participants choice OFC) jobs, and using that as a way to get everyone free education/training for decent jobs.
having an army that is as large as it can be, filled with people who are forced into it, and have no talent for it, has also been a historical foible generally.
I'd debate this. Some cultures have a tradition of civic service and to them conscription is just part of life. It is accepted as part of growing up which gives it a social glamor and acceptance. Israel for example has a culture that allows this to work.
The US I'd say has a tradition of civic service but ours is somewhat cemented on it being voluntary so it just doesn't work for us.
having an army that is as large as it can be, filled with people who are forced into it, and have no talent for it, has also been a historical foible generally.
I'd debate this. Some cultures have a tradition of civic service and to them conscription is just part of life. It is accepted as part of growing up which gives it a social glamor and acceptance. Israel for example has a culture that allows this to work.
The US I'd say has a tradition of civic service but ours is somewhat cemented on it being voluntary so it just doesn't work for us.
And it certainly wasn't a foible for us in WW1 or WW2. But the country was different then. The citizenry at large saw military service as something to be done. They weren't encouraged to burn their draft cards and the like, much like following generations.
I honestly consider WWI and WWII to be flukes for us. Our nationalism and imperialist outlook was at its peak. We wanted to one up the rest of the world (and of course Pearl Harbor). The Civil War and the draft did not go that well together. It certainly wasn't the Vietnam War by a long shot but many Americans in the North did not appreciate the draft at all (its muddled by the racism/bias of the period though).
djones520 wrote: And it certainly wasn't a foible for us in WW1 or WW2. But the country was different then. The citizenry at large saw military service as something to be done. They weren't encouraged to burn their draft cards and the like, much like following generations.
It didn't hurt that in WW2 the country was attacked and were were legitimately defending the country, instead of these much more nebulous conflicts that followed.
LordofHats wrote: I honestly consider WWI and WWII to be flukes for us. Our nationalism and imperialist outlook was at its peak. We wanted to one up the rest of the world (and of course Pearl Harbor). The Civil War and the draft did not go that well together. It certainly wasn't the Vietnam War by a long shot but many Americans in the North did not appreciate the draft at all (its muddled by the racism/bias of the period though).
Depends on how you look at it with the Civil War. Mandatory service wasn't an issue in the South. In the North it was still widely accepted. Of course you had the draft riots in New York, but all in all again a strong sense of nationalism provided in large part a ready core of draftees.
I'd also argue the "imperialist" outlook comment as well. In both WW1 and WW2 we tried hard to maintain an isolationist stance. We obviously had our clear favorite in the fights, but it wasn't until we were directly attacked (to varying degrees dependent on the conflict) that we joined in. We didn't do it to gain more territory, like the Mexican War, and the Spanish-American War.
djones520 wrote: I'd also argue the "imperialist" outlook comment as well. In both WW1 and WW2 we tried hard to maintain an isolationist stance. We obviously had our clear favorite in the fights, but it wasn't until we were directly attacked (to varying degrees dependent on the conflict) that we joined in. We didn't do it to gain more territory, like the Mexican War, and the Spanish-American War.
The Mexican War and Spanish-American War were most definitely wars of Imperialism and both ended in us expanding our sphere of influence. In the Mexican War we gained the American South West which previously were under the control of Mexico and the Spanish-American War forced Spain out of the Americas and we got the Guantanamo Bay, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. We were most definitely Imperialist (Manifest Destiny anyone?).
The US had its own flavor of Imperialism. Ours was twisted in that it was anti-Imperialist (go figure). We opposed the Imperialism of others with things like the Monroe Doctrine, and we fought to expand our own but we never got embroiled in the massive wars of European nations. Ours was a much subtler form. We tended to focus on controlling points of trade and keeping others out of them rather than overt take overs followed by colonization.
Yes you are... We would not have got in those wars if everybody had a chance to die in them....
We nuked a country twice in WWII, which lasted half as long as the current conflict we are in now and the reason we did it was to end the war quickly because everybody got a chance to die in it.
A President's son was in the second wave at Omaha beach....
I did over 22 years at the sharp end and the folks who start the wars in America never have their family members dying in them....
A draft with NO exceptions for anyone unless they have already served in combat or are missing a limb sounds fine to me....
You want to save money on the DoD bring back the draft, do not pay them, only the Volunteer units, see how quick we get out of our current war....
djones520 wrote: That's what I was saying, those two wars were definitely about Imperialism. The World Wars were not.
My mistake I read your sentence as meaning those wars weren't about territory XD
Allow me to redirect;
WWI and WWII were Imperialist, not in that we sough territory but we sought to enforce our national pride. While the Zimmerman Telegraph directly lead to our involvement (good job Brits!) unrestricted submarine warfare had us pretty peeved. We didn't like the idea of fighting Europe's wars for them, but we also didn't like them involving us. EDIT: And of course, US politicians and business loved playing European wars to our advantage. We took almost all of them as chances to expand our influence.
It's hard to call US involvement in WWII non-Imperialist as it was a clash between the American and Japanese Empires for economic and territorial control of the Pacific. Without the American Empire we held we would have never been sucked into the war at all.
I did over 22 years at the sharp end and the folks who start the wars in America never have their family members dying in them....
Sen. Baucus had a nephew killed in Iraq. Rep. Wilson had a son nearly killed by a sniper, and an IED. Rep. Akin's son was nearly killed by a mortar explosion. Many other Congressmen had children and other relatives fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We have sitting Congressmen who are veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.
djones520 wrote: That's what I was saying, those two wars were definitely about Imperialism. The World Wars were not.
My mistake I read your sentence as meaning those wars weren't about territory XD
Allow me to redirect;
WWI and WWII were Imperialist, not in that we sough territory but we sought to enforce our national pride. While the Zimmerman Telegraph directly lead to our involvement (good job Brits!) unrestricted submarine warfare had us pretty peeved. We didn't like the idea of fighting Europe's wars for them, but we also didn't like them involving us. EDIT: And of course, US politicians and business loved playing European wars to our advantage. We took almost all of them as chances to expand our influence.
It's hard to call US involvement in WWII non-Imperialist as it was a clash between the American and Japanese Empires for economic and territorial control of the Pacific. Without the American Empire we held we would have never been sucked into the war at all.
You want to save money on the DoD bring back the draft, do not pay them, only the Volunteer units, see how quick we get out of our current war....
That's just an asinine solution to a problem.
Let me be blunt....
I suspect you have never been in a war and have picked up an education by some fool who also had never been in a war.
War is organized murder on a large scale....
World War Two was fought by us because the Japanese killed a lot of Americans at Pearl harbor (never mind the rape of Nanking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre and the Germans were throwing people into ovens and taking over the world....
The Korean war was over a massive invasion as well....
