discussion?

Hell no !...end of my discussion.

Snowflake military?

Better off without them.

Only as a last resort.

[bleep] no ... volunteer army at least they know what they got themselves into. Conscript is not the way to go.

A draft might have a few good results. Letters from draftees to their Senators/Congressman might break up some of the fiefdoms that have developed in the military.

You can be sure that the snowflake mentality we presently see would be lessened by the cloud of duty looming in front of many of them. That said, we're better off without.

I guess my point was, Once they went thru boot camp and served, they would no longer be snowflakes. They might grow up.

Not the Boot Camp we are running nowadays, not even in Parris Island. Incidentally, the "Greatest Generation's" war was fought with mostly a conscript armed force (about 66%). In turn Vietnam had only about 25% draftees.....

They might grow the fug up if the government quit giving them all the money for college, quit subsidizing their schools, and started enforcing the law when they break it, and they knew they weren't gonna move into mom and dad's basement after 8 years of college with a doctorate in Snowflakeism.

The idea that the Armed Forces should be some sort of Reform School went out a long long time ago. We don't want and cant use anyone who does not want to be there and who does not meet the very strict standards for enlistment. These people simply drag others down with them and gum up the works, being vastly more trouble than they are worth. I served under both the draft era and the all-volunteer force and I can tell you from personal experience the difference in the quality of the force is the difference of night and day . Today, only about 30% of persons aged 17-27 can meet the qualifications needed to enlist , if we start dragging in the other dregs we will have nothing but trouble.

Ditto. I don't know a single person still in uniform that proposes to bring back the draft. No exceptions.

While 95% of the people that serve with me are extraordinary, that other 5% are difficult to motivate even to do what they voluntarily swore to do.

No thank you.

Thanks for the input. Guess it was a bad idea. I know the military helped me. Jerry

The snowflakes would have to toughen up to pass the test we currently have.

I think that the idea would be bad for all involved.

Those who sign up for the military, whether they need to shape up or not, do so of their own free will and the benefits are different when you want to be then when you don't... just like college...

Also, it'd turn the military into another leftist social experiment. The public schools have already been co-opted; how long would it take for Leftists to recognize forced military service as an opportunity to indoctrinate beyond high school years?

The reason the greatest generations' war had so many more volunteers was likely effected by the consensus in the country that we faced an existential threat. A big difference between WWII & Vietnam, where we never even could manage a formal declaration of war.

To me the fundamental question has to be "does the state own us?". If so the great American experiment has failed; if not then where does gov't get the authority?

Scary stuff to me; particularly when Conservatives start entertaining it.

It may be the only way to reverse this indignant/communist momentum.

A professional military is the best. You don't want screw ups fouling things up.

It would put skin in the game. It would make Americans have an American identity again.

It would need to be mandatory for all 18-20 year olds, not simply a lottery draft, like they do in Israel.

I do not think it should have stopped back when. But to start a draft now? I can't see it.

4 year of collage for 4 years of service. Service comes before the collage unless the military has enough interest in the education.

You know one now, even though I retired in 08. In my view a Draft does several good things. It relieves the constant high pressure business of recruiting and believe me it is tough, provides the services with a ready use manpower pool in the less sophisticated MOS, then after their tour is up they can decide whether to stay and make a career out of it. We certainly should have started one after 9/11.

if there's a problem or constraint on volunteerism, recruitment, then it's a sign that the inducements being "offered" by the military are insufficient to meet their needs. they need to re-organize their recruitment strategies.

Might do some people some good.

I think everyone who's not a paraplegic should be required to serve 4 years in the armed service of the USA

I think they should only draft women for the next couple of centuries.

It's been an all male effort so far and the feminists are stickin' pussy hats on their heads and marching for equality.

Show them what equality entails.

just give them a choice and allow them to serve the usa, china, russia, india, brazil, or?

the freedom to choose is worth dying for. not much else is worth dying for.

if the "cause" was great enough, we'd be run over by volunteers.

100% participation in the armed forces sounds good in theory. But consider that even during WW II, lots of able bodied men were given deferments when their job stateside was deemed more valuable to their nation than they could be as cannon fodder.

Point 2: We have difficulty funding the armed forces as they exist today. Some want to increase the size by a factor of ten? Twenty? The money for wages and equipment has to come from somewhere!

What would we do with all these bodies? Put them to work building hiways, and dams, like they do in China? Or just stand them on the street corners with a live automatic weapon as they do in China?

Our gov't seems to be headed in the direction pointed by Chairman Mao fast enough, I do not wish to encourage it to accelerate.

At this point in time, we are fielding sufficient numbers to do their job of defending our nation. I would not favor adding draftees to the mix, and I certainly would not favor 100% conscription.

Yep.




Travis

i would rather they bring back the CCC or somesuch.

Somebody has to do the fighting. The world is lining up against America. The best volunteers are vastly outnumbered by the immense and onerous obligations of the Service. As good as they are, and they are very good, the Volunteer Service could use a little help now and then.

Currently, there are standards to be met before a young person is eligible to join US armed forces. For example HS graduation and no felony convictions.

What is the service supposec to do with these rejects when drafted into today's military? Cannon fodder is a bit of an outdated concept.

The Navy can't steer its ships now with "professionals". What would happen with draftees?

No! .

I don't see how conscription on any worthwhile magnitude would be fiscally sustainable nowadays nor necessary with modern day high tech warfare, short of full out declared war.

Back when the draft was used to fill quotas the US Army generally got the bulk with the US Marines sometimes getting a few. During the Vietnam era the US Air Force and Navy stayed swamped with those wanting to enlist and likewise National Guard, hoping to avoid being drafted into the Army or Marines.

A good many of those who enlisted during the Vietnam era did so in order to choose a MOS and duty station that hopefully would allow them to avoid going to Vietnam altogether and being assigned to any combat arms MOS, especially Infantry.

Most of the people in this country these days aren't worth the risk of defending.

Mixed bag for the military but something that can be reinstated if necessary. Perhaps we should consider drafting our representatives in D.C. instead?

Read my post. Draftees wouldn't be driving, they'd be doing entry level work. Besides, we did ok during WWII w 66% of the force were conscripts.

I was a draftee during the Vietnam era, and I had several old Sergeants, E-7 and above that much preferred the draftees to the men that joined on their own. At least that is what they said. miles

I have always been a fan of mandatory service. Not necessarily military, but not political "organization" groups either.

Maybe one year of service in which your individuality is stripped, you work for a higher cause and have a subsistence wage. I think it would do wonders for our country.

Then we'd have another million potato peelers, supply cage clerks, bradley mannings, bowe bergdahls and rust chippers that we would be guilt-stricken over having to thank them for thier service. Ole seafire would be falling all over himself buying remmingdog 783 rifles for them.

In today's world you would have draft both sexes.

535 Random citizens couldn't do any worse than our current representatives.

finally, there's some thinking going on in this illustrious orgn, i'm so thankful for that.

During WWII there was a pretty clear and defined mission. A purpose that had a clear threat and a 'fairly' clear end state. These days, I just see a bunch of malingering were there to be a draft. Military (at least Army and Marines) is still turning away enough applicants that a bunch of unwilling snowflakes will bring nothing to the table.

I always thought that Heinlein's bit in Starship Troopers might have some merit.

You only get a vote if you have served in the military.

In other words, if you have put your ass on the line, then you get a say in running the country. Not otherwise.

That would put me into the non-voting section.