WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress is on the verge of ordering young women to register for a military draft for the first time in history, touching off outrage among social conservatives who fear the move is another step toward blurring gender lines.
The female draft requirement, approved late Thursday by the Senate Armed Services Committee, could be as heated as the divisive debate over what public lavatories and locker rooms transgender people should use.
Opponents of expanding the draft may be unable to halt the momentum in favor of lifting the exclusion, which was triggered by the Pentagon's decision late last year to open all front-line combat jobs to women. After gender restrictions to military service were erased, the top uniformed officers in each of the military branches expressed support during congressional testimony for including women in a potential draft.
The Senate Armed Services Committee added a provision to its version of the annual defense policy bill that calls for women to sign up with the Selective Service within 30 days of turning 18 — just as men are — beginning in January 2018, according to a summary of the legislation released by the committee.
The House Armed Services Committee narrowly adopted a provision to its bill late last month to include women in Selective Service.
"This is a highly consequential — and, for many American families, a deeply controversial — decision that deserves to be resolved by Congress after a robust and transparent debate in front of the American people, instead of buried in an embargoed document that is passed every year to fund military pay and benefits," said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, one of three Senate Armed Services Committee members who voted against the policy bill.
Conservative columnist Daniel Horowitz wrote of the "consequences of completely eradicating the self-evident truth and science of the two sexes."
The full House is expected to take up its version of the legislation as early as next week. The Senate will consider its bill later this month.
While the subject is contentious, a return to forcing people to join the armed forces seems unlikely. Military leaders maintain the all-volunteer force is working and do not want a return to conscription. The U.S. has not had a military draft since 1973, in the waning years of the Vietnam War era. Still, all men between the ages of 18 and 25 are required by law to register.
"It's what a man's got to do," says the Selective Service website.
Women were nearly drafted during World War II due to a shortage of military nurses. But a surge of volunteers made it unnecessary, according to the Government Accountability Office.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who served with the Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan, said he believes most Americans don't want women to be drafted. Despite his objections, Hunter proposed — and then voted against — the amendment requiring women to register that the House Armed Services Committee approved in April.
Hunter said he offered the measure to force a discussion about how the Pentagon's decision to void gender restrictions on military service failed to consider whether the exclusion on drafting women also should be lifted. Like Lee, he argued that the call should be made by Congress.
The White House has declined to say whether President Barack Obama would sign into law legislation that expands the draft to include women.
A longstanding congressional ban on moving prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility to the United States also is included in the policy bill. The prohibition, which the White House opposes, has kept Obama from fulfilling a campaign pledge to shutter the facility.
The legislation also proposes to help shrink the remaining population at Guantanamo by allowing detainees to plead guilty to criminal charges in federal civilian courts via video teleconference. Those detainees could then be transferred to other countries to serve their sentences.
But the Center for Constitutional Rights, an advocacy group, opposed the change and said allowing pleas by remote video is an attempt to change the rules "in order to stymie the defense and afford the prosecution a greater chance to win these cases."
Overall, the defense policy bill provides $602 billion in the fiscal year starting Oct. 1 for the Defense Department and nuclear weapons programs managed by the Energy Department.
The Senate committee did not follow the lead of its House counterpart, which shifted $18 billion in wartime spending to pay for additional weapons and troops to reverse what Republicans and a number of Democrats have called a crisis in the military's combat readiness.
The committee did identify $3 billion in savings from the defense budget proposed by the Obama administration "and redirected those funds toward critical needs of our warfighters," according to the summary. The committee also added $2 billion for additional training, depot maintenance and weapons sustainment.
Kronk. I have first dibs on you if you get drafted. I teach how to run, I teach you how to fight. You win. Regardless if the other soldiers sings in opera
I know how to run! It's the fighting part that needs the work. I can usually get my opponent to stare into my Prince-like eyes and end it there. I'm a lover, not a fighter.
Spoiler:
Why didn't we just send him into combat zones. "Look into my eyes..."
Dreadwinter wrote: For it. Also for the draft in general, but only in the most drastic of situations.
Also, if this ever happens, dibs on kronk's group. I expect it will be the one with the most booze and grilling, least running.
No drinking alcohol in a war zone. The free up wait would be additional water, ammo, couple Hooah bars.....
Dang....Platoon SGT here.....
kk
M'4's
Four M4's with 203's
About six SAWS
About 6 240's
Oh my.....who in Dakka would be the most calm on the crew serve......YO LT Jake......If you agree....We put Kronk as main gun on 240 and Dreadclaw as asst' guns with him
We should continue to make strides to make sure that Women and men get equal pay for equal work. I will continue to support that effort. A woman can be a doctor, lawyer, whatever. However, with that equality should come the understanding that if John can be drafted next month to fight the dirty commies, so should Jane.
Equal means equal. Either everyone should register, or no one should. We don't even need to get into the argument about women in frontline combat, because we really don't need to; there are many roles in the military for women however you feel about that.
Remember my last driver Whembly. When I say through the door you Will drive through the door.
