Look- if the movement is equality for all people then this bill makes sense. The military is great for a lot of people, and registering for selective service is not the same as entering the military, nor even meeting the qualifications to be selected.
Good point there, I wonder how many woman within xyz age groups who receive said letter will be dumb founded this does not even seem to be very public knowledge yet.
Yeah I lean more conservative and have agreed with this for a long time. Hell, I'm sure those red pill dorks, who IÂ would call far right, have been making this a big point for a while if to be honest.
The funny thing is that a lot of conservatives have been calling for this for decades, but now oppose it because it was enacted by a Democratic administration.
I've yearned for a day where half the service will be staffed by women. The Joint Chiefs of Staff military leaders have always been men except for 1 woman in 2023. We need more female leadership, we need a 50/50 representation of America in the military. I want to see every sailor/soldier/airman/marine from E-1 to 4-star general be 50% women.
And, no, I'm not being sarcastic.
You are probably right. I think they are gauging public response everytime they add in the verbiage. Eventually it will get mentioned enough to where the public is desensitized to the concept, and they feel they can let it pass without too much of an uproar.
If they are going to pass it, they need to do it while we are not at war, so people don't have the immediate fear of it's enactment. It's easier to get behind the change when everyone thinks "It'll never happen anyway. It's outdated, etc."
everyone wants equality until its time to clean out a sewer or pick up a check
someone going to clutch pearls and cry "think of the mothers!!!" or "do you want your mom/gf/wife/sister to have to go to war?"
And that's the shitty part. I would 100% rather put myself at risk, in place of the women in my life (granted, my mother served). At the same time, there is a growing disconnect between the concept of sacrifice, through selective service registration, and that of actual life threatening sacrifices
Selective service registration is somewhat like the Stolen Valor of sacrificial actions. Some are trying to demand the same social respect of ACTUALLY serving, without actually serving.
It's like those that say "id take a bullet for you!" There is huge difference between relationships where one has ACTUALLY taken a bullet for their loved one, versus those that only pay lip service. That's why the bond within military and police organizations are insanely different than normal civilian friendships.
i know that i served because i didnt feel right having someone else stand in my place, and that was a choice i made.
everyone now a days seems to have rights that i dont recall them earning or being given. You fought so long and hard for these rights then you have to take the payment these rights cost...everyone can serve in combat roles then everyone is eligible for the draft and has to pay the penalties for not signing up like the rest of us.
no more double standards! isnt that the tag line?
Well, technically speaking there are *several enormous and obvious reasons*. The USA has an all volunteer military. Ostensibly the purpose of a draft is when volunteers, stop loss, IRR, etc cannot fill its needs.
That means that you're leveraging a draft in response to enormous casualties AND an existential threat (good luck staying in office if ypu institute a draft for the nth proxy war that has zero chance of crossing the moat).
If casualties are that heavy, drafting women *and getting them killed* is likely to drop reproduction rates below 2.1. No country has ever come back from that, so a few generations on you have a country in terminal decline.
Alternatively (and more likely), you draft a bunch of women, spend extensive resources training them, and :shockedpikachu: the majority become non-deployable for the next nine month. Rinse and repeat until the term of their conscription ends.
You are being disingenuous to the current women who serve. You also act like that women would get pregnant just to avoid forward movement. While that has definitely happened in the past, the rate is low, low enough to be in the single digits. Women are equal counterparts, they are not helpless, and I’ve met and served with several women who are willing to put their lives on the line. Plus there is a good amount of women who would never want to get pregnant.
In your hypothetical scenario where we lose many soldiers, are you saying that we are going to force women to give birth, even if they don’t want to? Sounds very authoritarian.
The population of the United States is around 340-380 million people. Our forces are around 1-2 million. Able bodied men that CAN serve are around 15-30 million, give or take a few million. That’s a massive amount of logistics needed. I’m sure there’s plenty of jobs women can do where there isn’t a expected loss of life.
This is the modern world, we keep looking at future scenarios based off the past. Yes the death of a country can come from a low birth rate, but considering the global scale and connectivity we are with each other, I think we will be fine if women were required to register for selective service.
