Seems a rather simple answer. Selective Service is a sexist policy. I hope, some day, I can pick and choose when I want equality, and ignore inequality on a whim.
Seems a rather simple answer. Selective Service is a sexist policy. I hope, some day, I can pick and choose when I want equality, and ignore inequality on a whim.
When have we ever had a situation in which there weren't enough volunteers to defend the country? When was the last time the United States faced an invasion? Quite frankly, if there's not enough volunteers, then the war is probably nonsense to begin with, so a lack of volunteers is "working as intended". There's no place for forced servitude (conscription) in modern society.
Nobody wants to defend something conceptual at the risk of their lives. We're all naturally cowards unless pressed against the wall.
It's your choice of course, but I couldn't imagine allowing an interloper rule in place of my own government that I've had to support through taxes. Nor would I permit myself, or anyone, be subjugated by an aggressor in my "homeland".
I'd die to protect those who are close to me or those that i love, i'm not nationalistic so i don't believe in the notion of serving your nation and giving your life for it alone; But that'd be my circumstances to give my life.
Though i have none of the former circumstances
He lives in the U.K, and the closest we faced it was during the battle of Britain, we enlisted everyone who could fight in active service, those who were too young or infirm into the national guard; And the women to take over day to day tasks.
But back then everyone subscribed to god and queen stuff.
I can't really see it being relevant to today, but it's an interesting topic to speak about.
Only the truly patriotic would, god and country type of straight up guys that is, others would probably do the same but out of service to their fellow soldiers; And then you'd have me who'd enlist when the situation arises and i feel i have to, then those who are forcefully enlisted.
Or rather drafted, i get the two confused easily
males are physically better suited for the conditions that army personnel is exposed to. Women with affiliations to the army, at best, can be used to fill 3 roles: wall fodder, secretaries, undercover.
All 3 roles are very necessary in order to maintain a certain degree of structure.
Men are just better suited for combat, nothing personal. Even the very few women that do make the army are...meh... when compared to the average soldier.