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.

US Armed Forces: Senate Approves 1st Bill Requiring Women to Register for Military Draft
The bill approved Tuesday requires women who turn 18 on or after Jan. 1, 2018, to register for Selective Service as men currently do. The draft has not been used since 1973 during the Vietnam War.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/15/politics/senate-approves-women-draft/index.html

Good. Equal means equal. Will help quell some of the issues felt by males serving in combat jobs that are now allowing women in.

Equal rights mean equal responsibilities.

 Ouze wrote:
Equal rights mean equal responsibilities.

Indeed.

Note, that it doesn't necessarily mean they'll be thrown to the front line... there are plenty of non-combatant roles.

 Ouze wrote:
Equal rights mean equal responsibilities.

Yup. Personally I think they should toss the whole thing, but this is a step I like.

If Starship Troopers is anything to go by, it will make showering in the Army a much more enjoyable experience for all.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Equal rights mean equal responsibilities.

Indeed.

Note, that it doesn't necessarily mean they'll be thrown to the front line... there are plenty of non-combatant roles.

well women have been fighting for the right to serve in combat roles.

Asterios wrote:
US Armed Forces: Senate Approves 1st Bill Requiring Women to Register for Military Draft
The bill approved Tuesday requires women who turn 18 on or after Jan. 1, 2018, to register for Selective Service as men currently do. The draft has not been used since 1973 during the Vietnam War.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/15/politics/senate-approves-women-draft/index.html

Both of mine will run for the border at the wiff of a draft. My family has had enough dying for rich people thank you very much.

Asterios wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Equal rights mean equal responsibilities.

Indeed.

Note, that it doesn't necessarily mean they'll be thrown to the front line... there are plenty of non-combatant roles.

well women have been fighting for the right to serve in combat roles.

If they have that desire and have the training... why couldn't they?

 whembly wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Equal rights mean equal responsibilities.

Indeed.

Note, that it doesn't necessarily mean they'll be thrown to the front line... there are plenty of non-combatant roles.

well women have been fighting for the right to serve in combat roles.

If they have that desire and have the training... why couldn't they?

Nothing i've seen many women who would do much better in combat then a lot of men would.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Equal rights mean equal responsibilities.

Yup. Personally I think they should toss the whole thing, but this is a step I like.

Well, sure. Our military has shown that a volunteer army tends to be better than conscripts. However, I think it's best to leave the draft on the books for some eventuality we can't easily anticipate.

 Frazzled wrote:

Asterios wrote:
US Armed Forces: Senate Approves 1st Bill Requiring Women to Register for Military Draft
The bill approved Tuesday requires women who turn 18 on or after Jan. 1, 2018, to register for Selective Service as men currently do. The draft has not been used since 1973 during the Vietnam War.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/15/politics/senate-approves-women-draft/index.html

Both of mine will run for the border at the wiff of a draft. My family has had enough dying for rich people thank you very much.

I have the wonderful thing of being a UU, so conscientious objector all the way.

 Frazzled wrote:

Asterios wrote:
US Armed Forces: Senate Approves 1st Bill Requiring Women to Register for Military Draft
The bill approved Tuesday requires women who turn 18 on or after Jan. 1, 2018, to register for Selective Service as men currently do. The draft has not been used since 1973 during the Vietnam War.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/15/politics/senate-approves-women-draft/index.html

Both of mine will run for the border at the wiff of a draft. My family has had enough dying for rich people thank you very much.

Can you guys run to the south border this time? With Quitbec we had enough draft dodgers.

 Ouze wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Equal rights mean equal responsibilities.

Yup. Personally I think they should toss the whole thing, but this is a step I like.

Well, sure. Our military has shown that a volunteer army tends to be better than conscripts. However, I think it's best to leave the draft on the books for some eventuality we can't easily anticipate.

the Draft is a necessary evil, it helps facilitate emergency reserves of needed troops if the need ever arises.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Asterios wrote:
US Armed Forces: Senate Approves 1st Bill Requiring Women to Register for Military Draft
The bill approved Tuesday requires women who turn 18 on or after Jan. 1, 2018, to register for Selective Service as men currently do. The draft has not been used since 1973 during the Vietnam War.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/15/politics/senate-approves-women-draft/index.html

Both of mine will run for the border at the wiff of a draft. My family has had enough dying for rich people thank you very much.

Can you guys run to the south border this time? With Quitbec we had enough draft dodgers.

always got a kick out of this:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/draft-dodger-memorial-to-be-built-in-b-c-1.492954

but also heard the memorial was canceled.

It's a month old, but maybe we can add this to the previous discussion?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/690780.page

Since this is another further step towards total equality, the only people I can see getting upset by this are those who hate equality between men and women.

 d-usa wrote:
It's a month old, but maybe we can add this to the previous discussion?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/690780.page

I'd say no since that one is more query while this one is more of a statement and/or declaration.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Since this is another further step towards total equality, the only people I can see getting upset by this are those who hate equality between men and women.

wasnt there a statistic showing that a groups effectiveness drops when women where added to the unit?

So is 5 units at 60% effective better then 3 units at 100% effective?

I may be wrong tho and since I am on a tablet, I cant find the stat myself right now.

 feeder wrote:
If Starship Troopers is anything to go by, it will make showering in the Army a much more enjoyable experience for all.

If the women in the military only looked like Denise Richards.

 Monkey Tamer wrote:

 feeder wrote:
If Starship Troopers is anything to go by, it will make showering in the Army a much more enjoyable experience for all.

If the women in the military only looked like Denise Richards.

Yes, or Dina Meyer (mmm, redheads....*drools*)

To be fair though, not a lot of guys in the Army look like Casper Van Dien , either

The next step is they need to get rid of the Double standards for physical fitness. I don't think you should be allowed to be slower, weaker and less agile just because you own a vagina.

