The Draft

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Estrella

Senior member
Jan 29, 2006
900
0
76
Originally posted by: cwjerome
The Draft is an old, dumb idea... and pretty much flies in the face of the principles this country was founded upon and strives to achieve. Do you have a right to your own life, or can the gov't (ie, "the people") claim it, and compel you by the barrel of a gun to sacrifice it?

Besides, the last group that wants a Draft is the military, and for very good reason.

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Besides, the last group that wants a Draft is the military, and for very good reason.
QFT!

But there is some merit to a mandatory service option instead... such a solution may eventually re-instill an innate desire to serve the nation.
 

2Xtreme21

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2004
7,044
0
0
I say we only draft people from those who support the war. I mean, I know NTDZ and ProfJohn and GenX are probably begging to go over to Iraq to help defend freedom.
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
I say we only draft people from those who support the war. I mean, I know NTDZ and ProfJohn and GenX are probably begging to go over to Iraq to help defend freedom.

I say you're an idiot.
 

rickn

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
7,064
0
0
I think it's great. it would put to good use some of armchair generals that frequent P&N.

thankfully, i'm to old
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Despite being slavery abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment I think this quote sums it up perfectly and succinctly.

Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man's fundamental right?the right to life?and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time. -Ayn Rand

Funny how the Mujahideen doesn't need a draft but volunteers in droves much like we would if war was just.
 

rickn

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
7,064
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Despite being slavery abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment I think this quote sums it up perfectly and succinctly.

Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man's fundamental right?the right to life?and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time. -Ayn Rand

Funny how the Mujahideen doesn't need a draft but volunteers in droves much like we would if war was just.

well, conscription was first used during the civil war, and it wasn't for the civil war we still might have slavery. fathom that one
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: ayabe
Yes I support it and with no exemptions under any circumstances.

That's not necessarily a good idea. You want to keep some people at home and being educated, particularly in things that would help a war effort (new technologies research, medical advancements, etc...); you never know how long a war will last, so it is important to allow some continuing education to go on to replace the aging, nondraftable population in certain fields.

I would support a draft in a time of true crisis, such as a WWII type scenario.

I agree with what you are saying, but what we can't have is the Vietnam version of the draft so that we only have the poor kids going off to fight.

Also, I'll add the caveat that this draft would only be used in a WWII type situation and not a war of choice, a la Iraq.

Why? Obviously there is the PC aspect of it, but if you're going to send SOMEONE into harms way, why pick a future rocket scientist over a future burger flipper? Once we've reached the point where we're going to implement the draft, we've already passed any idea of "fair", so why bother making a cosmetic concession that actually leaves society worse off? It's a bad thing already, I'm not sure what we gain from making it that tiny bit "better".

By the way, I'm totally against the draft under any circumstances, but if you're going to grant that the draft is acceptable, I'm not sure why it should be applied "equally".
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Besides, the last group that wants a Draft is the military, and for very good reason.
QFT!

But there is some merit to a mandatory service option instead... such a solution may eventually re-instill an innate desire to serve the nation.

That seems pretty counter-intuitive. Mandatory service and innate desire to serve seem pretty contradictory to me, and so far as I'm aware there is no proof at all that forcing someone to "serve" will make them have a desire to continue to do so. I think people look at the desire for service in the military and falsely assume that it's because they are in the military that they want to serve. It's really the other way around, and I don't think the idea works in reverse.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: ayabe
Yes I support it and with no exemptions under any circumstances.

That's not necessarily a good idea. You want to keep some people at home and being educated, particularly in things that would help a war effort (new technologies research, medical advancements, etc...); you never know how long a war will last, so it is important to allow some continuing education to go on to replace the aging, nondraftable population in certain fields.

I would support a draft in a time of true crisis, such as a WWII type scenario.

I agree with what you are saying, but what we can't have is the Vietnam version of the draft so that we only have the poor kids going off to fight.

Also, I'll add the caveat that this draft would only be used in a WWII type situation and not a war of choice, a la Iraq.

Why? Obviously there is the PC aspect of it, but if you're going to send SOMEONE into harms way, why pick a future rocket scientist over a future burger flipper? Once we've reached the point where we're going to implement the draft, we've already passed any idea of "fair", so why bother making a cosmetic concession that actually leaves society worse off? It's a bad thing already, I'm not sure what we gain from making it that tiny bit "better".