The draft ensures people get their families into the dying. For the last 13 years a very small part of this country has been dying and the rest has been playing games, going on vacation, etc....etc....Nobody in this country including that piece of gak in the Whites House is interested in ending the war even though he promised that the first thing he did when he got elected was to end the war....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VlXfs1K04g
It sounds asinine to you because I suspect you fear it.... The point of a draft is to make war distasteful to the public and personally responsible for those politicians who start them by getting their own children killed for picking an untrustworthy fool for commander in chief.
We have a draft and watch how quickly we get out of Afghanistan....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sen. Baucus had a nephew killed in Iraq. Rep. Wilson had a son nearly killed by a sniper, and an IED. Rep. Akin's son was nearly killed by a mortar explosion. Many other Congressmen had children and other relatives fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. [url]
Look at their voting records vs the mas of US Senators and Congressmen and the current President, Vice President... etc....
Unless you have someone at risk in your family most people do not give a gak about ending a war...
You named 3 plus I think 5 others out of how many hundred?
Plainly put most of America does not give a gak. Bring back the draft and watch that focus change...
I suspect you have never been in a war and have picked up an education by some fool who also had never been in a war.
My family has been involved in every armed conflict since the Civil War. My dad pretty much missed my and my sister's teen years fighting in Afgahnistan and Iraq (and Bosnia before that). I know people who lost their fathers and brothers and had their parents break up. My uncle's family was destroyed by the war. My best friend lost his dad.
Don't give me any high and mighty bs about the cost of war.
War is organized murder on a large scale....
Honestly it sounds like you heard that from some fool who has never been in a war.
The draft ensures people get their families into the dying.
And you assume that government officials won't find ways around their children being in harms way? They can and will if they so desire find a way as they have in the past (I believe you alleged an example earlier). All your proposal does is give the government a captive fighting force that has no choice but to fight when it demands. You propose everyone put their lives on hold for something they don't want to stop something else they don't want? That's not a solution its a whole new problem.
You propose everyone put their lives on hold for something they don't want to stop something else they don't want? That's not a solution its a whole new problem.
And that is the point... Wars should only be fought by America if it is worth putting everyone's life on hold.
I am 3rd generation career military with enough memories of people I killed for nothing but a politicians order and my family has hit every war since WW II and we have lost family in every damn one of them.
This casual let them fight it and let the nation keep on doing what ever they want proved to me that the volunteer army is a mistake.
Sure it was the best fighting force the world saw and we did some things that will never be repeated in the history of warfare but we have lost something even more important and that is the willingness of the nation to do whatever is necessary to keep our soldiers alive and end the war...
NeedleOfInquiry wrote: And that is the point... Wars should only be fought by America if it is worth putting everyone's life on hold.
So we put everyone's life on hold always to stop something that might happen sometimes? Good plan /sarcasm. And what about when that war comes and everyone is disillusioned and pissed about being in an organization they never wanted to be in?
This casual let them fight it and let the nation keep on doing what ever they want proved to me that the volunteer army is a mistake.
You know, we were just talking about people who signed up and didn't realize what they were getting into.
Give me any other reason why we are in year 13 of this fighting.....
Because we are fighting an enemy we thought we could beat with a hammer and are now realizing it's not that simple? It's easier to start a war than it is to leave it. Always has been.
EDIT: And frankly, I'll point out your sense of scale is pretty messed up. In the grand scheme of things, Iraq and Afghanistan have been minor conflicts. These aren't wars that demand a wartime economy or society. They're just not that big. Proposing we set ourselves to act like we could go to war 24/7 (which realize it or not is what you propose) as a means of ensuring we don't won't work.
having an army that is as large as it can be, filled with people who are forced into it, and have no talent for it, has also been a historical foible generally.
I'd debate this. Some cultures have a tradition of civic service and to them conscription is just part of life. It is accepted as part of growing up which gives it a social glamor and acceptance. Israel for example has a culture that allows this to work.
The US I'd say has a tradition of civic service but ours is somewhat cemented on it being voluntary so it just doesn't work for us.
israel actually is surrounded by threats that justify this... there is a bit of a difference between what israel does and the draft/conscription, it is mandatory military service for everyone, as opposed to a ballot that just goes out when they need more boots on the ground.
still compulsory OFC, but they are willing because its a very clear and present danger type situation there.
hence it doesnt fit the requirements I set forth,
IE the draft IS necessary, and the participants are more or less willing and able since there really are tangible threats.
OBS WW1 and two ALSO had tangible enough threats that it was necessary, and generally accepted.
also, to be fair, iraq and afghan wars actually took up more ordnance then WW1 and 2 combined I believe (might just be one of the two), so it actually is a huge cost, and the us economy IS a war economy, the onyl difference between ww2 and iraq/afghan is the scale of boots on the ground, and the ability of the enemy to strike back (ie NIL) so all we need is the military industrial war economy complex pumping out ordnance at such a huge level, but not manpower of a scale used in past wars.
NeedleOfInquiry wrote: And that is the point... Wars should only be fought by America if it is worth putting everyone's life on hold.
So we put everyone's life on hold always to stop something that might happen sometimes? Good plan /sarcasm. And what about when that war comes and everyone is disillusioned and pissed about being in an organization they never wanted to be in?
This casual let them fight it and let the nation keep on doing what ever they want proved to me that the volunteer army is a mistake.
You know, we were just talking about people who signed up and didn't realize what they were getting into.
Give me any other reason why we are in year 13 of this fighting.....
Because we are fighting an enemy we thought we could beat with a hammer and are now realizing it's not that simple? It's easier to start a war than it is to leave it. Always has been.
EDIT: And frankly, I'll point out your sense of scale is pretty messed up. In the grand scheme of things, Iraq and Afghanistan have been minor conflicts. These aren't wars that demand a wartime economy or society. They're just not that big. Proposing we set ourselves to act like we could go to war 24/7 (which realize it or not is what you propose) as a means of ensuring we don't won't work.
And what about when that war comes and everyone is disillusioned and pissed about being in an organization they never wanted to be in?
And that is the point, the politicans who put them there are GONE the next election....
Because we are fighting an enemy we thought we could beat with a hammer and are now realizing it's not that simple? It's easier to start a war than it is to leave it. Always has been.
Then we either pull out or use nukes...... I do not care which.... If you get all aghast about nuking another country then the war is obviously not critical to the United States survival is it? So why are we there?
You are missing the point and that is really sad because you are representative of an entire generation who does not understand you never go to war unless the nations survival is at stake.... It does get back to this from the very first post
*He also thinks that the fact that we don't have this in place is a sign of the moral decay of America, but I digress
BTW we are NOT in an war time economy ...If we were we would not be making cars we would be making MWAPS at all of the automobile plants and anyone making too much profit would be charged with a crime called war profiting...
NeedleOfInquiry wrote: And that is the point, the politicans who put them there are GONE the next election....
Pretty sure that if we've learned anything from politics last 250 years, its that politicians can do almost anything short of hooking up with prostitutes and still get reelected.
Then we either pull out or use nukes...... I do not care which.... If you get all aghast about nuking another country then the war is obviously not critical to the United States survival is it? So why are we there?