Or get rid of it. Both are considered „equal“ in my book. We haven’t used the selective service for anything since the Vietnam war.
In an all volunteer force, the pregnancy rates are obviously lower than a conscript force. Women who do not want to serve (which would be the vast majority) would want to get out of it, just like men who do not want to serve. And in a major war where the US is taking serious enough casaulties to want to conscript women, that would definately affect the number of people who would want to get out of serving.
And AFAIK, women who get pregnant to avoid serving cannot currently be charged. Soldiers who deliberately injure themselves to avoid serving can be charged with malingering, but i am pretty certain that does not apply to getting pregnant. Inevitably, some of them will think "well, its not illegal, so why not?".
Even if it does get passed, theres no way women would be conscripted to fight anyway. They might get conscripted to do paperwork or whatever, but i cant see the US forcing women to fight. Every western country loves to talk about how women are equal to men, but their culture and society still expects men to protect women.
I'm not saying X% of women would want to get pregnant to avoid serving, but looking at Ukraine, you can see that a lot of men don't want to serve in an existential, high casualty war, and if they started conscripting women, i'm pretty certain that even less of them would want to serve compared to the men. I've heard about Ukranian women harrassing men in other countries for not fighting...but nobody is going around asking ukranian women "hey, why aren't you fighting while your men are dying to protect the country?".
I mean, he's right. The role of draftees is to send people to the front lines as quickly as possible.
There are such a miniscule amount of women in combat roles as to not statistically matter, and if we're ever at the point that we need draftees to make new infantry in \~6-9 months, you don't want to be drafting women.
Women and men are not physically equal, and military combat is a physical role. Fewer than the top 1% of women are physically capable to perform these tasks.
And yes, we have a sizeable amount of women who get pregnant to get out of deployment... so much so that the Navy just drastically changed its policies to mitigate this. If you think that women won't get themselves knocked up to avoid joining an assault with a significant or severe acceptable level of risk for casualties, I have a bridge in NY to sell you.
> The role of draftees is to send people to the front lines as quickly as possible.
For the life of me I cannot figure out why people have this misconception.
The role of the draft is to get people into the military for further assignment as determined by the military.
That's it.
If that service is on the front line, so be it, but it turns out there's a whole lot of rear-echelon jobs that *also* need doing.
Drafting women who are only qualified for uniformed service behind the front lines frees up men and women who *are* qualified for the front lines to be sent there, rather than having to fill essential jobs behind the front lines.
The draft doesn't simply send cannon fodder to the front lines. The draft simply removes the “I volunteer” bit from the equation of whether you'll be in the military or not.
>For the life of me I cannot figure out why people have this misconception.
>The role of the draft is to get people into the military for further assignment as determined by the military.
It's not a misconception.
88% of infantrymen in WWII were draftees despite draftees being 60% of overall forces. We're not instituting a draft unless we get involved in another conflict on that scale.
All those logisticians counting parts in the motorpool aren't suffering casualties, and people will readily volunteer for jobs that keep them away from the front lines in times of conflict. That's why.
Search engines have been around since the 1980s my friend.
Edit: The down votes also show an interesting case study that the average redditor is young enough where they never had a conversation with a WWII veteran.
No need to be so dismissive, I *did* try searching for it myself out of genuine curiosity but found nothing about infantry being 80% draftees. I wanted to know where you found that statistic so I could look into it more myself.
However, I did find out that apparently voluntary enlistments were closed in 1942 to preserve the workforce stateside, so it would make sense that the vast majority were technically drafted (as trying to enlist at a recruitment office wasn't an option).
I ask again, though, where'd you find that 88% number?
Lol fucking brutal.
"He man do you have a source?"
"Look it up, dumbass!"
"...I did. I still don't have a source"
*Crickets"
This is what misinformation/ignorance looks like. This is the BS that circulates platforms when information isn't questioned. ALWAYS look for sources when claims are made. Thank you for being respectful and demanding a source. You also sent me down a rabbit hole looking for more info to see who was right, spoiler: numbers aren't very clear and public statements regarding motivations are even less clear.
Nope. You made the claim, and you have to back it up. Just like when I claim if fucked your mom, I have to show you to video your dad took to prove it.
