Women could be forced to sign up to US military draft by 2018

[Vynny]

I think drafts are dumb, but the best way to fix a double standard is to force both sides to deal with the shitty side of it. Right now the draft exists and although many people are against it, the fact that it only effects men takes the wind out of many major pushes to get rid of it, but if women were subjected to it then it creates an incentive for many more people to make a big issue of it.

I mean, just look at the OP, a few years back before all this talk about women being included in the draft, I'm sure it wasn't a major issue for them or many others, and now it's an affront to freedom and liberty as they know it because now it's their problem too. :P

- - - Updated - - -

They can sign up if they wanted to. Equality.

Except men have to sign up for the draft under threat of jail and women don't. Not Equality.

[pateuvasiliu]

Watch the feminists whine that the draft should be abolished now that it would affect them too.

But they didn't fight for that before, when only men were forced to sign.

Truly the movement of equality

[FuxieDK]

Women's definition of "Equal Rights": Women must have all of men's benefits, but none of the drawbacks..

Wake up!!!! If you want equal rights, start with conscription!!!

[Flutterguy]

Hey nice. Now they too can be threatened with losing federal benefits if they don't sign up.

[Vorkreist]

Again, this isn't evidence of the effectiveness of conscription. All you're trying to contort is the variance of what is and isn't considered a first, second, and third world country, which is still irrelevant in the grand scheme of proving any modern effectiveness of conscription in the current age by the majority of the first world.

Where has it won battles in wars in the last year, decade, two decades? Is it ever utilized, if so, for what and when? How effective was it, how costly was it? When and how effectively have countries that practice the draft used it effectively in modern warfare? What is the standards for general training costs and duration for soldier implementation, as well as the reciprocated costs of forcibly cutting those that are skilled to be militarized? Do they truly make a cost-effective difference in a war-effort?

Again, these are all unlikely, which is why I'm not surprised that no one can give me a shred of proof or evidence on the modern associations of conscription, its cost-effective direct and long-term value that properly counters it's opposition. It is simply a foolish, outdated, and indefensible law that poses no cost-effective use in the modern age of warfare.

You should tell South Korea to just chill down with those mandatory drafts. Clearly it has no purpose to maintain a sizable military trained number of people when your country is under constant threat right?

[Mormolyce]

I was looking for a good word to describe what level of authority state governments are actually intended to hold, but I gave up. Also, American cities are kind of crappy by global standards, but ever since the post-WW2 white flight, cities haven't been the main center of American life or the preferred destination for wealthy folks. That's sort of starting to change now as more millennials are moving toward the big coastal metropolises, but there's also a lot of pushback against the gentrification that is going to take a while to sort out.

I suppose that America is really the only country that just allows its cities to turn into crime-ridden hellholes rather than building them up as showcases for the world to see that attract the lion's share of resources and talent from across the country. Most of America's wealth, on the other hand, is tied up in these wealthy suburbs that few foreigners will ever see. I suppose this is part of why there is just this consensus that life in America is pretty meh and unremarkable overall, despite the economic data clearly indicating otherwise.

*Backs slowly away*

- - - Updated - - -

Women's definition of "Equal Rights": Women must have all of men's benefits, but none of the drawbacks..

Wake up!!!! If you want equal rights, start with conscription!!!

You are aware that women have been fighting for the right to serve in the military in front line roles for decades, yes? And they just succeeded last year, in the US.

Go on FuxieDK, let's hear you cheer on the feminist cause again! Another victory! Yaaaaay!

[Kaleredar]

Mandatory military or civilian service for your country is a good thing. For say, 2 years after you finish school. And if you want equal rights, then you need to also accept the responsibility which come with such.

I find that the people arguing for mandated military service "for the young people" usually find themselves exempted from it.

[moremana]

If anyone has to sign up, everyone should have to.

I agree with this. Women want equality no?

You cant scream womans lib only on certain aspects of life, my wife agrees as well and she is a nurse that is more than willing to serve if needed.

[mitre27]

So what you're saying is that it would be ok to send of pregnant women and young moms to the battlefield?

Pregnant women wouldn't be included, but why not young moms? We send young dads off.

People acting like the draft is always in effect and not used only when we're dragged into a major war and have to defend the country.

[Huulo]

True in theory, but the reality is we haven't drafted anyone, male or female, in over a generation. The real question is not whether we should draft women, but whether there should be a draft at all.

[FuxieDK]

You are aware that women have been fighting for the right to serve in the military in front line roles for decades, yes? And they just succeeded last year, in the US.

Go on FuxieDK, let's hear you cheer on the feminist cause again! Another victory! Yaaaaay!

I'm not talking about the right to serve.... I'm talking about the OBLIGATION to serve!!!

AFAIK Israel is the only country, where women are conscripted..

[Halyon]

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. Either get rid of the draft or women should be required to sign up just like the men. Equality means you get the bad with the good.