Think we need some mortar guru's
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Equal means equal. Either everyone should register, or no one should. We don't even need to get into the argument about women in frontline combat, because we really don't need to; there are many roles in the military for women however you feel about that.
Think Ouze can handle a M4/203 and lugging a Javelin to
Dreadwinter wrote: For it. Also for the draft in general, but only in the most drastic of situations.
Also, if this ever happens, dibs on kronk's group. I expect it will be the one with the most booze and grilling, least running.
No drinking alcohol in a war zone. The free up wait would be additional water, ammo, couple Hooah bars.....
Dang....Platoon SGT here.....
kk
M'4's
Four M4's with 203's
About six SAWS
About 6 240's
Oh my.....who in Dakka would be the most calm on the crew serve......YO LT Jake......If you agree....We put Kronk as main gun on 240 and Dreadclaw as asst' guns with him
Yeah, you put Dreadclaw on the guns. I will manage the still.
Now how does one go about getting in to this warband cause I'm an Iraq Vet looking for people to fight with
Back on target, I am 100% on board with making this an equal opportunity thing, if 18 year old Johnny can go fight in the middle of nowhere for his country then so can Jane for equal pay non-the-less
I remember having a conversation with my GF about signing up for selective service and she refused to believe it even existed. I would discover that its something a lot women are not even aware of lol.
Short story over, draft everybody I say!! Dogs serve in the military, sign them up! I saw horses at Ft. Riley...there better be draft horses! Navy uses dolphins...draft'em!! India had war elephants, why don't we? Draft them!! I saw Afghans using camels, well so can the Marines...sign'em up!! The Air-Force flys and so do birds....DRAFT!!
Turtles have shells and so does artillery...I say draft!!
....except cats....no cats in the infantry I say...!!
Oh man if animals could serve, then if I were to get drafted, I'd totally bring my dog along with me! She's a 12 pound Chihuahua mix but damned if she won't fight for democracy!
No, you had to register because you're a male of the appropriate age. Your financial aid request might have asked if you've registered, or have that requirement, but you're supposed to register for the selective service as soon as you're old enough.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm all for it. Although, personally, I think they should just abolish it.
Why? Its registered mail. So if you gave an old address.....like the call up during OIF/OEF.....first batch never showed up being the address's were not current nor were they registered mailed hehe
If you need people for your imaginary Dakka army, I am qualified on almost every infantryman weapon you guys use in the US.
As for on-topic, I second the motion, for what its worth. We have female in the infantry here and while there's only 2 of them in my unit, they're pretty damn good.
We should continue to make strides to make sure that Women and men get equal pay for equal work. I will continue to support that effort. A woman can be a doctor, lawyer, whatever. However, with that equality should come the understanding that if John can be drafted next month to fight the dirty commies, so should Jane.
According to the Department of Labor (and fact checked by Politifacts) young women are now out earning men. Women under age 32 will earn 6-8% more than a man with equal education and experience. If the woman is in a STEM field she is twice as likely to be hired.
Also, I'm for all kinds of equality, even the controversial ones, like the draft......or this:
Bobthehero wrote: If you need people for your imaginary Dakka army, I am qualified on almost every infantryman weapon you guys use in the US.
As for on-topic, I second the motion, for what its worth. We have female in the infantry here and while there's only 2 of them in my unit, they're pretty damn good.
Bobthehero wrote: If you need people for your imaginary Dakka army, I am qualified on almost every infantryman weapon you guys use in the US.
As for on-topic, I second the motion, for what its worth. We have female in the infantry here and while there's only 2 of them in my unit, they're pretty damn good.
Crowe operator on the MATVE
I have no idea what this is. I can M203, Carl-G, M72, M240, M249, M4-16, 9mm.
Bobthehero wrote: If you need people for your imaginary Dakka army, I am qualified on almost every infantryman weapon you guys use in the US.
As for on-topic, I second the motion, for what its worth. We have female in the infantry here and while there's only 2 of them in my unit, they're pretty damn good.
Crowe operator on the MATVE
Edit
Cuda Cav Scout
Ouze we swap out the Javelin with AT4's
Am I a Cav Scout because of my Avatar?? LOL. I can do a drive-by on it with my Mac11 or Micro Uzi. Need a sniper? I have my .338 Lapua rifle with a 24 power scope.
We should continue to make strides to make sure that Women and men get equal pay for equal work. I will continue to support that effort. A woman can be a doctor, lawyer, whatever. However, with that equality should come the understanding that if John can be drafted next month to fight the dirty commies, so should Jane.
According to the Department of Labor (and fact checked by Politifacts) young women are now out earning men. Women under age 32 will earn 6-8% more than a man with equal education and experience. If the woman is in a STEM field she is twice as likely to be hired.
Also, I'm for all kinds of equality, even the controversial ones, like the draft......or this:
Heck yeah, it should be both - or none. My oldest registered online - got a free shaving kit from gillette go swag! My other two aren't quite old enough yet, but they will, momma will make sure.