There are so many things wrong with this I don't know where to start. I'll just assume you're okay with starting nuclear holocaust.
You are missing the point and that is really sad because you are representative of an entire generation who does not understand you never go to war unless the nations survival is at stake....
No. If anything, I'm of the opinion that if you wait till your survival is at stake to go to war, you've already put yourself in a corner. And frankly, I don't have a problem with the US using its might to make the world a better place. No comment on whether our current wars are achieving that, but using drones to take out terrorists, removing dictators from power, and the occasional humanitarian relief mission are all things that in general, I'm fine with.
Good job hitting the 'you youngins and your ______" button though. Very insightful. Quite baffling as if anything, my generation is profoundly anti-war, much like the young people of the 60's and 70's. We don't really need to be forcibly conscripted to oppose war.
easysauce wrote: israel actually is surrounded by threats that justify this... there is a bit of a difference between what israel does and the draft/conscription, it is mandatory military service for everyone, as opposed to a ballot that just goes out when they need more boots on the ground.
still compulsory OFC, but they are willing because its a very clear and present danger type situation there.
Well, that tends to happen when you're given other's lands and the formers owners n ot agreeing with that.
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:I got into a debate with a veteran over on a political forum I go to. Basically, his position is that "there should be a national draft for EVERY single conflict the US gets involved in"*. Now, maybe I'm crazy, but this seems like a really bad idea, since the vast majority of the conflicts the USA has been involved in since WWII have been needless and wasteful (think Vietnam and the Middle-East conflicts of the past decade)
Am I just totally off-base?
~Tim?
*He also thinks that the fact that we don't have this in place is a sign of the moral decay of America, but I digress.
I'd have suggested to him that the use of foxholes and tanks was also a sign of the deca of America's military, and the only way to use a *real* army is to stand upright in a line about 80 yards away from your enemy and fire only on the command of your officer.
But I calculate that my satire would be lost on your friend. The moral of this story is definitely "do not post on political website forums".
Good job hitting the 'you youngins and your ______" button though. Very insightful. Quite baffling as if anything, my generation is profoundly anti-war, much like the young people of the 60's and 70's. We don't really need to be forcibly conscripted to oppose war.
For such an anti war generation you and your generation really do not appear to have a problem with wars if they do not inconvenience you personally....
You and the President.....
2007
2008
I won't bother with the other years he promised and still Americans are dying over there and the President has spent more time on vacation than on trying to keep his promise...
NeedleOfInquiry wrote: For such an anti war generation you and your generation really do not appear to have a problem with wars if they do not inconvenience you personally....
the us economy IS a military industrial complex, with an economy based on and heavily intertwined with the arms industry that produces war material on in excess of what was produced during periods of total war...
that is very much a war economy,
what your wiki wisdom is talking about, is a TOTAL WAReconomy, where is is completely based on it, not partially.
total or not, there is always a war economy, especially in the USA,
wiki, while being nice to have, is not always correct,
the real definition, from a real encyclopedia, is
War Economy
(1) In capitalist countries, a specific part of the national economy that is responsible for the financing of the preparation and conduct of war; in socialist countries, the part of the national economy that strengthens defensive capability.
(2) A branch of knowledge (military economic science) that studies the economic aspects of national defense and warfare.
The war economy as a part of the national economy includes the production of various types of military products, as well as the distribution, exchange, and consumption of the products.
so I am very correct in saying, that the USA is a LARGE war economy, they produce a huge amount of war based material, how can you argue that fact? its roughly 20% of their spending, it does not have to be 100% to be a war economy, nor does it have to be a "total" war economy. even in TOTAL war, it was sub 50%,
from a real, non idiot made, encyclopedia
Two world wars have shown that success in war depends to a great degree on the quantity and quality of economic resources and on the effective mobilization and utilization of these resources. In the wars of the 19th century, the military spending of the warring nations accounted for between 8 and 14 percent of national income on the average, whereas in World War I this indicator was 24.2 percent in Austria-Hungary, 36.9 percent in Great Britain, 31.6 percent in Germany, 19.2 percent in Italy, 24.1 percent in Russia, 25.6 percent in France, and 15.5 percent in the USA.During World War II the corresponding figure was 43.4 percent in the USA, 55.7 percent in Great Britain, and 67.8 percent in Germany. In order to satisfy the enormous military requirements brought on by World War I and especially by World War II, it was necessary to place a significant part of the national economy of the warring nations on a military footing. Thus, according to some estimates, the share of military production in total US industrial production was 60.6 percent between 1941 and 1945.
easysauce wrote: the us economy IS a military industrial complex, with an economy based on and heavily intertwined with the arms industry that produces war material on in excess of what was produced during periods of total war...
A war economy has nothing to do with volume of production its a state of the economy being geared towards war production. Now if we're arguing from different definitions of the term then I guess we both get to be right. Volume of production increases pretty steadily over time. it shouldn't be shocking that our 21st century economy produces more than the mid 20th one.
how can you argue that fact?
My argument was that you don't know what a war economy is but apparently I'm arguing what you call a 'total war economy' which is a term I've never seen mentioned in any books but wouldn't be the first time that happened.
EDIT: Though I must point out;
During World War II the corresponding figure was 43.4 percent in the USA
Do you really want to argue that 43.4 percent of the current US economy is dedicated to the production of military arms/tools? Cause that's gonna be an uphill battle. Our current production levels are no where near that high.
not to be a douche, but WIKI is not a valid reference, I am getting my info from actual reputable encyclopedias and resources.
the military industrial complex we have now, is the term they use when a war economy basically lasts forever,
War economy
Definition
War economy is the term used to describe the contingencies undertaken by the modern state to mobilize its economy for war production. Philippe Le Billon describes a war economy as a "system of producing, mobilising and allocating resources to sustain the violence".
The war economy can form an economic system termed the "military-industrial complex". Many states increase the degree of planning in their economies during wars.
Concerning the side of aggregate demand, this concept has been linked to the concept of "military Keynesianism", in which the government's military budget stabilizes economic business cycles and fluctuations and/or is used to fight recessions.
Do you really want to argue that 43.4 percent of the current US economy is dedicated to the production of military arms/tools? Cause that's gonna be an uphill battle. Our current production levels are no where near that high.
no.. you are not reading what i wrote, I am arguing that, because we still have a war economy/military industrial complex, be it 20%, or 40%, it is still a war economy. you are stating that only "total" war economy, is war economy, which is false,
I in no way, shape or form, said, nor believe current spending is that high, if you think so, you need to re read my post.
read the actual definition from an actual encyclopedia above, your wiki wisdom is wrong,
easysauce wrote: not to be a douche, but WIKI is not a valid reference, I am getting my info from actual reputable encyclopedias and resources.
