Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I thought the last time we implemented a draft we learned that there were few advantages to fighting a war using people who didn't want to be there.

daedalus wrote:I thought the last time we implemented a draft we learned that there were few advantages to fighting a war using people who didn't want to be there.

Really? What were they?

I think a year's national service at the end of school would do wonders for a lot of the wasters I currently work with. And would have done wonders for me, too.

AustonT wrote:

daedalus wrote:I thought the last time we implemented a draft we learned that there were few advantages to fighting a war using people who didn't want to be there.

Really? What were they?

Uh, well, I guess it gives you bullet-catchers. At least for a while. Though if your populace is unwilling to fight a war, that's a pretty solid indication you probably shouldn't be involved in it.

I wasn't opposed to the idea when it was being tossed around in 2001-2002 by the government and I'm not opposed now. As long as the option for civil service is provided and it's not strictly military service I can see a lot of benefits to the system.

I think young people would benefit from military-style discipline and levelling. It might also give one a 'stake' in society and an understanding of citizenship.

Military service doesn't necessarily have to be in a frontline capacity; there could be military labour, relief services, ambulances, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus wrote:

AustonT wrote:

daedalus wrote:I thought the last time we implemented a draft we learned that there were few advantages to fighting a war using people who didn't want to be there.

Really? What were they?

Uh, well, I guess it gives you bullet-catchers. At least for a while. Though if your populace is unwilling to fight a war, that's a pretty solid indication you probably shouldn't be involved in it.

Civilians turn against wars the moment the body bags come home.

While it may work for other countries, it's a terrible idea for the U.S. First off, there's too many people. If there is anything left of the government to bankrupt, we'd bankrupt it in under 5 years. Second, because of the overwhelming distrust of the government by the populace, and because of U.S. culture in general, it would not go down well with the citizenry. I see riots. Big riots.

daedalus wrote:

AustonT wrote:

daedalus wrote:I thought the last time we implemented a draft we learned that there were few advantages to fighting a war using people who didn't want to be there.

Really? What were they?

Uh, well, I guess it gives you bullet-catchers. At least for a while. Though if your populace is unwilling to fight a war, that's a pretty solid indication you probably shouldn't be involved in it.

So you just made that up, somehow I thought you were serious and instead you returned with white shields. I'm disappointed.

AustonT wrote:

daedalus wrote:

AustonT wrote:

daedalus wrote:I thought the last time we implemented a draft we learned that there were few advantages to fighting a war using people who didn't want to be there.

Really? What were they?

Uh, well, I guess it gives you bullet-catchers. At least for a while. Though if your populace is unwilling to fight a war, that's a pretty solid indication you probably shouldn't be involved in it.

So you just made that up, somehow I thought you were serious and instead you returned with white shields. I'm disappointed.

It was an attempt to be disingenuous, as we've not done it since or really talked about it . Clearly, it wasn't a good one.

I'm sure there must have been a few advantages to it, otherwise we wouldn't have done it. I mean, surely the ones in charge of such things know what they're doing, right?

Also, I'm disappointed. Serious has no place in OT.

Henners91 wrote:
Civilians turn against wars the moment the body bags come home.

Not always, civilian support for WWII was quite high.

daedalus wrote:
It was an attempt to be disingenuous, as we've not done it since or really talked about it . Clearly, it wasn't a good one.

I'm sure there must have been a few advantages to it, otherwise we wouldn't have done it. I mean, surely the ones in charge of such things know what they're doing, right?

Also, I'm disappointed. Serious has no place in OT.

You're claiming politicians know what they are doing; that's a dark road.
The advantage of the draft when we instituted it in the world wars was our military grew from a tiny standing force to a millions strong Juggernaut. Outside warm bodies there's not a whole lot of advantages that I know of, I was genuinely wondering if there were any.

I think somebody has been reading starship troopers again
Anyway, I don't understand this notion that by serving your country, you're morally superior to somebody that doesn't. There is a big difference between law and justice. I hate to envoke Godwin's law? but SS members were serving their country. Does that make it right?
Similary, if you think about it, what right did the US have in stationing troops in Vietnam, or conscripting average joes to be killed in the jungle. Was there a risk of invaion to the US mainland from Vietnam? Ditto anything to do with Britain's empire.
As I mentioned earlier, it's not the 1770s, but the idea of a standing army was frowned upon by your founding fathers, hence the whole 2nd amendment thing, which produces the modern paradox of right wing people supporting the army but supporting the right to have weapons.
As a result, I am surprised at the level of support for consciption/national service from the American posters on this site.