Let's get real here gents... the reason women weren't allowed in the military for so long was not from some misguided patriarchial favoritism or desire to "protect" women... it's cuz they knew we'd kick y'all's s
Seriously though physical requirements aren't as much of an issue as people think, plenty of women can do what men can do and vice versa. Time to just realize hey, we're all human and good at different stuff not simply based on our gender but our abilities. If my eyesight hadn't kept me out, I totally would have been in the military and proudly.
We should continue to make strides to make sure that Women and men get equal pay for equal work. I will continue to support that effort. A woman can be a doctor, lawyer, whatever. However, with that equality should come the understanding that if John can be drafted next month to fight the dirty commies, so should Jane.
According to the Department of Labor (and fact checked by Politifacts) young women are now out earning men. Women under age 32 will earn 6-8% more than a man with equal education and experience. If the woman is in a STEM field she is twice as likely to be hired.
Also, I'm for all kinds of equality, even the controversial ones, like the draft......or this:
Bobthehero wrote: If you need people for your imaginary Dakka army, I am qualified on almost every infantryman weapon you guys use in the US.
As for on-topic, I second the motion, for what its worth. We have female in the infantry here and while there's only 2 of them in my unit, they're pretty damn good.
Crowe operator on the MATVE
I have no idea what this is. I can M203, Carl-G, M72, M240, M249, M4-16, 9mm.
Remote control duel serve.
Sorry Cuda you got the M4 and 9mm
Bobthehero wrote: If you need people for your imaginary Dakka army, I am qualified on almost every infantryman weapon you guys use in the US.
As for on-topic, I second the motion, for what its worth. We have female in the infantry here and while there's only 2 of them in my unit, they're pretty damn good.
Crowe operator on the MATVE
Edit
Cuda Cav Scout
Ouze we swap out the Javelin with AT4's
Don't listen to him....MATVEs are a tinfoik fart box on wheels.
Bobthehero wrote: Well I am light infantry, so I'll take anything other than myself as a method of transportation, for a change.
See if I can't make some phone calls and get you a Buffalo, only military vehicle ever made with both cush seat and spacious leg room. Its like riding in a cloud...if a cloud also doubled as a wheeled armored tugboat with a pokey robot arm.
Bobthehero wrote: If you need people for your imaginary Dakka army, I am qualified on almost every infantryman weapon you guys use in the US.
As for on-topic, I second the motion, for what its worth. We have female in the infantry here and while there's only 2 of them in my unit, they're pretty damn good.
Bob, when you say "2 of them in my unit" do you mean in your platoon, company/commando, or battalion? I started my military career as a infantryman but ended as a logistics officer ( probably long before most posters were even born
Bob,
What is your objective opinion on women in the infantry? While I've met plenty of mentally and physically tough women, in my career, which included infantry and logistics, I've never met a woman who could hump the AG gear or the baseplate for a 60mm mortar. When in logistics on our rare ruck marches, every single woman, to include those who would crush those fanatics at Cross Fit, could be found far to the rear of the weakest men. I still remain skeptical of the integrity of the standards of the most recent Ranger School graduates. While I fully expect a tiny minority of women could do this job, I'm a bit amazed you have two in your company in an Army ( Canada I presume) that is smaller than the active strength of just one major US Army base. When I trained with the Canadian Airborne Regiment in the early 90's I was truly impressed by the quality of those troops, so do not expect a "average" woman to be able to keep up.
Thanks for your time and thoughts.
Can't say I have enough time in the army to make a proper opinion, there's not a lot of them as I've said, but the two I know are now to the point where they don't carry the heavy stuff (leadership), but as far as shape goes, both those two are usually the ones giving PT to either qualified platoons or recruits. That said I wouldn't know if they're the exception. On my infantry course we had one girl who didn't finish the ruck march, but the other one managed to do it without too much troubles. I dunno if its just because there's so few women that those who fail just stand out that much more.
Of course let's be realistic here: in any situation where the draft could possibly be relevant physical ability is not going to matter. If you can hold a rifle and catch a bullet you're going into battle, because the alternative is death anyway.
Peregrine wrote: Of course let's be realistic here: in any situation where the draft could possibly be relevant physical ability is not going to matter. If you can hold a rifle and catch a bullet you're going into battle, because the alternative is death anyway.
If women are going into battle that can't keep up on a march, handle heavy equipment, or do anything on the level of strength a man has, though, chances are they will get both themselves and others injured or killed.
Isn't the whole point of the draft to add more bodies to the army and nothing to do with it's efficiency? So in those terms having a larger pool to draw from would be a "good" thing.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Isn't the whole point of the draft to add more bodies to the army and nothing to do with it's efficiency? So in those terms having a larger pool to draw from would be a "good" thing.
By that logic, people with physical disabilities should be drafted.
Relapse wrote: If women are going into battle that can't keep up on a march, handle heavy equipment, or do anything on the level of strength a man has, though, chances are they will get both themselves and others injured or killed.