This is an internet forum, not a research paper. Wiki is a convenient link to generalized information.
the military industrial complex we have now, is the term they use when a war economy basically lasts forever,
There's actually another wiki article for that ('Permanent War Economy' a term I have heard of)
I've just never read the term total war economy before (or at least I don't remember it). Usually when I see people talking about that they just say 'war economy' but that's history circles, mainly WWII. I wouldn't be shocked to find political science or economics using a more, differential, set of terms.
Either way it matters less. We both know what we mean now and its turned out to just be a difference in terminology.
I heard a cool story once. To keep it short (and cause I don't fully remember said story) a regimental commander in Iraq was utterly shocked to see how many supplies his regiment uses in three months when someone showed him (football fields worth). The material used by the US military in war is massive (and depending on who you read, there's a lot of waste )
The problem with the concept that "a draft is desirable because it would make the powers that be reticent to start foreign adventures, because their families might get drafted" - is that past history has shown that the kind of people of wealth, means, means or who are in power; i.e. who are situated to make or influence these kinds of decisions are also fairly adept at avoiding a draft anyway. Those guys "have other priorities than military service."
If average Americans do not care, and they do not or we still not be there then perhaps It's time to spread the pain around..
It worked in Russia with the Afghansti, perhaps it will work here. We shall see.
Tomorrow I go to visit absent friends. More soldiers most Americans do not care about. They can no longer speak for themselves so the politicians get to lie about them once a year, or play golf.....
Here's to that lying bastard in the White House just before Veterans Day...
yeah, IM still outright disgusted with obama;s chain of lies
"well end the war"
"close gitmo"
and so on... such a travesty, he had the chance to actually change things for the better, and instead just was another empty head making empty promises...
so many apologists too, always ready to defend the lies, and give X or Y excuse why the president is "powerless" to close gitmo or end the war, or otherwise make good on promises.
he was really good at accepting a nobel prize for nothing, and taking credit for the seals kill of osama, ill give him that.
LordofHats wrote: There are people who join envisioning a life of hot women, exotic locals, and lots of money. Then they realize its not really that glamorous and they regret it.
Unless they become fighter pilots.
We wouldn't be drafting any of those, though.
On the upside, a draft might do something about the obesity epidemic.
If average Americans do not care, and they do not or we still not be there then perhaps It's time to spread the pain around..
It worked in Russia with the Afghansti, perhaps it will work here. We shall see.
Tomorrow I go to visit absent friends. More soldiers most Americans do not care about. They can no longer speak for themselves so the politicians get to lie about them once a year, or play golf.....
Here's to that lying bastard in the White House just before Veterans Day...
That's not a lie he did end the Iraq like two years ago.
LordofHats wrote: It's almost like politicians say whatever they have to to get elected or something, and then maybe they get around to it.
True, but it's weird example to pick cause he did end the Iraq War, I'm sure there's plenty of examples to pick of Obama lying but that really isn't one of them.
However, i FELL like their is some truth to the fact that Iraq adn Afghanistan (and othe rlimited wars) don't impact the average non-military citizen and hence become back-burner issues. I think a draft would change that. I mean look at Vietnam as an example of the draft leading to political backlash.
However, i don't know anything. I just feel that way.
Easy E wrote: I'm not a big fan of the universal draft.
However, i FELL like their is some truth to the fact that Iraq adn Afghanistan (and othe rlimited wars) don't impact the average non-military citizen and hence become back-burner issues. I think a draft would change that. I mean look at Vietnam as an example of the draft leading to political backlash.
However, i don't know anything. I just feel that way.
Iraq and Afghanistan don't impact the average civilian, but it's still civilian pressure and political backlash that forced (in Afghanistan's case, ongoing) withdrawal in both of those conflicts.
That's dumb. We don't need anyone who doesn't want to be there. The logistics are in place for anyone who wants to join to do so, and we have no problems filling quotas as is.
If actual war were to break out, we would need more Mechanics, and ordinance guys, and motor T drivers, all of which would be horrible billets for draftees. You also can't force anyone to be infantry anymore, like they did in Vietnam. There's much too much that goes into training a modern infantryman.
Easy E wrote: I'm not a big fan of the universal draft.
However, i FELL like their is some truth to the fact that Iraq adn Afghanistan (and othe rlimited wars) don't impact the average non-military citizen and hence become back-burner issues. I think a draft would change that. I mean look at Vietnam as an example of the draft leading to political backlash.
However, i don't know anything. I just feel that way.
Iraq and Afghanistan don't impact the average civilian, but it's still civilian pressure and political backlash that forced (in Afghanistan's case, ongoing) withdrawal in both of those conflicts.
Compulsory conscription for Military Services is morally indefensible, no matter what country you're from.
When a State demands and compels you to serve, in whatever form (Military Service, National Service), its saying that you are the property of the State, to be used and your life expended as politicians see fit. If a War is justified and reasonable, then the State should have no shortage of volunteers willing to sign up, fight and risk their lives in a War they believe is justified and worth winning. If not, then maybe its a War that should not be fought in the first place.
The State does not own you, and has no right to compel you to serve in anything.
Sadl, this seems to be the nature of modern democracy these days. Politicians and Governments see themselves as our Masters, not our Servants. This is the biggest reason I believe we (Britain) still need a Monarchy. I dread the day when an ego-centric Prime Minister / President with an over-inflated opinion of his own self worth and importance has no superior authority to answer to. Having to account for yourself to the Monarch of the UK is a good reality check for arrogant self interested politicians.
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote: *He also thinks that the fact that we don't have this in place is a sign of the moral decay of America, but I digress.
I'm most disturbed by the logic that creates the above belief.
Moral decay as opposed to when? What moral decay? Is moral decay even possible? How do other countries that don't have bizarre draft laws and constant states of military conflict not suffer this moral decay?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Compulsory conscription for Military Services is morally indefensible, no matter what country you're from.
When a State demands and compels you to serve, in whatever form (Military Service, National Service), its saying that you are the property of the State, to be used and your life expended as politicians see fit.
When a State demands and compels me to pay taxes, does that also make me their property? Or simply my money?
I was talking about military service, not taxes. Thats a completely different issue.
If you benefit from public services, then its entirely reasonable to be expected to pay taxes to support them. That doesn't make you the property of the State - you're just paying for things that you and everyone else benefit from.
E.g. healthcare (UK), Defense, education, police/ fire and other emergency services (US Coastguard...the UK equivalent is a charity).
The State has the right to compel you to pay taxes for the Military that protects you, but does NOT have the right to compel you to serve in it.
Personally, I don't believe in forced military service like Israel imposes, as we are not for example surrounded by other nations who's goal in life is to wipe us from the face of the planet.
However, I do believe that service in the Cadets should be mandatory once you reach secondary school.
No actual military, (ie: this is how we make you into a killing machine), training, but at least put all kids through the discipline & physical training while also teaching respect and offering the chance to learn one or more various skillsets that could applied to a trade/s later on. (and some proper history lessons wouldn't be amiss either!)
And of course, from there if you have individuals who are willing, they can go on from the Cadets to apply for full/part-time military service.