I doubt that was the point, dude... Why should anyone, man or woman, be forcibly drafted? Nobody should. That would be the right direction.

[Halyon]

Watch the feminists whine that the draft should be abolished now that it would affect them too.

But they didn't fight for that before, when only men were forced to sign.

Truly the movement of equality

It should be abolished no matter who they want to draft...

[FuxieDK]

I doubt that was the point, dude... Why should anyone, man or woman, be forcibly drafted? Nobody should. That would be the right direction.

Because most countries van get enough volunteers for the armed forces without conscription..

Just take a look at Sweden... They abolished conscription in 2011.... And now they reinstate it, because they only get ~30% of what they need...

[Deleted]

I'm confused. This is an article from May 2016, yet it's only now being discussed here?

It's a Tennisace thread, the goal is usually to fan the flames.

You can easily see that there is always just a big copypasta, a link to some news, and a comment like: "oh really" "I am disgusted" etc..

If there was any interest in a discussion, there would be non-rhetorical questions instead.

[pateuvasiliu]

It should be abolished no matter who they want to draft...

Oh yeah? Where was that attitude 70 years ago when feminism mocked men that didn't go to war?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather


Where was this attitude in the last 30 years? Feminists are only against the draft when they are endangered by it.

[Skroe]

I'm totally lost with this here... I'm a republican, and have been since the days of Reagan, in a literal sense. Conscription is in no way cheaper any more. Once upon a time, it was. That is not the case any longer with how costly training is, as well as how the market responds to forcible militarization. It is something that requires funding and dedicated markets to achieve these days, it is very much a conservative notion to promote the macroeconomic finances of the country when it comes to such an ordeal. The nation's money > outdated law. It can, in theory, be kept, but it would need drastic ratification to be viable in an actual time of military need. I simply think that it isn't needed, as it is a serious expense and changing it would be time consuming, and likely complicated for the average person, once changed to a more cost-efficient alternative.

So this is an interesting post. The purpose of the Selective Service System and the Draft at this point is a contingency.

I made a post earlier in this thread about how the sheer logistics to grow the military occurs on timescales larger than is useful for an emergency draft. There's actually another side of that, concurrent with something going on now.

Officially the US Army is at 490,000 troops right now. Obama wanted to cut that to 450,000 (on the way to 420,000), which is all down from 560,000 a few years ago. Congress has frozen that cut (to 420k) and plans to "bounce" the force up somewhere above 500,000, which is what a large number of studies suggest.

The question is though: how does the military actually DO this.

The basic combat formation of the US Army is the brigade combat team... typically between 5000 in three varietes - Infantry, Stryker (medium) and Armored (Heavy, with tanks). Over the past 4 years Obama (foolishly) cut the number of Active Armry BCT from 45 to 30. Yes, the US has demobilized a third of it's ground power. Thanks Obama, you stupid motherfucker.

To compensate for this the Army has created "virtual" BCT. They have standing stores of equippment and organization/leadership, just no 4700 troops to fill the ranks... the idea being that the army could "surge" and fill those ranks if need be. What would be the cost / timescale to do that? About 18 months and $2 billion per BCT.

Using conventional means, the Army brings in about 63,000 recruits per year. Which means barring any losses (i.e. retirements, which obviously will happen), it can stand up about 12 BCTs in a single year of recruitment.

And that's where the Draft comes into play potentially. Not to mobilize a a World War II fighting force, which for pure logistics reasons is impossible due to the complexity of 21st century armed forces (such as equipping infantry with a $25,000 kit instead of a $250 one). But to plug holes. If there was, for example, a slow burn crisis stretching over 2 years and our national leaders saw the potential for a major war beyond the 18 month horizon, they could activate the selective service system and pull in 30,000 troops a year on top of the 63,000 regular soldiers recruited. Not ideal, but 93,000 troops is enough for nearly new 19 Brigade Combat teams. You throw that 19 on top of the 30 we have, and at 49, we're barely above the number of BCT the country had in 2012.

A force with an additional 93,000 troops would take the country from the 450,000 in 2018 to 540,000 which is still below the 600,000 recommended by Heritage.

So I think that's the best way to think about the draft at this point. It's a gap filler in a contingency.

[Dalheim]

So what you're saying is that it would be ok to send of pregnant women and young moms to the battlefield?

Pregnant women? No. But young moms? Yes? Why should young fathers be forced to if not mothers? Equality, bitch.

[Halyon]

Oh yeah? Where was that attitude 70 years ago when feminism mocked men that didn't go to war?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather


Where was this attitude in the last 30 years? Feminists are only against the draft when they are endangered by it.

Because, at least for my part, I have 0 reason to talk about draft, unless it's immediately relevant to me. Like right now, in this thread. I wasn't even alive 30 years ago, so that's not relevant to me. And kindly don't push an opinion on me that I don't have.

I don't think anyone should be conscripted at all.

[Hammerfest]

Well, I guess those who have insisted on sexual equality all these years might finally get their way. Hurray for them.