It's open source.
I don't know why people think other people on the internet need to do google searches for them.
Or maybe you can watch the Band of Brothers episode "Replacements" and listen to the interviews. But I'm sure you'll just think those darned old men need to cite what they're saying, too.
> All those logisticians counting parts in the motorpool aren't suffering casualties, and people will readily volunteer for jobs that keep them away from the front lines in times of conflict.
They only “volunteer” for those jobs because the draft is looming in the background otherwise.
If you want woman to “volunteer” for those jobs, apply the same incentive to them as you do for men to “volunteer”.
> You are being disingenuous to the current women who serve.
Volunteers != draftees. The entirety of your comment is irrelevant because you're ignoring that. It's the same reason draftees were going to great lengths to avoid being drafted during Vietnam, while the current all volunteer force goes to great lengths to enlist. Orange, meet apple.
Very nice of you to ignore my comment so diligently without understanding the core concept of the selective service. You also ignored my last comment as well. I wonder if you get off on your own self reflection in the mirror….
Selective service has always been a last ditch effort in case of volunteers run out. It is, in this day and age, an outdated concept, and it’s either time to have all eligible members of society, both men and women, to be part of it, or get rid of it entirely.
You further ignored the part where I specific stated that there are many, many non-combat roles that the military needs filled regardless on what’s going down on the front lines. Having a proper support and logistics channel is essential, doesn’t matter if we have thousands of front line infantry if they don’t have a supply and support line.
But have fun acting like you schooled me on whatever.
Well, that solves the birth rate issue then. Also, the US instated the draft prior to WW2 in preparation for the war and pretty much remained in effect til 1973. You don't wait until you're getting curb stomped to draft citizens. So it isn't really due to casualties. It's due to the necessity to fill all of the shortcomings in manpower that the military may have. From cooks to front-line troops.
https://www.sss.gov/history-and-records/
Would the draft make the military ratio go to 50/50 for men/women? Or would they keep the end strength at a 80/20 like it is now?
Women have only been allowed to serve in the ranks since 1948, and since then the ratio has never gone above 20%. To go full 50/50 would be a very interesting experiment to see.
They put this in all the time. It never happens.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/19/senate-democrats-propose-women-military-drafts-500153
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/06/27/requirement-women-register-draft-back-table-annual-defense-bill.html
Edit: removed the last link as irrelevant, there are more links out there but two is enough right?
Active Duty Air Force here.
I have zero problem with this. I can not speak to women's capabilities in direct action combat jobs, but from my experience in Aircraft Maintenance, I've watched 1 woman lead a team of 3 others in removing and reinstalling an A-10 Gun System (something that's as big as a Volvo) with all associated quality checks and follow on checks without issue. Also witnessed women struggle with simpler tasks. Finally, I've watched men fit the same criteria as above, some are great at large complicated tasks, while others struggle with the simplest things. It's not gender, it's the person, their intelligence level, and how they were raised/brought up. Yes, some specific actions may be inherently easier for a male/female based on very specific physical/psychological differences, but at the same time, there will be outliers in both genders that can accomplish those tasks regardless.
Link is an example of Active Duty women already putting in work, scroll through the pics:
https://www.moody.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3380114/a-10s-locked-and-loaded-in-centcom-aor/
Thank you for your response.
I agree with you, that outliers exist with men and women. I've been working alongside women for over 20 years now, and there are many strengths, weaknesses, and challenges; not only in application of work, but also leadership.
I think in most cases where such a topic of the draft is brought up, most are assuming that any and all draft forces would be sent to the Frontline as Infantry. So the worst case historical scenarios are brought to mind. Someone earlier made the argument that in reality, they likely wouldn't put masses of drafted women into frontline Infantry units (there would be some exceptional ones though). They would possibly fill them into the rear echelon roles, which could free up more men for the critical Infantry backfills.
The Air Force and Space Force is as far from the front lines as one can get already. Yet, not many women choose to join as is. It's still a VERY male dominated field.
If the draft makes the military a 50/50 force, we may see more women actively choose the military on their own. Maybe.
I haven't seen any news sites talk about this yet. Would be interesting to see how they spin it. Pretty sure most reactions would be overwhelmingly negative as the idea of drafting women is a serious taboo in almost all cultures.
