Senate Republicans try to head off attempts to include women in the military draft

HARK! said:

This doesn't answer my question.

Click to expand...

Denial

I voted no and would add that men should not be forced to go to war either. IMO if the citizens of a country do not feel the need to voluntarily signing up to defend it when it is attacked then either the country is not worth defending or those citizens don't deserve to be citizens of a country worth defending.

Registering for the draft =/= going to war.

Perhaps if the OP would just post articles with out all the political bias, it would be easier to discuss.

grasping the after wind said:

I voted no and would add that men should not be forced to go to war either. IMO if the citizens of a country do not feel the need to voluntarily signing up to defend it when it is attacked then either the country is not worth defending or those citizens don't deserve to be citizens of a country worth defending.

Click to expand...

Did you know the draft was utilized only when there are not enough volunteers?

Whelp, I am the dinosaur in the room. I believe EVERY young man (physically able to) serve a min of four years in the military. There are things like teamwork, physical fitness, self discipline, honor, following and giving orders and direction, comradery that I don't think is replicated with any other organization.

Work ethic is rewarded and you are motivated to go beyond what you are comfortable doing. It also opens a world of possibilities for further education partially or fully paid for and career development.

As for being 'forced' to go to war. I don't have an issue with mandatory orders to defend this nation. As for women (I thought we didn't have a definition of what a woman was?), The physical stress of combat is more than most woman can physically handle - but look at our allies in Israel - the ladies serve successfully in combat rolls. I would not be opposed to them serving in combat rolls as long as the role is something they have demonstrated the ability to handle.

JustOneWay said:

Did you know the draft was utilized only when there are not enough volunteers?

Click to expand...

Why are there not enough volunteers? If a country is invaded by another country i would think that every citizen would be interested in volunteering. Which reinforces a what I wrote earlier .


grasping the after wind said: ↑
IMO if the citizens of a country do not feel the need to voluntarily signing up to defend it when it is attacked then either the country is not worth defending or those citizens don't deserve to be citizens of a country worth defending.

hislegacy said:

Whelp, I am the dinosaur in the room. I believe EVERY young man (physically able to) serve a min of four years in the military. There are things like teamwork, physical fitness, self discipline, honor, following and giving orders and direction, comradery that I don't think is replicated with any other organization.

Work ethic is rewarded and you are motivated to go beyond what you are comfortable doing. It also opens a world of possibilities for further education partially or fully paid for and career development.

As for being 'forced' to go to war. I don't have an issue with mandatory orders to defend this nation. As for women (I thought we didn't have a definition of what a woman was?), The physical stress of combat is more than most woman can physically handle - but look at our allies in Israel - the ladies serve successfully in combat rolls. I would not be opposed to them serving in combat rolls as long as the role is something they have demonstrated the ability to handle.

Click to expand...

Involuntary servitude is immoral. All the wonderful things that you say one will attain by military service ought to be enough to make citizens voluntarily join. Why do wish to force people to do so that are not willing to? There are a multitude of problems associated with a large military peopled by unwilling citizens.

grasping the after wind said:

Why are there not enough volunteers? If a country is invaded by another country i would think that every citizen would be interested in volunteering. Which reinforces a what I wrote earlier .


grasping the after wind said: ↑
IMO if the citizens of a country do not feel the need to voluntarily signing up to defend it when it is attacked then either the country is not worth defending or those citizens don't deserve to be citizens of a country worth defending.

Click to expand...

The draft was done away with decades ago. There is no draft.

grasping the after wind said:

Involuntary servitude is immoral. All the wonderful things that you say one will attain by military service ought to be enough to make citizens voluntarily join. Why do wish to force people to do so that are not willing to? There are a multitude of problems associated with a large military peopled by unwilling citizens.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should go to Israel and tell them?

grasping the after wind said:

Involuntary servitude is immoral. All the wonderful things that you say one will attain by military service ought to be enough to make citizens voluntarily join. Why do wish to force people to do so that are not willing to? There are a multitude of problems associated with a large military peopled by unwilling citizens.

Click to expand...

Do you think every single soldier who was drafted and went to war was perfectly willing? What do you say to the hundreds of thousands who fell in battle for the freedom you currently live in?

It's called duty to your country. It used to be embraced as something to be applauded. There is a price for having the freedom we have right now - not a cliché but a truth.

JustOneWay said:

The draft was done away with decades ago. There is no draft.

Click to expand...