That's fine. Give them a gun, throw them at the enemy, maybe they'll force the enemy to spend a bullet killing them. It's not like any of the other untrained conscripts you're throwing directly into the meat grinder are going to accomplish much more than that. You need to be thinking about real-world IG conscript hordes, not anything resembling our current military.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: By that logic, people with physical disabilities should be drafted.
Can they hold a gun? Can they at least run threateningly at the enemy and draw fire for a moment while someone else shoots the enemy? Give them a pointy stick and throw them into battle.
Peregrine wrote: Of course let's be realistic here: in any situation where the draft could possibly be relevant physical ability is not going to matter. If you can hold a rifle and catch a bullet you're going into battle, because the alternative is death anyway.
If women are going into battle that can't keep up on a march, handle heavy equipment, or do anything on the level of strength a man has, though, chances are they will get both themselves and others injured or killed.
In some circumstances, sure, though if a draft is implemented and we're taking anyone and everyone, standards are going to fall regardless and many (if not most) of the males you're likely to get aren't exactly going to be great physical specimens either, lets be honest, we saw that amongst all the armies of WW1&2, where armies were taking people they'd have laughed out of the recruitment office before the war.
If you're out of everyone else, then you're going to have to use what you can get.
There's also tons of roles that don't require a great abundance of physical prowess but might still be in front line or near front line, and with the mechanization of modern armies, long distance marches with extensive pack aren't the ubiquitous state of affairs they used to be.
I don't think anyone is advocating drafting women and immediately trying to hamfist them into Special Forces and front line infantry regiments in equal quantity to males, but if there's a draft...something has gone *very* wrong, and a physically weaker person is usually a better replacement than no person if there's no other option.
Relapse wrote: If women are going into battle that can't keep up on a march, handle heavy equipment, or do anything on the level of strength a man has, though, chances are they will get both themselves and others injured or killed.
That's fine. Give them a gun, throw them at the enemy, maybe they'll force the enemy to spend a bullet killing them. It's not like any of the other untrained conscripts you're throwing directly into the meat grinder are going to accomplish much more than that. You need to be thinking about real-world IG conscript hordes, not anything resembling our current military.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: By that logic, people with physical disabilities should be drafted.
Can they hold a gun? Can they at least run threateningly at the enemy and draw fire for a moment while someone else shoots the enemy? Give them a pointy stick and throw them into battle.
You know, as I think of it, you have something going here that's a good idea. I think we could modify the draft to include something resembling press gangs! I'm in!
Relapse wrote: You know, as I think of it, you have something going here that's a good idea. I think we could modify the draft to include something resembling press gangs! I'm in!
Exactly. That's the only situation where the draft is ever going to be used. If we aren't to the point of rounding up cannon fodder and throwing them straight into battle because it's our last desperate hope for saving anything in the radioactive wasteland that used to be our country then we're going to continue to have an all-volunteer army.
Go for it, if they're getting the right to serve in frontline units then they need to be treated 100% equally and have the potential to be drafted as well. As horribly sexist as it sounds, maybe it'll cut down on the warmongering our country gets sometimes if there's the possibility that women could be drafted into fighting it.
As peregrine puts it, the odds of us ever getting a draft that isn't an end of the world type scenario is pretty darn slim. I heard rumors of a draft being instated a while back when the USA had trouble hitting recruiting goals during the worst of the Iraq insurgency, but honestly it would've never happened unless recruiting hit such low numbers that almost nobody was walking into the recruiting offices.
What Americans Don’t Understand About Their Own Military Reinstating the draft is hardly a realistic solution to bridging the military-civilian gap in the U.S. And here's why.
One of the strangest criticisms of US security policy is that it burdens a too-small percentage of the American people, because only about 1% of the adult population serves in the military. Because such a small percent of the population is at risk in American wars, American politicians are said to feel free to send the military to fight wasteful, unwinnable, and costly wars.
The preference is apparently for conscription, which would put more of the population at risk, and supposedly lead to fewer and wiser wars. “If only the politicians’ sons or daughters were forced to serve!” is the lament.
The model is always WWII, when over 12 million Americans were in uniform—more than 15% of the adult population of the time—and a much higher percentage of the adult male population.
The burden of fighting then was supposedly widely shared. The contrast: today, fewer than 1.4 million men and women are active-duty military, and another 800,000+ are in the reserves. Given that there are about 200 million Americans between the ages of 18-65, this is just over 1% of the relevant population.
There are several problems with the argument.
Fifteen percent of 200 million would produce a military of 30 million—a bit large, one must say, for less than all-out global warfare. But even 2% produces a military of four million people; a third larger than the military on active duty during the 1960s, when the Soviet Union was being confronted globally, while a major war was being fought in Vietnam.
Each year, about four million Americans reach the age of 18. Currently, the American military needs fewer than 200,000 of them to volunteer for active duty or the reserves to maintain its numbers. With that pool, the military can insist on a high school education for enlisted personnel, and a college degree for officers. Avoided are the medically unfit, those with serious criminal records, and those who would chafe under the discipline required.
Of course, the argument isn’t that all of the age group should serve in the military. Rather it is that some form of public service should be required of all. But what would the government do with four million 18 year-olds each year?
