US bringing back the draft

Hobbes

Not in law just yet, but getting there. Based on USA act I give it 2-3 weeks.

scipio_major

Well that's just great. Not content with twenty years hard slog to turn their military into a fully professional army, they want screw it all up by going back to conscription. And all because some Arab attacked them.

Given about ten years, America will get involved in some stupid war and a $hitload of draftees (the rich white ones fresh from Harvard and Yale) will get killed, morale will slump, the media will turn on the top brass and public support will evaporate. The US army will revert to it's late 1970s situation. In short the reintroduction of the draft will cause the US military to implode again.

I submit to you that Republican Nick Smith is a Bin Laden terrorist intent on sabotage.

Fade to credits.
Scipio_major

Von

Deferments from basic military training and education may be made for extreme hardship or physical or mental disability.

So even if you've got no legs or you're a drug'n'drink ravaged bum or you're simply barking mad, you can only "defer" your conscription. Are they going to form a Douglas Bader division in the future? There's a good idea for a propaganda movie: A bunch of wheelchair bound recruits take on a bunch of jocks at boot camp and beat them (after first suffering some humiliations), proving that limbs or no limbs everyone can learn to KICK ASS if they love their country enough. We'll call it Where Screaming Stumbly Wumblies Dare.

It'll shame disabled people into joining up.

Hobbes, donn't a lot of crazy bills like this get considered but only a handful stand a chance of being passed? I was under the impression that the hawks like Wolfowitz want an army that consists of small specialist units and more remote control weapons augmented by whatever bunch of local thugs are on the side of "good" in any given week.

Hobbes

yep lots of crazy bills tend to go in, however since sept a lot of them are getting through. For example a lot of what was in the USA act had been tried to be passed into law for the last couple of years in one bill or another.

Really wouldn't surprise me if this one made it too.

Sand

So even if you've got no legs ...you can only "defer" your conscription.

Not all soldiers fight in foxholes. Those requiring wheelchairs can still perform desk duties - planning , logistics and organisation are the major strenths of western milatary tradition. Having no legs does not prevent somebody from having a keen mind.

As for compulsory milatary service its not so much required for ground combat - having a well trained reserve available for service is a significant bonus for any army. Several European countries encourage/require service. Ive met several Italians for example who have served and trained as part of their milatary.

Boston

they must be planing to invade somewhere, ive heard talk of palestine.

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by Boston
they must be planing to invade somewhere, ive heard talk of palestine.

probably somewhere like idaho or indiana.
i dont think anyone actually lives in those places.
in fact, i dont think anyone has ever been there.
hasanyone ever met anyone who has been to ohio?
i havent

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Not all soldiers fight in foxholes. Those requiring wheelchairs can still perform desk duties - planning , logistics and organisation are the major strenths of western milatary tradition. Having no legs does not prevent somebody from having a keen mind.

Well said.

Its about time that people with disabilities were treated equally, rather than as a special case.

As for compulsory milatary service its not so much required for ground combat - having a well trained reserve available for service is a significant bonus for any army. Several European countries encourage/require service. Ive met several Italians for example who have served and trained as part of their milatary.

Was it you who, in defense of the US "world protection" came out and said that the European military is a joke, particularly teh Italians?

Whether 'twas you or not, surely if the European armies are so crap, their "mandatory service" should not be seen as a good thing???

Course, having said that, I'm wondering if the Swiss model of mandatory, recurring service has any relation to the relatively low crime rates over here.

jc

adnans

i'd feel really sorry for the American men if that bill gets passed into law. having dodged conscription in my own country successfully for four years already (due to perfectly legal reasons i may add ) i have no intention to join any army and waste up to a year of my life. there are better ways to serve your country and the country that you live in instead of joining the army.

america doesnt need more people in the army. it may need more if they plan an invasion or something similar but to protect their land, i think they have it perfectly sussed out already.

adnans

Victor

Many countries in Europe that have concrisption have it for periods varying from about 9 to 18 months, depending on country, service, skills and so on. Most do not get paid anything (not that you have a life in the real world anyway). A friend in Finland was paid about £9 a week for a year.

Other people I know have done 'civil' as opposed to 'military' service like working in government offices or agencies. A Spanish guy I knew worked in the Instituto Cervantes (spanish cultural Institute) here in Dublin.

However, in countries where you have conscription and you are likely to end up in combat, it is actually 'better' to end up with longer conscription. Take the example in Russia where new conscripts were being shipped off to Chechnya - they were being slaughtered in their hundreds. A policy of only sending conscripts to combat after at least a year in the military was introduced.

In France, conscripts can not be sent abroad to fight (volunteers only).

