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'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!*

*with non-violent means of course

 Jihadin wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'll be the driver sir!

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!

Use GBU-31! Cleared hot!

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

If it's all the same to you, think I'd rather be in the warm and toasty cockpit of Uzi 3-1.

But here's to you:

Remember...you don't go to war with what you want. You go to war with what you got. So drink water

Seaward wrote:


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.

No idea what a JTAC is but my solution to that would be to drop a bigger, friendlier bear on the roof

 Jihadin wrote:

Bobthehero....240 gunner...

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

 Bobthehero wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Bobthehero....240 gunner...

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".

 Jihadin wrote:

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.

 motyak wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

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..

 Jihadin wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

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.

 motyak wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Don't anyone DARE stomp on my visions of living a real-life Red Dawn scenario.

 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?

You mean they weren't both pieces of gak?

 Jihadin wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

Very well.

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.