Our hospitals, inner-city schools, and Native American reservations already have well-paid employees to do the necessary work. Political correctness would require women to face the same obligations as men. Who would be forced into the military or prison guard jobs? Could it be voluntary? Wouldn’t that be the same system we have now? Wouldn’t the rich and influential always find a way to make the service of their children career-enhancing or at least safe?
During the last year of the Second World War, there was a manpower crisis as the US found itself running out of infantry soldiers. The better-educated draftees were used in technical and support functions, or found their way into safe and draft-exempt civilian occupations.
During the Vietnam War, the draft—in effect only to feed the infantry fighting the war—was essentially voluntary as those who wanted to avoid fighting joined the Navy, found an easy disqualification, or fled the country. The current all-volunteer force allows people to choose their risk, and compensates them for it. Those who want to be in the most hazardous branches of the armed services are double or triple volunteers, having had to decide to join the military, and then having opted for its most dangerous jobs.
Some might say that all who do so are coerced by their poverty to be in the military, making the military a home for black people and others who are economically disadvantaged. African-Americans are indeed over-represented in the American military when compared to their percentage of the general population, but not of the prime relevant age group (18-24).
The military is an attractive employer, given its pay structure and post-career benefits. But minorities are over-represented in the non-combat occupations (medical services, transportation, administration, etc.); combat arms are predominantly white, attracting youths who see themselves as spending some post-high school time in an adventure-land with guns and as having no intention of making the military a career.
The volunteer military is actually better educated and less poor than the draft military, because it is smaller and more selective than the draft military. One third of American youth, heavily minority, do not complete high school, and thus make themselves largely ineligible for the military even if they wish to serve.
In fact, more than 1% of Americans are involved in America’s defense. In addition to the two plus million service personnel—the 1.4 million active duty and 800,000 plus in the reserve components—there are 800,000 plus civil service employees of the Department of Defense—people who work in military depots, defense laboratories, shipyards, and contract management offices—and five to six million (the exact number is not known) contract employees—people who build weapon systems, provide support services, and conduct defense related research.
This totals to 3-4% of the adult population. Add spouses and other family members, and you can see that not an insignificant portion of the American population is involved in defense.
One percent or eight, the interests of America’s military, defense civil servants, and defense contractors are not ignored by politicians. Bad wars aren’t the product of a military that is too easy to commit and too small to count politically. Rather, the bad wars are the result of America being the global policemen, seeking to guarantee the security of too many others—and creating the expectation that America will intervene in every dispute where force may be involved.
It isn’t that soldiers’ lives aren’t valued. Actually, the concern with their casualties has grown with time even after conscription was abolished. It is just that American presidents are expected to act—to do something when trouble starts in the Middle East, when North Korea rattles some sabers and when Russia tries to change its boundaries. Doing something often involves the deployment of ships, the use of soldiers as advisors, a missile strike, and the start of a bombing campaign. One thing leads to another, but rarely to a quick, easy victory.
A better criticism is that America has stopped paying for its wars. In the past, wars brought dedicated tax increases, and the sharing of burdens broadly among citizens—taxpayers and voters as well as the soldiers in the fight. But the global war on terror instead gave Americans tax cuts, deficits, and borrowing on a massive scale which was readily obtained from foreigners at low interest rates.
The domestic political constraints on the use of force are only casualties, and not a growing financial burden on taxpayers. The costs of wars are passed to future generations, those not yet with a vote. This is not a good development. Few citizens are warriors or need to be, but all should pay for their country’s wars.
I'm with the military on this - the presence of an all volunteer force makes a nonsense of the draft.
And looking back through the mists of time, the draft is almost unconstitutional. As I've said before, if James Madison had gotten the 2nd amendment he wanted, rather than the compromise he had to accept, then conscription and a draft would have had no place in the USA, unless the Congress/Senate, decided otherwise.
Obviously I'm aware of exceptional circumstances such as the Civil War and two World Wars, but Americans need to remember their heritage and fight this draft!*
Remember my last driver Whembly. When I say through the door you Will drive through the door.
Think we need some mortar guru's
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Equal means equal. Either everyone should register, or no one should. We don't even need to get into the argument about women in frontline combat, because we really don't need to; there are many roles in the military for women however you feel about that.
Think Ouze can handle a M4/203 and lugging a Javelin to
The real question is who gets to be JTAC.
Audition below with your best nine line brief involving a hostile bear on the roof of a Dunkin Donuts.
"Uzi 2-1! This is Finger 3-1! Type 3 in effect! Line is as follows:
Chevy!
One-Niner-Five!
5nm!
200ft MSL!
Kodiak bear!
Delta Delta Three Seven Six Two Four Four Eight!
Marked by Willy Pete!
Friendlies 1500 meters to the southeast!
Egress to Buick!
Agiel wrote: "Uzi 2-1! This is Finger 3-1! Type 3 in effect! Line is as follows:
Chevy!
One-Niner-Five!
5nm!
200ft MSL!
Kodiak bear!