Boston

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
hasanyone ever met anyone who has been to ohio?
i havent

listen, you cant just make up places at you feel free, next you be talking about the "neitherlands" and other mystical places.

theres a word for this type of behaviour, communism!

seamus

Originally posted by bonkey

Course, having said that, I'm wondering if the Swiss model of mandatory, recurring service has any relation to the relatively low crime rates over here.
jc

Possibly. I know that when I was over there, people seemed to be vigilant because they respected their country rather than becuase they were afraid of the police. Maybe this is a result of army service, I dunno. Although that said, the population seemed to be split into 2 groups; 'Normal' people and drug addicts, and they never mixed, only hung around in their own groups. That said again, the junkies weren't even slightly violent or intimidating........

Sand

Whether 'twas you or not, surely if the European armies are so crap, their "mandatory service" should not be seen as a good thing???

Oh yeah, the european milataries are crap as you put it. Not because theyre not well trained or well led, but because they have no logistical or communications capability to match the Americans and the americans have better access to equipment. These things are exspensive and no single EU country could afford to build one in our current political climate, and a common EU defence policy which could share the burden of such a system is opposed on the gorounds that it might infringe our precious and false neutrality. Any "Allied" operation requires American involvement. Even the British led force in Afghanistan is dependant on American logistical and intelligence support. So long as that continues the US will effectively decide foreign policy for the NATO countries. It hardly a thing of wonder theyre not wild over the idea of a common EU defence policy. Im not in favour of a US "world police" solution as such - I just recognise thats its a reality until the EU actually gets some balls (not exactly a policitally insightful phrase but what the hell:) ).

I know that when I was over there, people seemed to be vigilant because they respected their country rather than becuase they were afraid of the police. Maybe this is a result of army service, I dunno.

I vaguely remember that in newly unified Germany (1870s on), the compulsory milatary service there was creditied with building a sense of nationhood and breaking class barriers (to an extent).

The Swiss are kinda strange. Their citizens are amongst the most heavily armed on earth (they apparently keep their weapons and uniforms at home to allow for rapid deployment) and yet the shooting up of that swiss legislature was all the more remarkable because it was the first of its kind - at least with the milatary issued weapon. The explanation would appear to be (and this was echoed by one Swiss man i saw being interviewed on TV) was that the milatary tradition/honour discouraged them from misusing the weapons.

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
Oh yeah, the european milataries are crap as you put it. Not because theyre not well trained or well led, but because they have no logistical or communications capability to match the Americans. These things are exspensive and no single EU country could afford to build one in our current political climate, and a common EU defence policy which could share the burden of such a system is opposed on the gorounds that it might infringe our precious and false neutrality.

To hint they have "no logistical or communications capability" would be wrong for a number of reasons (a) proximity to likely areas of involvment (b) access by rail & road to 'the old world' (c) the USA has gone out of it's way to create power projection and the trail end the this uses (d) American location & policy dictates taking the fight to the enemy, Germany has traditionally been more worried about the enemies on it's borders, not overseas (e) European countries do have a substantial tranport capability (remember the Falklands War?) and this is expanding, while American capacity has been contracting. Case in point Germany, Spain, The Netherlands, the UK and Belgium & Luxembourg (joint) have all over the last 5 years built new 20,000+ tonne auxillaries

Originally posted by Sand
Any "Allied" operation requires American involvement.

The USA does contain about a 35% (278m of 788m) of NATO's population. It's not too illogical to see them contributing a substantail proportion to any given task.

Originally posted by Sand
Even the British led force in Afghanistan is dependant on American logistical and intelligence support.

Here you are fundamentally wrong or biased in what you are saying. While no doubt the USA and UK are cooperating on transport, the only in-flight refuelling aircraft I have heard of operating inside Afghanistan have been RAF aircraft (and the US navy are very grateful).

Boston

"Luxembourg" isnt that a little snot of a country between france and spain

Victor

Originally posted by Boston
"Luxembourg" isnt that a little snot of a country between france and spain

No, its the one between France, Germany and Belgium, that can call on allies with about 10m soldiers. Beat that!

Red Moose

Odd that no-one has brought up the Selective Service System. It is basically the draft database, and is there and working right now. "Reintroducing the draft" is a bit over-dramatic really because the system is still there.

Virtually all men must register with Selective Service. The exceptions to this rule are very few and include: nonimmigrant aliens on student, visitor, tourist, or diplomatic visas; men on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces; and cadets and midshipmen in the Service Academies and certain other U.S. military colleges. All other men must register upon reaching age 18 (or before age 26, if entering and taking up residence in the U.S. when already older than 18).
Disabled men, clergymen, and men who believe themselves to be conscientiously opposed to war must register because there is no draft in effect, nor is there a program to classify men at this time. Should the Congress and the President reinstate a draft, a classification program would begin. Registrants would be examined to determine suitability for military service, and they would also have ample time to claim exemptions, deferments, or postponements. To be inducted, men would have to meet the physical, mental, and administrative standards established by the military services. Local Boards would meet in every American community to determine exemptions and deferments for clergymen, ministerial students, and men who file claims for reclassification as conscientious objectors.

http://www.sss.gov

So if you get a green card and are under 26 you will have to register. It's basically there so that if FEMA decided a draft was necessary, they have you on record and can do it.