Keeps the military itself volunteer based, but puts some spine into kids and maybe even stops them from turning into fat little obese turds too!
Of course, my opinion may simply be biased after witnessing a group of teens who ignored and even laughed at everyone else who did observe today's 2 minute silence & reading of In Flander's Fields...
Only reason I didn't go over and give them a piece of my mind afterwards is because;
1. It would be a total waste of breath. (can't change ignorant & stupid)
2. My great-grandpa & grandpa fought when called upon to protect our values of freedom of speech and expression, meaning they fought so that kids today can act like little a$$hats if they so desire.
There should be compulsory national service. Do 2 years in the military, ambulance squad, volunteer firefighter, join the peace corps, or bring back labor corps like back in the New Deal days for public works projects, but it should be left to individual choice as to where those 2 years are spent, because military brass wants nothing to do with a draft, and I honestly don't blame them.
chaos0xomega wrote: There should be compulsory national service. Do 2 years in the military, ambulance squad, volunteer firefighter, join the peace corps, or bring back labor corps like back in the New Deal days for public works projects, but it should be left to individual choice as to where those 2 years are spent, because military brass wants nothing to do with a draft, and I honestly don't blame them.
Only if in exchange I get the right to vote and be called "Citizen"!
chaos0xomega wrote: There should be compulsory national service. Do 2 years in the military, ambulance squad, volunteer firefighter, join the peace corps, or bring back labor corps like back in the New Deal days for public works projects, but it should be left to individual choice as to where those 2 years are spent, because military brass wants nothing to do with a draft, and I honestly don't blame them.
I'm sure that National Service can be quite beneficial for some people (I myself could probably have benefited from it), so people should be encouraged to sign up and informed about the sorts of benefits that National Service can offer them (training, education, discipline, a career, friends for life etc).
But what if someone doesn't want to do National Service? You want them to be forced to it against their will? Thats 2 years of a person's life that they will not get back. What if they want to spend those 2 years differently? What if they find an ideal job, want to travel abroad, or want to spend those two years in Education?
National Service should NEVER be compulsory. The State does not own us. Just like the Military in war-time, if National Service is so good and so justified then the State should have no shortage of volunteers willing to sign up.
Also, isn't this quite a socialist attitude? To think that people should be forced against their will to spend 2 years of their lives serving the country? I thought Americans were quite against this sort of socialism.
Edit:...just to be clear and to pre-empt accusations of political bias, I consider myself a Libertarian - neither truly Left Wing nor Right Wing. It makes my blood boil when anybody, Government, religions, control freak nanny-statists, nutritionists, homo-phobes etc try to dictate how we should live our own lives. People should be left to live their own lives as they see fit so long as they obey the law and don't harm others.
This is a blog post that shares my perspective and explains it quit well.
chaos0xomega wrote: There should be compulsory national service. Do 2 years in the military, ambulance squad, volunteer firefighter, join the peace corps, or bring back labor corps like back in the New Deal days for public works projects, but it should be left to individual choice as to where those 2 years are spent, because military brass wants nothing to do with a draft, and I honestly don't blame them.
Heinlein, is that you?! We heard you were dead, man.
The volunteer army we have is top notch... why would we want to change that model?
If anything, I believe there should be a federal requirements to ramp up the budget/training to handle the returning forces (ie, VA Hospital has funding and staff, programs to reintegrate folks back into civilian life, etc...).
chaos0xomega wrote: There should be compulsory national service. Do 2 years in the military, ambulance squad, volunteer firefighter, join the peace corps, or bring back labor corps like back in the New Deal days for public works projects, but it should be left to individual choice as to where those 2 years are spent, because military brass wants nothing to do with a draft, and I honestly don't blame them.
Only if in exchange I get the right to vote and be called "Citizen"!
And if I do National Service for MORE than 2 years, can I get elevated to "Comrade"? And an extra bread ration might not go amiss..
I believe very strongly in prevention and addressing root cause.
Ensure that if conscription is to be put into place the first round draft for the front line will be selected from all elected political member households of eligibility male or female.
It will promote careful consideration of all the options and would be fair.
I think the Kennedys of old would have had no problem with this.
It's a stupid idea. The state dose not own me. Why anyone thinks it's a good idea I don't know. It dose not have the effect people think. Many European country's have, or recently had, national service. They have all the same problems of everywhere else. It is just another tax, but on time, and a tax that may have dire psychological consequences for those who do not do well in that kind of structured environment.
chaos0xomega wrote: There should be compulsory national service. Do 2 years in the military, ambulance squad, volunteer firefighter, join the peace corps, or bring back labor corps like back in the New Deal days for public works projects, but it should be left to individual choice as to where those 2 years are spent, because military brass wants nothing to do with a draft, and I honestly don't blame them.
I'm sure that National Service can be quite beneficial for some people (I myself could probably have benefited from it), so people should be encouraged to sign up and informed about the sorts of benefits that National Service can offer them (training, education, discipline, a career, friends for life etc).
But what if someone doesn't want to do National Service? You want them to be forced to it against their will? Thats 2 years of a person's life that they will not get back. What if they want to spend those 2 years differently? What if they find an ideal job, want to travel abroad, or want to spend those two years in Education?
National Service should NEVER be compulsory. The State does not own us. Just like the Military in war-time, if National Service is so good and so justified then the State should have no shortage of volunteers willing to sign up.
Also, isn't this quite a socialist attitude? To think that people should be forced against their will to spend 2 years of their lives serving the country? I thought Americans were quite against this sort of socialism.
Edit:...just to be clear and to pre-empt accusations of political bias, I consider myself a Libertarian - neither truly Left Wing nor Right Wing. It makes my blood boil when anybody, Government, religions, control freak nanny-statists, nutritionists, homo-phobes etc try to dictate how we should live our own lives. People should be left to live their own lives as they see fit so long as they obey the law and don't harm others.
This is a blog post that shares my perspective and explains it quit well.
While I mostly agree with you, the fact of the matter is that the government is, at its most basic level, a collection of people who have gathered together for mutual protection and associated benefits, and national service is a way to "pay your dues" so to speak for those benefits. You could argue that taxes are enough, I wouldn't entirely disagree with you, but this is more direct and in my opinion more valuable. In regards to your "what-if", in my opinion it should be part of the educational system following high school (either on completion of coursework or upon dropping out).
Really it would solve all sorts of problems, it would provide every American citizen with practical work experience, it would help instill discipline and maturity, the extra 2 years between high school and college would (in my opinion) make college educations more effective, because incoming freshman are, for the most part, really too immature to take higher education as seriously as they should. It would help combat the narrow-minded regional viewpoints that are becoming increasingly popular in this country by the simple virtue that it would force the younger generations to move around the country and interact with people from other areas and thus promote the spread of ideas, it would also help cut costs on certain government/municipal/etc. programs by providing a large pool of essentially cheap labor (and who knows, maybe all the extra staffing would help VA hospitals actually... you know... do something), and really I could go on for days about all the other benefits of it.