Asterios wrote:
the Draft is a necessary evil, it helps facilitate emergency reserves of needed troops if the need ever arises.

And the need will never arise within the foreseeable future.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
the Draft is a necessary evil, it helps facilitate emergency reserves of needed troops if the need ever arises.

And the need will never arise within the foreseeable future.

Why you say that?

Vietnam happened...

I think this is a wrong move, and not because woman are included, but IMO, the concept of a draft is anti-American, anti-founding fathers and may even be anti-constitutional, as it goes against the sprit of the 2nd amendment.

As a result of that thread on the 9th circuit, I've been re-visting my American history books, especially those regarding the drafting of the bill of rights etc etc

I know I've banged the James Madison drum before, and I'm banging the Alexander Hamilton drum as well, but it's clear from their letters that militias are the backbone of American defence, with particualr emphasis on volunteers.

We all know that the rebels had just defeated one standing army, and we know that the militia concept fell out of favour during the war of 1812, and we know that the fathers drew inspiration from the old volunteer watchmen in England who guarded their towns, but none the less, the point is this:

Madison and others thought that if people were serious about defending the republic, freedom, democracy etc etc you wouldn't have to force a man or woman, to fight to defend his/her nation. Their love of freedom would negate any draft or conscription.

It's a dominant and recurring theme, and I know that 2 world wars changed America for ever, but the 2nd amendment, the mention of militias, and so on, shows the original intent:

Volunteers ready to put their lives on the line because they love their freedom and democratic traditions.

That's why I think this draft is wrong and un-American...

I'd rather they got rid of the draft, but I had always said if women want equal rights, then they need to be willing to accept the risk of dying for those rights.

 whembly wrote:
Why you say that?

Vietnam happened...

And your largely conscripted forces worked wonders and handily won the war in record time and totally didn't cause your country to tear itself apart politically and socially, leaving tens of thousands of veterans with little to no support for the trauma they had sustained. Vietnam was a clusterfeth of organisation that shouldn't have needed to draft soldiers.

There is no real need for selective service/draft registration. The government already knows where pretty much everyone is and who they are. If they really need to gather up some cannon fodder, they will not have difficulty in reinstating a draft.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I think this is a wrong move, and not because woman are included, but IMO, the concept of a draft is anti-American, anti-founding fathers and may even be anti-constitutional, as it goes against the sprit of the 2nd amendment.

As a result of that thread on the 9th circuit, I've been re-visting my American history books, especially those regarding the drafting of the bill of rights etc etc

I know I've banged the James Madison drum before, and I'm banging the Alexander Hamilton drum as well, but it's clear from their letters that militias are the backbone of American defence, with particualr emphasis on volunteers.

We all know that the rebels had just defeated one standing army, and we know that the militia concept fell out of favour during the war of 1812, and we know that the fathers drew inspiration from the old volunteer watchmen in England who guarded their towns, but none the less, the point is this:

Madison and others thought that if people were serious about defending the republic, freedom, democracy etc etc you wouldn't have to force a man or woman, to fight to defend his/her nation. Their love of freedom would negate any draft or conscription.

It's a dominant and recurring theme, and I know that 2 world wars changed America for ever, but the 2nd amendment, the mention of militias, and so on, shows the original intent:

Volunteers ready to put their lives on the line because they love their freedom and democratic traditions.

That's why I think this draft is wrong and un-American...

as a constitutionalist, I very much find your thoughts intriguing. However, in today's day and age, the number that would be willing to volunteer would be a much lower percentage than it was during the revolution. Even if another country invaded the US, there would be alot of people, hiding i n bunkers expecting others to do the work for them. Read through these forums, you will see a small demographic that helps back that point up. Unfortunately it is extremely hard to back that up with real data, but look at the polls of people that say they would sign up in the Army now. It is still just the less than 1% of the population volunteering to do so now, and lets face it, not all of them can meet the minimum requirements. Obesity being a very huge problem.

So is the draft necessary to sign up for, I very much think so. Should it be used, only if the poop hits a very big titan sized fan.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Why you say that?

Vietnam happened...

And your largely conscripted forces worked wonders and handily won the war in record time and totally didn't cause your country to tear itself apart politically and socially, leaving tens of thousands of veterans with little to no support for the trauma they had sustained. Vietnam was a clusterfeth of organisation that shouldn't have needed to draft soldiers.

There is no real need for selective service/draft registration. The government already knows where pretty much everyone is and who they are. If they really need to gather up some cannon fodder, they will not have difficulty in reinstating a draft.

Indeed. the selective service registration is utterly stupid. The Boy had to sign up, but they already had his information from the high school. As soon as he went off to college the registration was worthless (although I am sure the government has lists of where they are at).

We have had a draft for five wars I believe (WWI, WWII, ACW, Korea, Vietnam) of those wars the rich could avoid the draft in at least three of them. The rich will not be part of any draft in the future.

problem is I see the draft happening sooner then later with all thats happening lately, this country has lost touch with its roots and what it means to be American, when you can have individuals from a foreign nation on American soil burning the American flag while waving a foreign nations flag, that is just so wrong on so many levels and it begs the question where will it end? war is coming to this country sooner rather then later, the question is what will spark that war? as to Vietnam, yes it was a cluster feck, but look at previous war like WW II the draft wasn't needed (but still used), people were lining up to register for the war. ever since world war II this country has been losing its Americanism and Nationality.

 whembly wrote:
Why you say that?

Vietnam happened...

Vietnam was not a need, it was a want. If we had ignored Vietnam entirely it would have meant nothing for our survival as a nation. It just would have made it harder to implement our foreign policy agenda. And Vietnam demonstrated the social and political problems with using the draft in a situation like that.