Sand

To hint they have "no logistical or communications capability" would be wrong for a number of reasons

Lets check out what experts view on the Kosovo conflict was, the last time NATO engaged in a full fledged campaign.

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/kosovo/jdw990707_01_n.shtml

Most of it is a summary of the campaign and lessons learned etc. A few nice quotes.

Another US official, angered by Europe's reliance on the USA for support (primarily jamming, command and control, tanking and surveillance/intelligence platforms) as well as strike assets, said: "Europe is going to have to stock up. During the war, we were beset with requests for smart weapons from countries that didn't have any. We were lucky as a nation we had a reasonable amount of surge capability. But you can't count on that in the future; our surge capacity may be nil. Future conflicts are going to be come-as-you-are ... if you didn't order in peacetime, you don't get to play in wartime."

And....

They (Senior US military sources ) are also angered by NATO's dependence on US air power and technology to fight and win a war that took place in the heart of Europe.

Last but not least

Airlift also emerged as a major theme of the conflict, primarily because, once again, the USA provided most of it.

Got an opinion piece written here for the US milatary

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/parameters/99winter/roskin.htm

Without the United States arming and training the Croats and Bosnians, arm-twisting the parties at Dayton, and sending a highly credible contingent to IFOR, the West Europeans would have had to beat an ignominious retreat. The effort in Kosovo would not have succeeded without US leadership. Is this the story with European security in general? Does nothing get done without US leadership?

I guess the point is made that the Europeans cant organise dick without american advice, support and airpower.

The USA does contain about a 35% (278m of 788m) of NATO's population. It's not too illogical to see them contributing a substantail proportion to any given task.

I cant remember the exact figure but I do know they (The USAF) flew far more than 35% of the sorties in the Kosovo conflict.

Actually since posting this i found a link to here http://www.afa.org/kosovo/april.html where near the bottom a chart shows the numbers of US aircraft compared to allied aircraft, and a figure of 323 american aircraft compared to 212 from the whole of Europe is mentioned, far far greater than 35%. The superior technology of much of the US's aircraft is another factor.


Were getting off topic here. If you believe the Europeans to have a great milatary, capable of independant action, then fine. I disagree but I dont think it bothers either of us to disagree.

Ri-ra

Oh well, another topic in the toilet. :rolleyes:

Bard

Originally posted by Victor


No, its the one between France, Germany and Belgium, that can call on allies with about 10m soldiers. Beat that!

Just to answer your "Beat that! " ... ... "America with conscription".

Hobbes

Originally posted by Ri-ra
Oh well, another topic in the toilet. :rolleyes:

So it would seem. Shame some people can't stay on topic.

Boston

Mark my words, they will be invading iraq and iran by the end of the year

Lennoxschips

finishing off daddy's mission

Boston

exactly

tHE vAGGABOND

I have a green card application in via my brother who is married to an american chick...

luck me Im almost too old, 26 in sept and have several medical ailments that would prevent me getting drafted

woop! Was worred for a while there!

Hobbes

Been chatting to some Americans about it.


1. It is not the Draft (Except that it's compulsory).

2. A person does not have to do combat training, they can select another corps (eg. Peace Corps).

The Pro's are "The military give you direction", and the cons are "maybe I don't want that". Actually some military heads seem to think that it wouldn't even train people enough to fight well.

The real only issue against it is that it would be compulsory.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Oh yeah, the european milataries are crap as you put it. Not because theyre not well trained or well led, but because they have no logistical or communications capability to match the Americans and the americans have better access to equipmen

Oh - I'm sorry - I wasnt aware that "crap" meant "all armies except for the top dog".

jc

Sand

Crap means poorly equipped, organised and lacking the ability to carry out independant operations. You yourself mentioned my rating of the europeans, in comparision to the possibility of reserves in the US.

Victor

Keeping this short.

Originally posted by Sand
Airlift also emerged as a major theme of the conflict, primarily because, once again, the USA provided most of it.

Really? I'm sure all the Italians got on American cargo planes to fly from Rome to Aviano (all of 100-200 miles), rather than using the local roads. The British Parachute Regiment deployed by ship through GReece and Macedonia. And I suspect the Germans and French mostly deployed by road and train to Italy and Hungary and ferry to Albania.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Crap means poorly equipped, organised and lacking the ability to carry out independant operations. You yourself mentioned my rating of the europeans, in comparision to the possibility of reserves in the US.

OK - name 3 armies in the world who could take the combined European forces. Hint - only one can be from the US.

jc

TwoShedsJackson

My army's bigger than your army, nah nah nah nah nah!!!!!