By the way, I'm totally against the draft under any circumstances, but if you're going to grant that the draft is acceptable, I'm not sure why it should be applied "equally".

wow

More often than not, I find myself agreeing with you here at P&N, but this time I'm totally opposite on this point :

Danger of a draft that only sieves the poor/underclasses :

A leadership/upper class that engages in opportunistic wars (eg; Vietnam) for BS reasons, and because of the lack of personal connection to the bloodshed and sacrifice, they don't take the human element into consideration whatsoever. Sort of similar to the lawmakers today, they signed off on this Iraq debacle, but how many of their sons and daughters are boots on the ground for that mission?

I think any war/draft situation should have our politicians on the first wave EVERY time. I'd have liked to see GWB marching up and down the streets of Baghdad, or riding in a crap Humvee across the Sunni triangle. Something tells me he wouldn't really have the balls to do it, considering how he greased his way out of Vietnam, just like that other bozo Clinton.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: cwjerome
The Draft is an old, dumb idea... and pretty much flies in the face of the principles this country was founded upon and strives to achieve. Do you have a right to your own life, or can the gov't (ie, "the people") claim it, and compel you by the barrel of a gun to sacrifice it?

Besides, the last group that wants a Draft is the military, and for very good reason.

I also think that counter-arguments about WWII type situations really miss the point. Are we really better off being defended by people who would not sign up for military service, even if the very future of the country was at stake?
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Besides, the last group that wants a Draft is the military, and for very good reason.
QFT!

But there is some merit to a mandatory service option instead... such a solution may eventually re-instill an innate desire to serve the nation.

That seems pretty counter-intuitive. Mandatory service and innate desire to serve seem pretty contradictory to me, and so far as I'm aware there is no proof at all that forcing someone to "serve" will make them have a desire to continue to do so. I think people look at the desire for service in the military and falsely assume that it's because they are in the military that they want to serve. It's really the other way around, and I don't think the idea works in reverse.

Sweden has a very professional military with high morale, and they have mandatory service :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service#Sweden
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Besides, the last group that wants a Draft is the military, and for very good reason.
QFT!

But there is some merit to a mandatory service option instead... such a solution may eventually re-instill an innate desire to serve the nation.

That seems pretty counter-intuitive. Mandatory service and innate desire to serve seem pretty contradictory to me, and so far as I'm aware there is no proof at all that forcing someone to "serve" will make them have a desire to continue to do so. I think people look at the desire for service in the military and falsely assume that it's because they are in the military that they want to serve. It's really the other way around, and I don't think the idea works in reverse.

Sweden has a very professional military with high morale, and they have mandatory service :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service#Sweden

Yes, but do they have high morale BECAUSE the service is mandatory? Perhaps Swedish culture simply reflects those values fairly well, and without the mandatory service they'd be just as good.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Aimster
I don't support it at all.

Give me one instance in which a draft might actually be helpful.

WW2


there's more than one way to be helpful, the draft tends to focus people's attention on the fact that it takes real people to defend freedom, not just someone you see on tv.

And, a better question is, why not have a draft ?

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Besides, the last group that wants a Draft is the military, and for very good reason.
QFT!

But there is some merit to a mandatory service option instead... such a solution may eventually re-instill an innate desire to serve the nation.

That seems pretty counter-intuitive. Mandatory service and innate desire to serve seem pretty contradictory to me, and so far as I'm aware there is no proof at all that forcing someone to "serve" will make them have a desire to continue to do so. I think people look at the desire for service in the military and falsely assume that it's because they are in the military that they want to serve. It's really the other way around, and I don't think the idea works in reverse.

Sweden has a very professional military with high morale, and they have mandatory service :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service#Sweden
as does Israel.

Rainsford - I meant that the "fix" would occur after a few generations of mandatory service -- it would eventually be looked at as the next natural step after High School.. for everyone. In other words, kids would know it was coming for the first 18 years of their lives, and they would therefore be mentally prepared for their eventual service.

2 years for women, 3 for men... sounds good to me! And there could be alternatives besides the military itself... peace corps? red cross? FBI? FEMA? who knows...
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
The draft is fine in times of war. However, I am of a mind that the military we have now is not geared up for a draft. It would take a larger military and more facilities to house them and more trainers to train them, and more units to put them in. New recruits take time to prepare them for combat.

In relation to the military, unwilling troops are not the best answer. We could however use more support troops to cook food, and take care of housing and rear areas that are now taken care of by civilians at a higher rate of pay. Having more military support personnel would actually lower costs. That way if people do not want to fight they can cook or clean or attend to other matters like the motor pool, maintenance, supply, transportation etc.