True - Selective Service Registration is still mandatory

Gene2memE said:

I don't agree with the stance that women can do every military role as well as men - in field experience from several nations in Afghanistan and Iraq suggests that the general ground infantry role is probably best left to men. This is mostly based around physiological issues related to the weight of the general issue combat load. As it's proportionally higher for women, they ended up with greater rates of in-country march related injuries (mostly ankles and lower back) and long term joint damage (particularly hips/pelvis and knees) and skeletal/bone density issues.

Click to expand...

People seem not to understand that general ground infantry is what the draft is for.

They don't draft people to be pilots. Enough people volunteer to be pilots and all the other roles that don't require a man to patrol for 12 hours with 100 pounds of gear in 120F heat, spend the night in a dirt hole, and then do it again the next day. Getting the men to do that nasty job is what the draft does.

comana said:

Yes, if the US is ever in a position to impose the draft again, it only makes sense to draft women too. As others have said, there are more roles to the military than front line fodder.

Click to expand...

The draft is not necessary for those roles.

The draft is primarily for front-line fodder. Enough people volunteer for everything else.

And that is the reason why we ought to be talking about eliminating the concept of the draft entirely, because the US will never fight another war that makes a draft useful.

A draft is only necessary when a war will have a long duration (years) and be low to moderate intensity, and low-technology. It has to be primarily a ground war depending on low technology and continuous contact with the enemy over more than two or three years. Vietnam is the latest example of such a war.

A war that is short duration (such as the invasions of Grenada and Nicaragua or the Persian Gulf War), or a war of high intensity (such as the Persian Gulf War or the Iraq Invasion) or of low intensity (such as Afghanistan) or high technology (such as the Iraq Invasion, the Persian Gulf War, or Afghanistan) will not need a draft.

And of course, a nuclear war against Russia or China wouldn't need a draft, either.

Notice that no draft was necessary for any of the wars the US has fought since Vietnam, and among them are examples of every kind of war the US is ever likely to fight again (except a nuclear war).

JustOneWay said:

If you don't know the difference, I cannot help you. My brother spent four years in the Marines, yet he never went to war. My father spent four years in the navy, yet he never went to war.

Click to expand...

Congress is certainly not going to reinstate a draft without even a war to fight, so your distinction is irrelevant.

Here is a different take.

register for the draft =/= being drafted =/= go to war

Congress moves toward requiring women to register for the draft
Congress moves toward requiring women to register for the draft - Roll Call

RDKirk said:

Congress is certainly not going to reinstate a draft without even a war to fight, so your distinction is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

You missed my point.

Besides this is about registering for the draft, not being drafted, so your comment is moot.

hislegacy said:

Whelp, I am the dinosaur in the room. I believe EVERY young man (physically able to) serve a min of four years in the military. There are things like teamwork, physical fitness, self discipline, honor, following and giving orders and direction, comradery that I don't think is replicated with any other organization.

Work ethic is rewarded and you are motivated to go beyond what you are comfortable doing. It also opens a world of possibilities for further education partially or fully paid for and career development.

Click to expand...

You haven't worked out the numbers.

There are 2,000,000 new 18-year-old young men every year. That's two million.

There are only 2,000,000 people in the current active-duty military force as it is. If you conscript an additional 2,000,000 men for a four-year tour every year, that will expand the active-duty force to eight million troops.

Worse, it will take more than that--probably up to 10,000,000 total--because all those added troops will require added services and support. For instance, the DoD is currently capable of handling 120,000 new accessions annually. If that must be expanded to 2,000,000 new accessions annually, training capacity (facilities, instructors, services, legal, medical) will have to be expanded accordingly.

And worse, there will be fully a million of them at any one time that aren't yet trained well enough for any purpose.

HARK! said:

No.

Click to expand...

Which is precisely why the US ended conscription on December of 1972, although the Selective Services Act, more commonly known as "The Draft," remains mandatory to this day.

Many people use "conscription" and "the Draft" interchangeably, but they are two separate things.

"Conscription" is involuntary induction into the armed services, whereas "the draft" is the means by which people are chosen... or would be, in the event conscription is ever reinstated in this country.

Women are allowed to enter the Armed Forces voluntarily, and many have seen combat -- I see no reason to change that. And as I see the reintroduction of conscription about as likely as the reintroduction of Prohibition, I see no problem with including women in the Selective Services Act.

Should they be sent to war against their will? No more than anyone else -- so I disagree with the GOP senators (as I often do), but vote "No" on the poll question as it is written.