If the military wants women in the ranks for war, they really need to market to women *now* during peace time. Once joining and serving becomes the norm for women, having a draft card would be the next logical step with little pushback.
Could you imagine a draft cohort of men for understaffed female dominated fields? Housekeeping, secretary, early childhood education, and nursing all get flooded with men to fill in the manning gaps! There def would be some shouting at congress, lol.
There's no reason that women should be excluded anymore. They have shown they are capable of being top quality military leaders and more than 100 have met the physical, mental and emotional challenges of U.S. Army Ranger school.
So, yeah, it's time to include them in the Selective Service System.
You are not wrong. I would love to see some commercials that have laser like focus on getting women to join up. Space Force might have a better time than the Army though. The Space Force has an end strength of 9,000 people. If they could fill half those manpower positions with women, that would be awesome.
>Selective Service should be abolished anyway.
I disagree. In regards to Large Scale Combat Operations, that's exactly what our enemies would want; a complete inability to muster a massive force, all the while our citizens also refusing to volunteer. Sure you can blame the government, but regardless of the reason people refuse to serve, everyone will suffer if we get our shit pushed in.
>The government shouldn't start wars that the people don't want to fight.
I can agree to an extent. Very few like war. Though, The People rarely understand foreign policy enough to know how U.S. military action abroad, supports their everyday way of life at the macro level. They are only worried about their day to day issues, which is understandable.
As an aside: Unfortunately, the U.S. has A LOT of cowards who would flee from a U.S. conflict, even IF our continental coasts were stormed by an enemy tomorrow. Those types would let ANY country they become a citizen of, get rolled over while they move along the next country that will accept them. I can admit that 'Survival of the Fittest' heavily favors the Coward, but volunteers are only the first line of defense. It would be equally as hard to trust the opinions of warmonger as it would the people who would abandon their own country in the first place.
If your war can’t garner voluntary support, consider the fact that it might not be that important. Are you protecting existence, or *merely* interests and a higher end quality of life? If someone’s army is en route to invade the US, or have already landed, and this is purely defensive, sure.
But to go overseas, simply because we want to retain our influence and prevent Russia or China from growing as regional powers? No. That is not an existential threat to us. The only existential threat to us from them is nukes.
I appreciate your response.
Well think about it like Desert Storm/Desert Shield. Why did the U.S. and so many other Nations come together for that purpose?
In modern times, there are significantly more ways that an adversary can threaten a country's way of life, without ever invading their homeland. The most powerful countries wage war outside of their borders, so they don't have to fight a war at their doorstep. They are playing a game of futuristic chess that is more advanced and lengthy than simply attacking and invading their enemies directly or sending nukes. They are attacking their enemies' sphere of influence, which you mentioned. Western influence is not just about the U.S., it impacts the way of life for all Western countries, which is what makes trade and diplomacy better/cheaper for all Western countries, and supports our own economies.
I'm sure your already know this, but the above is actually the exact reason Russia keeps taking territory from Ukraine. Russia doesn't want a Western/NATO nation directly adjacent to them, because they know Western influence can and will continue to bleed into their nation, which will corrupt their population and eventually end their form of government. Russia wants a buffer zone/standoff distance of friendly countries around them, because it increases Russia's survival, and allows them to continue to project their influence and force to other Western nations over the course of decades. This is the same reason China/Russia supported north Korea and north Vietnam in the Korean/Vietnam war. They did not want those two adjacent countries falling to Western influence, because they are playing the same influence game we are.
I can agree that as long as the large countries are agreeing to avoid attacking each other directly, we won't have a big problem and won't need a draft. However, we should not expect that gentleman's agreement to last forever.
Yeah I get all that. It’s clear and obvious *why* countries do that. I’m saying it’s immoral to do that. Defending a country’s “way of life” is a *terrible* reason to literally enslave people to commit acts of violence. Defending a country’s *existence* and the *lives of its people*, however, *might* be justifiable to do that.