Delta Delta Three Seven Six Two Four Four Eight!
Marked by Willy Pete!
Friendlies 1500 meters to the southeast!
Egress to Buick!
Use GBU-31!
Winnah Winnah Chicken Din....eerrrr MRE
Edit
Bobthehero....240 gunner...
Seaward....Admin...HQ section has now started...Jake you got your 42A
Thinking of making Mtty...our Aussie MOD....the Civil Affairs/Political Officer...wait....nvm
Ya I can do 240, even qualified with the tripod for indirect fire and gak, if you want to have my 2nd to carry something large and heavy
Town of Malus has kindly volunteer to carry all the extra ammo, tripod, spare barrel and you gold club bag of assorted mayhem. Remember to treat him better then your last assistant.
There really wasn't a reason not to add women to the draft, even before the current "everybody is equal" drive.
Even in a "only men are man enough to fight, and women should only support" mindset military it would have made sense to add women a long time ago. That way you can draft women into all the support positions, which would free up the men to serve in combat positions. I don't know how it was done during previous drafts, but I imagine that once we get to the point of drafting people we are past the point of "you only have to serve in a job you like".
Thinking of making Mtty...our Aussie MOD....the Civil Affairs/Political Officer...wait....nvm
Please no. They were always the most boring sods, their presentations sucked. Them and the legal people. I'll do anything else, I'll even carry the Wagtail.
Thinking of making Mtty...our Aussie MOD....the Civil Affairs/Political Officer...wait....nvm
Please no. They were always the most boring sods, their presentations sucked. Them and the legal people. I'll do anything else, I'll even carry the Wagtail.
Damn you......what's a Wagtail? I might have a special....additional duty for Wagtail..
Thinking of making Mtty...our Aussie MOD....the Civil Affairs/Political Officer...wait....nvm
Please no. They were always the most boring sods, their presentations sucked. Them and the legal people. I'll do anything else, I'll even carry the Wagtail.
Damn you......what's a Wagtail? I might have a special....additional duty for Wagtail..
The radio. It has a long antenna and won't shut the hell up, like the wagtail (a bird). I'm volunteering to be the sig pig ha.
Thinking of making Mtty...our Aussie MOD....the Civil Affairs/Political Officer...wait....nvm
Please no. They were always the most boring sods, their presentations sucked. Them and the legal people. I'll do anything else, I'll even carry the Wagtail.
Damn you......what's a Wagtail? I might have a special....additional duty for Wagtail..
The radio. It has a long antenna and won't shut the hell up, like the wagtail (a bird). I'm volunteering to be the sig pig ha.
Motty is Commo...He's be in the other MATVE
\
For Gawdsake...never forget this
Let's see the entire Platoon drop their Fills in one hour...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm with the military on this - the presence of an all volunteer force makes a nonsense of the draft.
The draft is supposedly for a worst-case WWIII type scenario where they need soldiers faster than volunteerism can supply. It shouldn't be tossed just because we currently don't need it.
Breotan wrote: The draft is supposedly for a worst-case WWIII type scenario where they need soldiers faster than volunteerism can supply. It shouldn't be tossed just because we currently don't need it.
It's not just that we don't currently need it, it's that there's no plausible situation where we could possibly need it in the future. A WWIII type situation will be resolved within a few hours, and in the unlikely event that there is an opportunity to recruit new soldiers the entire structure of the draft will no longer be functioning.
Breotan wrote: The draft is supposedly for a worst-case WWIII type scenario where they need soldiers faster than volunteerism can supply. It shouldn't be tossed just because we currently don't need it.
It's not just that we don't currently need it, it's that there's no plausible situation where we could possibly need it in the future. A WWIII type situation will be resolved within a few hours, and in the unlikely event that there is an opportunity to recruit new soldiers the entire structure of the draft will no longer be functioning.
That's only true if the WWIII type situation is nuclear. While that should definitely be considered a possibility and might even be the most likely scenario, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that a WWIII type scenario necessarily would not escalate to a highly kinetic conventional level, but fall short of going nuclear. If we're considering future possibilities and courses of action to respond to those possibilities, we have to consider possibilities that may be less likely but not less (and potentially, even more) problematic. It would not be prudent to ignore the possibility of a shooting war with a near-peer enemy that doesn't involve nuclear weapons.
Hordini wrote: That's only true if the WWIII type situation is nuclear. While that should definitely be considered a possibility and might even be the most likely scenario, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that a WWIII type scenario necessarily would not escalate to a highly kinetic conventional level, but fall short of going nuclear. If we're considering future possibilities and courses of action to respond to those possibilities, we have to consider possibilities that may be less likely but not less (and potentially, even more) problematic. It would not be prudent to ignore the possibility of a shooting war with a near-peer enemy that doesn't involve nuclear weapons.