I don't think a single American posting in this thread said anything that would remotely suggest that they were a supporter of compulsory military service. The only people who would even want that are warhawks who are in a position of power that would allow them to avoid serving. I'm pretty sure active duty servicemen and women don't want the military to be full of unmotivated shitbags pulled off the street.

Amaya wrote:I don't think a single American posting in this thread said anything that would remotely suggest that they were a supporter of compulsory military service. The only people who would even want that are warhawks who are in a position of power that would allow them to avoid serving. I'm pretty sure active duty servicemen and women don't want the military to be full of unmotivated shitbags pulled off the street.

Of course, if you look at politicians and pundits supporting a return of the draft in the US, you are gonna find they are predominantly left wing types... Unless that is what you meant by warhawks of course.

CptJake wrote:

Amaya wrote:I don't think a single American posting in this thread said anything that would remotely suggest that they were a supporter of compulsory military service. The only people who would even want that are warhawks who are in a position of power that would allow them to avoid serving. I'm pretty sure active duty servicemen and women don't want the military to be full of unmotivated shitbags pulled off the street.

Of course, if you look at politicians and pundits supporting a return of the draft in the US, you are gonna find they are predominantly left wing types... Unless that is what you meant by warhawks of course.

Really? I didn't think anyone seriously supported a draft at all. I was just referring to the oddball extremist who wants Imperial America.


Liberals...supporting the draft...the only way I can even try to understand that is that they want to ruin the military...

Especially during the Iraq war a BUNCH of Democratic politicians and their pundits tried to bring back the draft in hopes it would 'end the war'.

They saw the anti-war/anti-draft movement of the 60s and 70's as a model. Charlie Rangle tried to get it through the House a couple times if I remember correctly.

Amaya wrote:I don't think a single American posting in this thread said anything that would remotely suggest that they were a supporter of compulsory military service. The only people who would even want that are warhawks who are in a position of power that would allow them to avoid serving. I'm pretty sure active duty servicemen and women don't want the military to be full of unmotivated shitbags pulled off the street.

Don't mind the flag you see to your left. I am still an american and I support compulsory military service. see previous post for reason.

daedalus wrote:

AustonT wrote:

daedalus wrote:I thought the last time we implemented a draft we learned that there were few advantages to fighting a war using people who didn't want to be there.

Really? What were they?

Uh, well, I guess it gives you bullet-catchers. At least for a while. Though if your populace is unwilling to fight a war, that's a pretty solid indication you probably shouldn't be involved in it.

Show me when a populace is willing to fight a war, and I'll show you a country that we need to be worried about. No country should ever want to fight a war. They should be prepared for it when it is necessary, but it doesn't mean they should want it to happen.

As I'm currently serving in an all volunteer military, I would like to see it stay as such. I already work with a bunch of people who don't want to be here, I don't need anymore. You will get better service from those who want to, then those who are forced to.

There are times when it may be necessary, in the event of another World War, or something along those lines, but I honestly feel that there are very few threats that America will face in the near future that could require a new draft.

In addition to the fact that conscription would probably decrease average unit effectiveness there is the issue of even implementing the draft.

Mandatory service is a piss poor idea in my opinion (for obvious reasons).

Henners91 wrote:I think young people would benefit from military-style discipline and levelling. It might also give one a 'stake' in society and an understanding of citizenship.

Military service doesn't necessarily have to be in a frontline capacity; there could be military labour, relief services, ambulances, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus wrote:

AustonT wrote:

daedalus wrote:I thought the last time we implemented a draft we learned that there were few advantages to fighting a war using people who didn't want to be there.

Really? What were they?

Uh, well, I guess it gives you bullet-catchers. At least for a while. Though if your populace is unwilling to fight a war, that's a pretty solid indication you probably shouldn't be involved in it.

Civilians turn against wars the moment the body bags come home.