The fact of the matter, is that the concept of individuality, especially the ones propagated by Libertarians (and to a lesser extent Psychologists), is a myth. We are, ultimately, social creatures, shaped and driven by social forces, and members of a society (whether we like it or choose to accept it or not) to which we owe our existence and are in turned owed for other members existence. No, the state does not own us, this is true, but you cannot make the claim that you don't owe the state anything either. Fact is, that you're still sucking oxygen is proof enough that you owe your state for something.
And yes, I do consider myself an adherent of some of Heinlein's political philosophy.
Steve steveson wrote: It's a stupid idea. The state dose not own me. Why anyone thinks it's a good idea I don't know. It dose not have the effect people think. Many European country's have, or recently had, national service. They have all the same problems of everywhere else. It is just another tax, but on time, and a tax that may have dire psychological consequences for those who do not do well in that kind of structured environment.
Agreed, also people who have no interest in joining the army don't usually make for good soldiers.
chaos0xomega wrote: national service is a way to "pay your dues" so to speak for those benefits. You could argue that taxes are enough,
No, taxes are enough. That is the point in taxes. To par for the country to run. This would just be another tax. One that falls heavier on some than others.
Really it would solve all sorts of problems, it would provide every American citizen with practical work experience, it would help instill disciplinn and maturity, the extra 2 years between high school and college would (in my opinion) make college educations more effective, because incoming freshman are, for the most part, really too immature to take higher education as seriously as they should
look at country's that do have national service still. That is simply not the effect it has.
programs by providing a large pool of essentially cheap labor (and who knows, maybe all the extra staffing would help VA hospitals actually... you know... do something), and really I could go on for days about all the other benefits of it.
indentured labor. I.E slavery. The young become slaves of the state.
No, the state does not own us, this is true, but you cannot make the claim that you don't owe the state anything either. Fact is, that you're still sucking oxygen is proof enough that you owe your state for something.
I can claim that and do. I don't owe the state. I pay about 40-50% of my income in direct and indirect tax every year to pay for those things I get from the state. The state do not give me anything for free. I don't owe them.
@chas0Xomega: You seem to view government mandated national service as a cure-all, which is the first sign that you're delusional. Also, ever heard the phrase "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink"? I think that it nicely sums up why the kinda national service you're advocating won't fix the problems you think it will.
chaos0xomega wrote: No, the state does not own us, this is true, but you cannot make the claim that you don't owe the state anything either. Fact is, that you're still sucking oxygen is proof enough that you owe your state for something.
I didn't say "we owe the State nothing". I said we don't owe the State Military and National Service, or forced labour. Our lives are not National assets, to be used and expended in War at the whim of politicians to further their agenda.
We "owe" the State taxes for the securities, liberties and benefits that the State provides for us. Police, Defense, education, healthcare, transport. We all benefit from these to a greater or lesser extent, so its fair that we help pay for them. We "owe" the State obedience to the law, as long as its just and reasonable (e.g. the laws against homosexuality were not just and reasonable).
And yes, I do consider myself an adherent of some of Heinlein's political philosophy.
Who? I don't follow any political philosophers or ideologies. TBH I couldn't name a single Libertarian philosopher.
I just look at different issues, and try to read a wide range of political view points and perspectives, (e.g. conservatives like Peter Hitchens, Melanie Philips and Nigel Farage; and Julian Assange, Young Turks, Thunderf00t, Richard Dawkins; and a number of indepedent blogs etc) and I apply my own values and what I consider to be just and fair to come to a conclusion. Libertarianism is simply what I think best represents my hodge podge of views.
chaos0xomega wrote: national service is a way to "pay your dues" so to speak for those benefits. You could argue that taxes are enough,
No, taxes are enough. That is the point in taxes. To par for the country to run. This would just be another tax. One that falls heavier on some than others.
I dont see how it would fall heavier on some than on others... Unless you mean it would fall heavier on all the rich kids who have to do work for 2 years instead of living off their parents and/or attending that elite university their grandpa went to... thats a sacrifice I'm willing to make for my country.
Really it would solve all sorts of problems, it would provide every American citizen with practical work experience, it would help instill disciplinn and maturity, the extra 2 years between high school and college would (in my opinion) make college educations more effective, because incoming freshman are, for the most part, really too immature to take higher education as seriously as they should
look at country's that do have national service still. That is simply not the effect it has.
Well, considering most of the countries that still do national service are apparrently the role models for Pres. Obama, what with universal healthcare and all, I would think that is exactly what we want to do.
indentured labor. I.E slavery. The young become slaves of the state.
Become implies that we aren't already.
I can claim that and do. I don't owe the state. I pay about 40-50% of my income in direct and indirect tax every year to pay for those things I get from the state. The state do not give me anything for free. I don't owe them.
I disagree, taxes are what you (at least in theory) pay the state for direct services rendered (i.e. - upkeep of roads, social security benefits, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.). National service is repayment of indirect services, for example, that military that keeps you safe at night, that military that kept your parents safe before you were born so they could reproduce and pop you out to continue the fight on communism, the regulations put into place to ensure that big pharma isn't loading those pills you pop with arsenic and lead, etc. etc.
Well, considering most of the countries that still do national service are apparrently the role models for Pres. Obama, what with universal healthcare and all, I would think that is exactly what we want to do.
Yeah, like Canada! ...Wait a minute, Canada hasn't had conscription since WW2, near the very end, and with only 2463 conscripts even involved. And even then, it ran the risk of a political crisis (as it did in 1917).
I dont see how it would fall heavier on some than on others... Unless you mean it would fall heavier on all the rich kids who have to do work for 2 years instead of living off their parents and/or attending that elite university their grandpa went to... thats a sacrifice I'm willing to make for my country.
What I mean is that those not suted to that kind of structured situation would suffer. It is like a flat tax.
Become implies that we aren't already.
eh? Not last time I checked.
I disagree, taxes are what you (at least in theory) pay the state for direct services rendered (i.e. - upkeep of roads, social security benefits, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.). National service is repayment of indirect services, for example, that military that keeps you safe at night, that military that kept your parents safe before you were born so they could reproduce and pop you out to continue the fight on communism, the regulations put into place to ensure that big pharma isn't loading those pills you pop with arsenic and lead, etc. etc.
Last time I checked part of my taxes go to pay for the military to pay those who want to do the job. Same with the police. And pay for managing the regulation. Paying for NICE and PHE in the UK (the equivalent of the FDA). Those are all things I pay my taxes for. I don't get why you think people need to do national service to pay for it in some strange "other" way. I don't understand why you think the military is any different to any other government body paid for by taxes. I pay taxes, people do those jobs. I do my job (in the public sector) that others might hate doing.
Perhaps everyone should also be forced to spend 2 years working in low level government bauracracy, like I did when I was younger, so they have more respect for people who are just trying to do there job as best they can next time they have to deep with seemingly pointless form filling and not resort to abuse, like working in the service sector should also be compulsory so people have basic respect for shop assistants and restaurant staff.