The problem is that a WWIII-type situation is almost guaranteed to be nuclear. No major power is capable of invading the US, and even if we magically teleport an enemy army into the middle of the US the kind of desperate attrition warfare where the draft could become relevant is exactly the kind of situation where escalation to nuclear warfare is most likely. Tactical nuclear weapons would be used on the invasion force, and at that point it's a pretty small step to ICBMs. And that's assuming the attacker doesn't use them first. If you want an even remotely plausible scenario for an invasion of the US it starts with a massive nuclear attack to wipe out the defending forces that would otherwise turn the invasion into a mass suicide.
Plus, the entire premise of having massive strategic arsenals is deterrence: if you invade me I remove you from the map. If you allow an invasion to stay non-nuclear then you've entirely removed the credibility of your deterrent. You might as well not have those nukes at all if you aren't prepared to use them, since at least then nobody is going to take your failure to use them as a sign of weakness and nuke you off the map just to remove you as a nuclear threat to their country.
cuda1179 wrote: Don't anyone DARE stomp on my visions of living a real-life Red Dawn scenario.
We talking the one with Swayze or we talking the about the sorry piece of *$^&#)% of the remake?
Swayze of course. I don't need to idolize an ex Disney actor from Josh and Drake.
Also, what if WWIII didn't start anywhere near the US. I mean, we DO have a history of jumping in when our allies need us. Hypothetically, a China / Japan/ Philippine conflict could start over who owns islands in the South China sea. That could easily spark North Korea to start crap with the South. Then we have two allies that need us in the same geographic area.
cuda1179 wrote: Also, what if WWIII didn't start anywhere near the US. I mean, we DO have a history of jumping in when our allies need us. Hypothetically, a China / Japan/ Philippine conflict could start over who owns islands in the South China sea. That could easily spark North Korea to start crap with the South. Then we have two allies that need us in the same geographic area.
In that case North Korea gets squashed like a bug, because nobody actually likes them and they're only tolerated as long as they don't do anything to become more than a minor annoyance. Then China and the US work out their differences, because both sides know that the US can't invade China, the US navy can sink any invasion force attempting to start problems away from China, and both sides have close economic ties that are worth more than some random specks of dirt in the middle of the ocean.
And of course this is exactly the kind of situation where the draft is political suicide. Vietnam already demonstrated that we don't want a draft to go fight a war in some country half the population can't even find on a map. Even if there somehow is a war there won't be a draft to support it.
Hordini wrote: That's only true if the WWIII type situation is nuclear. While that should definitely be considered a possibility and might even be the most likely scenario, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that a WWIII type scenario necessarily would not escalate to a highly kinetic conventional level, but fall short of going nuclear. If we're considering future possibilities and courses of action to respond to those possibilities, we have to consider possibilities that may be less likely but not less (and potentially, even more) problematic. It would not be prudent to ignore the possibility of a shooting war with a near-peer enemy that doesn't involve nuclear weapons.
The problem is that a WWIII-type situation is almost guaranteed to be nuclear. No major power is capable of invading the US, and even if we magically teleport an enemy army into the middle of the US the kind of desperate attrition warfare where the draft could become relevant is exactly the kind of situation where escalation to nuclear warfare is most likely. Tactical nuclear weapons would be used on the invasion force, and at that point it's a pretty small step to ICBMs. And that's assuming the attacker doesn't use them first. If you want an even remotely plausible scenario for an invasion of the US it starts with a massive nuclear attack to wipe out the defending forces that would otherwise turn the invasion into a mass suicide.
Plus, the entire premise of having massive strategic arsenals is deterrence: if you invade me I remove you from the map. If you allow an invasion to stay non-nuclear then you've entirely removed the credibility of your deterrent. You might as well not have those nukes at all if you aren't prepared to use them, since at least then nobody is going to take your failure to use them as a sign of weakness and nuke you off the map just to remove you as a nuclear threat to their country.
I agree with you if you are starting with the assumption that a WWIII-type situation would involve an invasion of the US. However, there are potential scenarios in which the US could be drawn into a war that doesn't require the US being invaded. It is also possible that a country would not escalate to nuclear weapons in an invasion if they are both trying to keep their territory from being nuked and if they believe they are capable of defeating or repelling the invasion by conventional means.
Humans aren't always rational and only make reasoned, informed choices so the idea that it wouldn't happen is a bit silly when we know that people act in a way contrary to what is considered reasonable. After WWI it was though for awhile that war wouldn't happen again because of how awful it was but we have had several since then including WWII. I would like to think it won't happen but I can't pretend it is impossible since history and consideration show us otherwise.
Ahtman wrote: Humans aren't always rational and only make reasoned, informed choices so the idea that it wouldn't happen is a bit silly when we know that people act in a way contrary to what is considered reasonable. After WWI it was though for awhile that war wouldn't happen again because of how awful it was but we have had several since then including WWII. I would like to think it won't happen but I can't pretend it is impossible since history and consideration show us otherwise.
I'm absolutely not pretending that it's not possible, it certainly is. My point is, we shouldn't prepare for only the most likely possibility if there are other possibilities that are equally or potentially even more dangerous and could still very feasibly occur.
Hordini wrote: I agree with you if you are starting with the assumption that a WWIII-type situation would involve an invasion of the US. However, there are potential scenarios in which the US could be drawn into a war that doesn't require the US being invaded.