I totally agree. Show me where to vote; and I'll do my part to ensure it happens tomorrow.
Alot of America's youth may actually find a purpose in life (meatshield?) . Besides; can you imagine the lively facebook posts then?
*GIguy: Stupid drill sgt made me crawl thru mud and scream today. Lame.
SgtPain411: Private, did you forget about my "friend" status? NOW PUSH UNTIL I GET TIRED!!!

gregor_xenos wrote:I totally agree. Show me where to vote; and I'll do my part to ensure it happens tomorrow.
Alot of America's youth may actually find a purpose in life (meatshield?) . Besides; can you imagine the lively facebook posts then?
*GIguy: Stupid drill sgt made me crawl thru mud and scream today. Lame.
SgtPain411: Private, did you forget about my "friend" status? NOW PUSH UNTIL I GET TIRED!!!

Which is exactly why NO ONE that I work with is on my friends list, even if I am actually friends with them.

Amaya wrote:It depends. I can understand why Israel does it, but I believe a volunteer service is typically superior to a conscripted one.

I'll bet you scandinavian conscripts (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) are superior to your US volunteer soldiers in education, training and professionalism.
But yes, i agree its dependant on what conscript you look at, or what part of the world.

Bla_Ze wrote:

Amaya wrote:It depends. I can understand why Israel does it, but I believe a volunteer service is typically superior to a conscripted one.

I'll bet you scandinavian conscripts (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) are superior to your US volunteer soldiers in education, training and professionalism.
But yes, i agree its dependant on what conscript you look at, or what part of the world.

I should have known nationalistic bravado would come into this eventually. There is no evidence that any Scandinavian military is any form superior to the military of the UK and the USA. I will grant that Scandinavian forces probably have higher physical standards or at least the average serviceman/woman is in a better shape.

Bla_Ze wrote:

Amaya wrote:It depends. I can understand why Israel does it, but I believe a volunteer service is typically superior to a conscripted one.

I'll bet you scandinavian conscripts (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) are superior to your US volunteer soldiers in education, training and professionalism.
But yes, i agree its dependant on what conscript you look at, or what part of the world.

Put your E-peen away please.

Bla_Ze wrote:

Amaya wrote:It depends. I can understand why Israel does it, but I believe a volunteer service is typically superior to a conscripted one.

I'll bet you scandinavian conscripts (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) are superior to your US volunteer soldiers in education, training and professionalism.
But yes, i agree its dependant on what conscript you look at, or what part of the world.

Having met my equivilent members in said militaries and many more at conferences and excersizes allow me to disabuse you of that notion. They perform to the level one would commonly expect of part time and compulsory troops. Like the National Guard.
However Danish officers are required to spend an enlistment before entering their academy so they are generally both better trained and more capable than their American counterparts that came directly to officer producing programs from the civilian population.

I would be on board with everyone having to do a year as part of the national guard of their state. Then stop deploying the national guard overseas. Fill some sandbags in flood zones, dig some ditches, learn how to use a weapon properly, use a goddamned map and compass, learn a few survival basics and some discipline. Not go to actual war unless it's y'know, an actual war.

Bromsy wrote:I would be on board with everyone having to do a year as part of the national guard of their state. Then stop deploying the national guard overseas. Fill some sandbags in flood zones, dig some ditches, learn how to use a weapon properly, use a goddamned map and compass, learn a few survival basics and some discipline. Not go to actual war unless it's y'know, an actual war.

Do you have any idea how expensive that is? I think sending a recruit through boot alone is upwards of $40,000 and the longest one of those is only 13 weeks.

AustonT wrote:Having met my equivilent members in said militaries and many more at conferences and excersizes allow me to disabuse you of that notion..

And what part did you disagree with? That scandinavians are better educated? That they place better in military competitions?(probably not conscripted personel per se) That they certinaly have a more professional image during engagements?

US/UK troops are indeed a better fighting force, but i never questioned that.

Amaya wrote:

Bromsy wrote:I would be on board with everyone having to do a year as part of the national guard of their state. Then stop deploying the national guard overseas. Fill some sandbags in flood zones, dig some ditches, learn how to use a weapon properly, use a goddamned map and compass, learn a few survival basics and some discipline. Not go to actual war unless it's y'know, an actual war.

Do you have any idea how expensive that is? I think sending a recruit through boot alone is upwards of $40,000 and the longest one of those is only 13 weeks.

Yup, this is of course only a small part of my multilayered plan, another major aspect of which would be returning us to a natural, pillaging based economy.