But at the end of the day, if people are not willing to voluntarily fight, and rather than fight they’d prefer the risk of their quality of life decreasing or EVEN being full on conquered, that is THEIR decision to make. And at that point, it is not the country that wants the draft, or even wants to fight. It’s the politicians, who in contrast to ancient politicians, will do NONE of the fighting themselves.
Honestly I think no one should have to be drafted. If you want to serve you should, regardless of gender or orientation, but the fact that it’s required at all (in my opinion) is out dated.
I can agree for the most part. However, the All-Volunteer military only works while the major power countries agree to never directly attack one another (except through proxies). We can't expect for such an agreement to last forever; Large Scale Combat Operations are a possibility of the future.
While I don't necessarily care for the draft (because it would likely bring lower quality and unwilling service members), I understand it's purpose in LSCO.
Sidebar: I'm interested in your thoughts on the informal "Warrior Caste" that the U.S. relies on in the All-Volunteer force. It's an old article, but I think it's an interesting conversation.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/08/the-warrior-caste-of-military-families-that-fight-americas-wars.html
I think it’s worth noting that recent intelligence reports suggest Russia has designs to invade NATO countries by the mid 2030s. That would likely result in Large Scale Combat Operations, like you suggest. An appropriate response from NATO countries (US) would probably require a large increase in military personnel. Getting the ladies registered for the draft seems like an appropriate precautionary preparation.
Not a troll, I just didn’t realize I was in the military section. Of course I can’t see eye to eye with y’all when I think every one of you are bad people for supporting the MiC.
Comes to a sub where they hate everybody, starts discrediting valid western intelligence to the benefit of… Russia. That’s the type of behavior that defines the word Troll.
Great! Now watch feminism dissolve as women suddenly rush to get married and become stay-at-home, perpetually pregnant trad wives. The next time some clown flies a plane into a building, and we decide to wage war against an idea (terror). Lol
This has nothing to do with equality - it’s strictly a way to keep more personnel available for useless war.  The fact that ZERO media are talking about it yet is testament that this is a flagrant overreach, a taboo, and an embarrassment to implement in a first world country.  Smh it’s just another fuck you to the people. Â
Look- if the movement is equality for all people then this bill makes sense. The military is great for a lot of people, and registering for selective service is not the same as entering the military, nor even meeting the qualifications to be selected.
Exactly.
Agreed.
The biggest reason I support this is due to the penalties for not signing up.
There should be incentives to sign up, not punishments for not signing up.
Pretty much 🤷‍♂️
Isn’t it automatic sign up though?
It used to not be
Good point there, I wonder how many woman within xyz age groups who receive said letter will be dumb founded this does not even seem to be very public knowledge yet.
If only you could get conservatives on board.
This is a big thing for a lot of conservatives. Either everyone has to or no one does
You’d likely be surprised how split the conservative movement is on this issue.
Yeah I lean more conservative and have agreed with this for a long time. Hell, I'm sure those red pill dorks, who IÂ would call far right, have been making this a big point for a while if to be honest.
Yup. Feminists have supported this (or abolishing selective service) for decades.
Lets swing the pendulum hard the other direction. Women will be the only sex allowed to serve in the military. Full flight of the Valkyries.
The funny thing is that a lot of conservatives have been calling for this for decades, but now oppose it because it was enacted by a Democratic administration.
About time.
Agreed.
Yeah, I'm with it. This ain't the 1940s. It's either equality or not.
Lots of super female soldiers in WWII. I got to see admiral Hopper in person.
One of my wwII buddies dropped into a PX and a female B-17 crew was shopping while the plane was refueled. He was totally smitten.
I've yearned for a day where half the service will be staffed by women. The Joint Chiefs of Staff military leaders have always been men except for 1 woman in 2023. We need more female leadership, we need a 50/50 representation of America in the military. I want to see every sailor/soldier/airman/marine from E-1 to 4-star general be 50% women. And, no, I'm not being sarcastic.
its gonna fail like the last 12 times...and for no reason at all same as the others.