I also think if we are going to fight a war we should declare war, and give the president full war-time powers and quit playing around. Forces from Iran are killing people in Iraq, so lets show them what it means to get the USA mad and start taking them out! If they want to make war with the USA, lets bring it on full bore, and hold nothing back. Iranians are responsible for thousands of dead civilians in Iraq, and now we need retalitory strikes against Iran.

An Eye for an Eye, and a Tooth for a Tooth.

It is time for thousands of civilians to die in Iran!
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Tom
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Aimster
I don't support it at all.

Give me one instance in which a draft might actually be helpful.

WW2


there's more than one way to be helpful, the draft tends to focus people's attention on the fact that it takes real people to defend freedom, not just someone you see on tv.

And, a better question is, why not have a draft ?

Because you're forcing people to risk their life.
 

babylon5

Golden Member
Dec 11, 2000
1,363
1
0
Children of our politicians supported war should be draft first. Including Bush twins :D
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Besides, the last group that wants a Draft is the military, and for very good reason.
QFT!

But there is some merit to a mandatory service option instead... such a solution may eventually re-instill an innate desire to serve the nation.

That seems pretty counter-intuitive. Mandatory service and innate desire to serve seem pretty contradictory to me, and so far as I'm aware there is no proof at all that forcing someone to "serve" will make them have a desire to continue to do so. I think people look at the desire for service in the military and falsely assume that it's because they are in the military that they want to serve. It's really the other way around, and I don't think the idea works in reverse.

Sweden has a very professional military with high morale, and they have mandatory service :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service#Sweden
as does Israel.

Rainsford - I meant that the "fix" would occur after a few generations of mandatory service -- it would eventually be looked at as the next natural step after High School.. for everyone. In other words, kids would know it was coming for the first 18 years of their lives, and they would therefore be mentally prepared for their eventual service.

2 years for women, 3 for men... sounds good to me! And there could be alternatives besides the military itself... peace corps? red cross? FBI? FEMA? who knows...

Well of course it would become natural eventually, but I'm still not convinced you could force high school graduates to really take it seriously any more than you can force them to take high school seriously. We have mandatory education in this country up through 12th grade, and I'm not really convinced we've done a very good job instilling pro-education values in very many people who didn't already have them. Obviously the model is the punk kid who gets squared away by the Marines, but how much of the population does that REALLY apply to?
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Originally posted by: babylon5
Children of our politicians supported war should be draft first. Including Bush twins :D

Maybe they can out-slut our enemies :)
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: ayabe
Yes I support it and with no exemptions under any circumstances.

That's not necessarily a good idea. You want to keep some people at home and being educated, particularly in things that would help a war effort (new technologies research, medical advancements, etc...); you never know how long a war will last, so it is important to allow some continuing education to go on to replace the aging, nondraftable population in certain fields.

I would support a draft in a time of true crisis, such as a WWII type scenario.

I agree with what you are saying, but what we can't have is the Vietnam version of the draft so that we only have the poor kids going off to fight.

Also, I'll add the caveat that this draft would only be used in a WWII type situation and not a war of choice, a la Iraq.

Why? Obviously there is the PC aspect of it, but if you're going to send SOMEONE into harms way, why pick a future rocket scientist over a future burger flipper? Once we've reached the point where we're going to implement the draft, we've already passed any idea of "fair", so why bother making a cosmetic concession that actually leaves society worse off? It's a bad thing already, I'm not sure what we gain from making it that tiny bit "better".

By the way, I'm totally against the draft under any circumstances, but if you're going to grant that the draft is acceptable, I'm not sure why it should be applied "equally".

wow

More often than not, I find myself agreeing with you here at P&N, but this time I'm totally opposite on this point :

Danger of a draft that only sieves the poor/underclasses :

A leadership/upper class that engages in opportunistic wars (eg; Vietnam) for BS reasons, and because of the lack of personal connection to the bloodshed and sacrifice, they don't take the human element into consideration whatsoever. Sort of similar to the lawmakers today, they signed off on this Iraq debacle, but how many of their sons and daughters are boots on the ground for that mission?

I think any war/draft situation should have our politicians on the first wave EVERY time. I'd have liked to see GWB marching up and down the streets of Baghdad, or riding in a crap Humvee across the Sunni triangle. Something tells me he wouldn't really have the balls to do it, considering how he greased his way out of Vietnam, just like that other bozo Clinton.