Well, considering most of the countries that still do national service are apparrently the role models for Pres. Obama, what with universal healthcare and all, I would think that is exactly what we want to do.
Yeah, like Canada! ...Wait a minute, Canada hasn't had conscription since WW2, near the very end, and with only 2463 conscripts even involved. And even then, it ran the risk of a political crisis (as it did in 1917).
Oh, and the UK... Hold on a second... Universal healthcare may not be related to national service.
I disagreed with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (or more accurately, as I was about 13 at the time those wars started and I thought it was "cool", but later came to my senses when I learnt about the horrific aftermaths and costs in human life).
I'm against any Western military intervention (interference) in Syria.
I have nothing but contempt for the incompetent and corrupt politicians who govern Britain, and I refuse to participate in their illegal and futile wars that have killed millions of innocent people simply to further their agenda and boost their sanctimonious egos.
Do you seriously believe I would consent to compulsory Military Service? I'd flat out refuse and risk prison, or at the very least, I'd be a disgruntled recalcitrant, reluctant to cooperate.The Army's worst nightmare. Multiply me by a hundred thousand, and you'd have an Armed Service crippled by poor morale and ill discipline.
If theres ever a war that I considered justified, and which I felt genuinely threatend my country (2nd invasion of the Falklands by Argentina) then I would consider volunteering. Compelling people to serve in the Military is wrong, has always been wrong and will always be wrong.
Woah, where did I say compulsory military service? I said NATIONAL service, and then listed off like a dozen things that weren't military service... reading comprehension, it helps.
What I mean is that those not suted to that kind of structured situation would suffer. It is like a flat tax.
What structured situation? Being on a volunteer ambulance squad is nothing like being in the military (and conveniently enough isn't a full time deal, so you would still be able to pursue the oh so important college education at the same time).
Perhaps everyone should also be forced to spend 2 years working in low level government bauracracy, like I did when I was younger, so they have more respect for people who are just trying to do there job as best they can next time they have to deep with seemingly pointless form filling and not resort to abuse, like working in the service sector should also be compulsory so people have basic respect for shop assistants and restaurant staff.[\quote]
Thats basically what I'm proposing, minus the service sector component...
Oh, and the UK... Hold on a second... Universal healthcare may not be related to national service.
Then doesn't it stand to reason that the 'failures' you associate with compulsory national service have... *shock* nothing to do with compulsory national service?
chaos0xomega wrote: Woah, where did I say compulsory military service? I said NATIONAL service, and then listed off like a dozen things that weren't military service... reading comprehension, it helps.
Now you're being dishonest.
National service is repayment of indirect services, for example, that military that keeps you safe at night, that military that kept your parents safe before you were born so they could reproduce and pop you out to continue the fight on communism,
This is what I was replying to.
You mentioned National Service, then went on to talk about how it would be repayment for the Military. Typically, National Service is considered synonymous with Military Service, in the UK at least.
chaos0xomega wrote: Woah, where did I say compulsory military service? I said NATIONAL service, and then listed off like a dozen things that weren't military service... reading comprehension, it helps.
Now you're being dishonest.
Well, he DID include other non-military services. Volunteer firefighter was one of them that I recall him mentioning specifically. Not that I agree with his views necessarily.
For example, I don't see how, simply because it's a national service, it automatically provides more value to society than a gas station or the electric company, for example. Perhaps more worthy of respect, as it is a job that risks one's life for others, but the guy who keeps my bulbs lit is owed my thanks more to date by me than the guy who hasn't needed to put out my house fire yet.
National service is repayment of indirect services, for example, that military that keeps you safe at night, that military that kept your parents safe before you were born so they could reproduce and pop you out to continue the fight on communism,
This is what I was replying to.
You mentioned National Service, then went on to talk about how it would be repayment for the Military. Typically, National Service is considered synonymous with Military Service, in the UK at least.
I choose to argue that my taxes are good enough. Abstracting this to a "money as a function of time" argument, this is some weird new tax that I am very uncomfortable with, especially since one person's time is worth more than another's. I wouldn't want to be sitting there, having a job that makes me 10x the stipend I'm making for my mandated service that I can't return to because I have to pay back to the state because it's "benevolently" protecting me (with the money that I'm paying it already from the really nice job I could have, oh, you just lost out on taxes since I'm not working that job anymore, BTW).
How do you deal with the fact that you're abducting people for two years of their life in situations where it's detrimental to things in the private sector? Sons who need to help tend to the farm. Scenarios where people are unwell and unable to provide service though the prescribed duration? What years do you take them away from their private lives to do this to them during? 18? So they can't start college until they're 20? That means that you're aging your professional and white collar entry age by two years. You might not still be in your 20s after completing a graduate degree. You certainly won't after your doctorate. Any later than that? Unfeasible, because that only increases the odds of the "already have a job" scenario I describe earlier.
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote: I got into a debate with a veteran over on a political forum I go to. Basically, his position is that "there should be a national draft for EVERY single conflict the US gets involved in"*. Now, maybe I'm crazy, but this seems like a really bad idea, since the vast majority of the conflicts the USA has been involved in since WWII have been needless and wasteful (think Vietnam and the Middle-East conflicts of the past decade)
Am I just totally off-base?
~Tim?
*He also thinks that the fact that we don't have this in place is a sign of the moral decay of America, but I digress.
I think its a brilliant idea, if: 1. There are no deferments. 2. There is no guard units to hide in.
If the Elite's kids could get killed, there will be no unnecessary wars.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I did over 22 years at the sharp end and the folks who start the wars in America never have their family members dying in them....
A draft with NO exceptions for anyone unless they have already served in combat or are missing a limb sounds fine to me....
You want to save money on the DoD bring back the draft, do not pay them, only the Volunteer units, see how quick we get out of our current war....
chaos0xomega wrote: There should be compulsory national service. Do 2 years in the military, ambulance squad, volunteer firefighter, join the peace corps, or bring back labor corps like back in the New Deal days for public works projects, but it should be left to individual choice as to where those 2 years are spent, because military brass wants nothing to do with a draft, and I honestly don't blame them.
Only if in exchange I get the right to vote and be called "Citizen"!
Well on the one hand a mandatory draft would probably vastly reduce any politicians desire to get involved in a military conflict for spurious reasons. It would be electoral suicide to get conscripts killed for no good reason. I’m convinced that one of the major reasons that there aren’t the same vocal demonstrations against Afghanistan as there where against Vietnam in the States is because there is no draft.
Also conscript armies are on the whole ineffective except in the direst of circumstances. Though some conservative politicians have proposed re-introducing national service in the uk, one of the biggest opponents of the doing so are the armed forces themselves who fear that it would reduce their effectiveness by turning them into a babysitting service. Currently the British armed forces are turning away applicants, they can afford to be picky and that’s the way they like it. They enjoy their ‘elite’ status.
On the whole I'm against the idea of compulsory millitary service.