And if such a war happens the draft will be political suicide. Vietnam Part II is not going to happen, if whatever random welfare program for the weapons industry we happen to be fighting threatens to turn into a real war the overwhelming opinion is going to be "screw Iraq/Iran/whatever other country most Americans can't even find on a map, my kids aren't getting drafted for this".
It is also possible that a country would not escalate to nuclear weapons in an invasion if they are both trying to keep their territory from being nuked and if they believe they are capable of defeating or repelling the invasion by conventional means.
That's what strategic nukes are for. "Remove your troops from my country or I'll remove you from the map".
Hordini wrote: I'm absolutely not pretending that it's not possible, it certainly is. My point is, we shouldn't prepare for only the most likely possibility if there are other possibilities that are equally or potentially even more dangerous and could still very feasibly occur.
I was talking in general about the possibility and not meaning to refer to any specific post or poster.
Hordini wrote: I agree with you if you are starting with the assumption that a WWIII-type situation would involve an invasion of the US. However, there are potential scenarios in which the US could be drawn into a war that doesn't require the US being invaded.
And if such a war happens the draft will be political suicide. Vietnam Part II is not going to happen, if whatever random welfare program for the weapons industry we happen to be fighting threatens to turn into a real war the overwhelming opinion is going to be "screw Iraq/Iran/whatever other country most Americans can't even find on a map, my kids aren't getting drafted for this".
It is also possible that a country would not escalate to nuclear weapons in an invasion if they are both trying to keep their territory from being nuked and if they believe they are capable of defeating or repelling the invasion by conventional means.
That's what strategic nukes are for. "Remove your troops from my country or I'll remove you from the map".
I think it would be possible to get the American people to support the fight long enough to get pulled into it, if it was in conjunction with either an attack on American soil, or an attack on a significant US asset, such as the sinking of a US warship or something like that.
And the problem with strategic nukes is, once you drop one on the invading enemy's country, they have no more reason to stop from nuking you. To be clear, I'm not saying that what you are suggesting is not plausible, or even a likely possibility in that situation, because it is certainly both of those things. But again, it is still feasible that both belligerents might try to conduct and repel an invasion by conventional means if they both believe that they have the capacity to do so. While we can and should prioritize, it would be unwise to put all of our eggs into one basket with the assumption that one course of action is the definite one, particularly when there are other feasible possibilities that require different resources to deal with.
Hordini wrote: I'm absolutely not pretending that it's not possible, it certainly is. My point is, we shouldn't prepare for only the most likely possibility if there are other possibilities that are equally or potentially even more dangerous and could still very feasibly occur.
I was talking in general about the possibility and not meaning to refer to any specific post or poster.
How about the possibility of a widespread, convert biological attack? Some foreign national hostile to the US immunizes themselves against an airborne disease. They then strategically infect a dozen US cities. The disease causes massive quarantine zones, possibly with infected military within, but definitely military outside keeping containment.
At that point (with no known target) the US military could be massively understaffed without any major force directly engaging it.
Thinking of making Mtty...our Aussie MOD....the Civil Affairs/Political Officer...wait....nvm
Please no. They were always the most boring sods, their presentations sucked. Them and the legal people. I'll do anything else, I'll even carry the Wagtail.
Damn you......what's a Wagtail? I might have a special....additional duty for Wagtail..
The radio. It has a long antenna and won't shut the hell up, like the wagtail (a bird). I'm volunteering to be the sig pig ha.
Motty is Commo...He's be in the other MATVE
\
For Gawdsake...never forget this
Let's see the entire Platoon drop their Fills in one hour...
I had one of my SST's head out on a 7 day patrol, forget to bring a CYZ-10 and they dropped crypto on the 1st day. I chewed them a handful of new buttholes when they came back.
Hordini wrote: I agree with you if you are starting with the assumption that a WWIII-type situation would involve an invasion of the US. However, there are potential scenarios in which the US could be drawn into a war that doesn't require the US being invaded.
And if such a war happens the draft will be political suicide. Vietnam Part II is not going to happen,
.
Except it already did. It was called Iraq and the draft was certainly talked about at points, hence all the stop-loss shenanigans. If things had gone a bit worse there and say Syria and Iran got involved in 2006ish, there probably would have been a draft. I agree with you that it would be political suicide though.
I have no issue with females having to sign up for Selective Service. But the caveat that if they are called up, they have the same exemptions as males (no special considerations), and birth control/enforced childlessness should be mandatory during their time of service.
I have no issue with females having to sign up for Selective Service. But the caveat that if they are called up, they have the same exemptions as males (no special considerations), and birth control/enforced childlessness should be mandatory during their time of service.
The instant win on the get out of deployment lottery. Works every time.
s
Seriously though physical requirements aren't as much of an issue as people think, plenty of women can do what men can do and vice versa. Time to just realize hey, we're all human and good at different stuff not simply based on our gender but our abilities. If my eyesight hadn't kept me out, I totally would have been in the military and proudly.
\