:thumbsup: on all counts. Like were not already engaging in wars of avarice with the, shall we say, "those of lower birth" that enlist today..every war under Rains plan would become one and more frequently too.
 

Arglebargle

Senior member
Dec 2, 2006
892
1
81
Originally posted by: Sinsear
From a military perspective, I for one would be opposed to a draft. We have a hard enough time these days training the volunteer recruits who supposedly want to be here. Nothing is more troublesome than the recruits we get these days who wind up getting chaptered out 2-3 months later. So I believe it would be even worse to draft a bunch of people who would be unwilling from the start to serve. Training them would be a pain in the ass, cost the taxpayers untold millions, and possibly be a liability to others. While it worked in past wars such as WW2, I don't foresee that type of cooperation from the XBox generation. While there will be those who step up to the plate and get it done, I believe there would be alot more who would not. Let those of us who want to be here, be here.

Wow, tell it!



 

Arglebargle

Senior member
Dec 2, 2006
892
1
81
The Draft is really un-American. Not part of our early traditions at all. First shows up in the Civil War (where it was applied unfairly) and draft riots in New York caused more casualties than the first battle of Bull Run. Not done again til WWII. Where it was applied more fairly and with broad popular support, and under a legitimate Declaration of War. It was continued on after that, but eventually was done away with.

It might actually help stop military adventurism, but it isn't worth it. If you can't maintain troop recruitment levels, you are probably overstepping your bounds anyway. The voluntary military operates as an unsung 'check and balance.' Though it also leads to you lowering your standards in recruitment and training, as we are doing now.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: ayabe
Yes I support it and with no exemptions under any circumstances.

That's not necessarily a good idea. You want to keep some people at home and being educated, particularly in things that would help a war effort (new technologies research, medical advancements, etc...); you never know how long a war will last, so it is important to allow some continuing education to go on to replace the aging, nondraftable population in certain fields.

I would support a draft in a time of true crisis, such as a WWII type scenario.

I agree with what you are saying, but what we can't have is the Vietnam version of the draft so that we only have the poor kids going off to fight.

Also, I'll add the caveat that this draft would only be used in a WWII type situation and not a war of choice, a la Iraq.

Why? Obviously there is the PC aspect of it, but if you're going to send SOMEONE into harms way, why pick a future rocket scientist over a future burger flipper? Once we've reached the point where we're going to implement the draft, we've already passed any idea of "fair", so why bother making a cosmetic concession that actually leaves society worse off? It's a bad thing already, I'm not sure what we gain from making it that tiny bit "better".

By the way, I'm totally against the draft under any circumstances, but if you're going to grant that the draft is acceptable, I'm not sure why it should be applied "equally".

wow

More often than not, I find myself agreeing with you here at P&N, but this time I'm totally opposite on this point :

Danger of a draft that only sieves the poor/underclasses :

A leadership/upper class that engages in opportunistic wars (eg; Vietnam) for BS reasons, and because of the lack of personal connection to the bloodshed and sacrifice, they don't take the human element into consideration whatsoever. Sort of similar to the lawmakers today, they signed off on this Iraq debacle, but how many of their sons and daughters are boots on the ground for that mission?

I think any war/draft situation should have our politicians on the first wave EVERY time. I'd have liked to see GWB marching up and down the streets of Baghdad, or riding in a crap Humvee across the Sunni triangle. Something tells me he wouldn't really have the balls to do it, considering how he greased his way out of Vietnam, just like that other bozo Clinton.

Sorry, I can see how that might have been misinterpreted...but the last sentence is the key there. I DON'T support the draft, the way I suggested or any other way. My point was that if you are going to support the draft, it seems like you should take it to its logical conclusion. If you're willing to concede that the state has a right to force you to fight, you should also be willing to concede that your non-fighting value to the state should also be considered.

Either a human being is an individual or not...once you cross the line where people are just tools of the state, you might as well make sure you're getting the best bang for your buck. If people don't have intrinsic value, then forcing the burger flipper to die in a war is better than forcing a rocket scientist to do the same thing.
 

2Xtreme21

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2004
7,044
0
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
I say we only draft people from those who support the war. I mean, I know NTDZ and ProfJohn and GenX are probably begging to go over to Iraq to help defend freedom.

I say you're an idiot.

Well you get your jollies over the idea that American men and women are dying for, what, corporate interests? As soon as you're asked to step up and support what you feel is right, you get on the defensive. Good rationale.