While I like Heinlein, I am very much against mandatory conscription. Honestly most of you civilian types are useless feths, putting you in a unit of any kind would just endanger lives and mission success. Besides, without a civilian population's girlfriends to steal, leave would be so much more boring.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Honestly most of you civilian types are useless feths, putting you in a unit of any kind would just endanger lives and mission success.
This has always been one of the reasons why I never considered enlistment. I'm overweight, out of shape, flat-footed and have poor eyesight. I've got okay survival skills, but I'm a fething coward. I know the armed forces can fix plenty of those issues, but I'd rather not burden them.
I know a few people that are enlisting/enlisted recently, and my first thought has always been, "I never expected them to join up, I don't think this is going to work out for them..."
See Alf other then mind set you aren't a bad candidate at all, the whole point of boot camp is to whip you into fighting shape from wherever you start, but if you lack the will and desire... then yeah that does become a burden on a lot of levels, especially once those guys get out to the fleet. Nothing worse then some idiot nursing conscript syndrome in your squadron.
To clarify that is what I mean when I'm talking about useless, mental, not physical. I know some guys who can fix the physical part barring major disability.
Caption: You ate how many of WHAT!? Sounds like the only cure is running till you die!
I think conscription should only be used for Homeland defense when the threat or possibility of invasion is very high, but these people should not be sent overseas to fight unless they volunteer for said duty.
Alf. When I joined the army I was overweight, out of shape but after basic training I drooped 70lbs and gained about 20lbs or muscle. I am telling you if you want rapid weight loss enlist you will get it .
I'm well aware that the overweight and out of shape thing could be resolved, and easily . My issue is the poor eyesight, and the coward aspect. I'm not entirely sure how I'd react when a guy wearing cloth wielding a reliable piece of Russian weaponry is hoping I die. Also I don't think I like the prospect that I could be shot.
It's something I've considered, and I almost considered going to a school with Air Force ROTC and enter one of their overseas teaching programs, but the college I decided on doesn't have an ROTC program.
Alfndrate wrote: I'm well aware that the overweight and out of shape thing could be resolved, and easily . My issue is the poor eyesight, and the coward aspect. I'm not entirely sure how I'd react when a guy wearing cloth wielding a reliable piece of Russian weaponry is hoping I die. Also I don't think I like the prospect that I could be shot.
It's something I've considered, and I almost considered going to a school with Air Force ROTC and enter one of their overseas teaching programs, but the college I decided on doesn't have an ROTC program.
You're allowed to have gakky eyesight. They've got some really attractive glasses for you to wear.
Hell, I needed PRK before I could meet naval aviation's flight standards. That's a fun three days of agony.
Alfndrate wrote: I'm well aware that the overweight and out of shape thing could be resolved, and easily . My issue is the poor eyesight, and the coward aspect. I'm not entirely sure how I'd react when a guy wearing cloth wielding a reliable piece of Russian weaponry is hoping I die. Also I don't think I like the prospect that I could be shot.
It's something I've considered, and I almost considered going to a school with Air Force ROTC and enter one of their overseas teaching programs, but the college I decided on doesn't have an ROTC program.
You're allowed to have gakky eyesight. They've got some really attractive glasses for you to wear.
Hell, I needed PRK before I could meet naval aviation's flight standards. That's a fun three days of agony.
Honestly, a draft would be useless in a REAL war nowadays.
In the time it would take to organize the draft, put everyone through basic training, and mobilize, all our airfields and naval yards would have been bombed to rubble about a thousand times over.
All of our conflicts have been "over there" since the Civil War (minus Pearl Harbor), which has given us time to build up forces, but more importantly most of the nations we've been involved in wars with simply didn't have the capacity to get over here.
Now, admittedly, the odds of a conflict of that magnitude is pretty much nil, but the point is that if we ever got involved in a World War III, a draft would be pretty much useless unless we could somehow keep them at bay for a minimum of 12ish weeks.
Which requires a standing army.
In which case why do we have a draft in the first place?
I can understand implementation of something like a 2 year service requirement, but we have to be careful how that impacts post HS education.
And drafting for every conflict we get involved in could get messy. Are we counting emergency assistance, like the Typhoon relief the military will likely be involved in? And of course, drafting for something like Iraq and Afghanistan would be a great way to create a ton of social conflict in a new generation.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Honestly most of you civilian types are useless feths, putting you in a unit of any kind would just endanger lives and mission success.
This has always been one of the reasons why I never considered enlistment. I'm overweight, out of shape, flat-footed and have poor eyesight. I've got okay survival skills, but I'm a fething coward. I know the armed forces can fix plenty of those issues, but I'd rather not burden them.
I know a few people that are enlisting/enlisted recently, and my first thought has always been, "I never expected them to join up, I don't think this is going to work out for them..."
I considered enlisting, but then I thought about the fact that pretty much all the wars that the USA has been a part of since Vietnam have been pointless efforts created by political grandstanding and bull-headedness. I really don't want a part in that. Plus I think the vast majority of wars could've been avoided if people would just talk.
That said, I'd happily enlist if we ever have a case like WWII again, where victory is actually possible and the war won't turn a decades-long shadowboxing session that only creates more problems for the next generation...
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Honestly most of you civilian types are useless feths, putting you in a unit of any kind would just endanger lives and mission success.
You appear to be making an argument that a successful mall is profitable because the mall cops are well-trained.
One point I did consider the air force, because I loved Planes, but luckily the recruiter was straight with me, he said that i had zero chance of flying and maybe I should choose something else.
Im glad, I almost wasted my life in something I hate
hotsauceman1 wrote: One point I did consider the air force, because I loved Planes, but luckily the recruiter was straight with me, he said that i had zero chance of flying and maybe I should choose something else.
Im glad, I almost wasted my life in something I hate
If you wanted to fly without a degree, should've checked out the Army. Their WOFT program's actually pretty good. Sure, you're restricted to being a helo puke, but it's better than nothing.
Conscription does not seem appropriate given how wars are now fought.
I do think a national service should be introduced. Not a military service but essentially, yes a boot camp. I am not sure it should be compulsory. I sort of think it should be a situation if you are between a certain age and unemployed you should do a national service, but be paid at least minimum wage.
BUt then again what if people just want to travel the world, they have that right.
There was a program on in the UK, maybe about 10 years ago called Lad Army followed by series called Bad Lads Army. They replicated National service from many years ago. Firstly it was with volunteers but then they used youths who had had trouble with the law with minor crimes etc. And the benefit and transformation was pretty good. I am not saying it is a solution to anything but it does seem a useful tool to help promote discipline and other character building.
I personally wish I had been involved in something when I was at a younger age.
I don’t know if its been mentioned but in places like Germany you have to serve in the military by law. I honestly and truly believe we should bring back the option for those convicted of lesser crimes (and some greater crimes) to serve. I have met a lot of good men who became that way because they broke a law and served.
) that they prefer being volunteer only.
We'll call it Operation Fat Shield.
.