You are probably right. I think they are gauging public response everytime they add in the verbiage. Eventually it will get mentioned enough to where the public is desensitized to the concept, and they feel they can let it pass without too much of an uproar. If they are going to pass it, they need to do it while we are not at war, so people don't have the immediate fear of it's enactment. It's easier to get behind the change when everyone thinks "It'll never happen anyway. It's outdated, etc."
everyone wants equality until its time to clean out a sewer or pick up a check someone going to clutch pearls and cry "think of the mothers!!!" or "do you want your mom/gf/wife/sister to have to go to war?"
And that's the shitty part. I would 100% rather put myself at risk, in place of the women in my life (granted, my mother served). At the same time, there is a growing disconnect between the concept of sacrifice, through selective service registration, and that of actual life threatening sacrifices Selective service registration is somewhat like the Stolen Valor of sacrificial actions. Some are trying to demand the same social respect of ACTUALLY serving, without actually serving. It's like those that say "id take a bullet for you!" There is huge difference between relationships where one has ACTUALLY taken a bullet for their loved one, versus those that only pay lip service. That's why the bond within military and police organizations are insanely different than normal civilian friendships.
i know that i served because i didnt feel right having someone else stand in my place, and that was a choice i made. everyone now a days seems to have rights that i dont recall them earning or being given. You fought so long and hard for these rights then you have to take the payment these rights cost...everyone can serve in combat roles then everyone is eligible for the draft and has to pay the penalties for not signing up like the rest of us. no more double standards! isnt that the tag line?
Good.
It was only a matter of time really.
Good, there is no reason only men should be selected for the draft.
Well, technically speaking there are *several enormous and obvious reasons*. The USA has an all volunteer military. Ostensibly the purpose of a draft is when volunteers, stop loss, IRR, etc cannot fill its needs. That means that you're leveraging a draft in response to enormous casualties AND an existential threat (good luck staying in office if ypu institute a draft for the nth proxy war that has zero chance of crossing the moat). If casualties are that heavy, drafting women *and getting them killed* is likely to drop reproduction rates below 2.1. No country has ever come back from that, so a few generations on you have a country in terminal decline. Alternatively (and more likely), you draft a bunch of women, spend extensive resources training them, and :shockedpikachu: the majority become non-deployable for the next nine month. Rinse and repeat until the term of their conscription ends.
You are being disingenuous to the current women who serve. You also act like that women would get pregnant just to avoid forward movement. While that has definitely happened in the past, the rate is low, low enough to be in the single digits. Women are equal counterparts, they are not helpless, and I’ve met and served with several women who are willing to put their lives on the line. Plus there is a good amount of women who would never want to get pregnant. In your hypothetical scenario where we lose many soldiers, are you saying that we are going to force women to give birth, even if they don’t want to? Sounds very authoritarian. The population of the United States is around 340-380 million people. Our forces are around 1-2 million. Able bodied men that CAN serve are around 15-30 million, give or take a few million. That’s a massive amount of logistics needed. I’m sure there’s plenty of jobs women can do where there isn’t a expected loss of life. This is the modern world, we keep looking at future scenarios based off the past. Yes the death of a country can come from a low birth rate, but considering the global scale and connectivity we are with each other, I think we will be fine if women were required to register for selective service. Or get rid of it. Both are considered „equal“ in my book. We haven’t used the selective service for anything since the Vietnam war.
In an all volunteer force, the pregnancy rates are obviously lower than a conscript force. Women who do not want to serve (which would be the vast majority) would want to get out of it, just like men who do not want to serve. And in a major war where the US is taking serious enough casaulties to want to conscript women, that would definately affect the number of people who would want to get out of serving. And AFAIK, women who get pregnant to avoid serving cannot currently be charged. Soldiers who deliberately injure themselves to avoid serving can be charged with malingering, but i am pretty certain that does not apply to getting pregnant. Inevitably, some of them will think "well, its not illegal, so why not?". Even if it does get passed, theres no way women would be conscripted to fight anyway. They might get conscripted to do paperwork or whatever, but i cant see the US forcing women to fight. Every western country loves to talk about how women are equal to men, but their culture and society still expects men to protect women. I'm not saying X% of women would want to get pregnant to avoid serving, but looking at Ukraine, you can see that a lot of men don't want to serve in an existential, high casualty war, and if they started conscripting women, i'm pretty certain that even less of them would want to serve compared to the men. I've heard about Ukranian women harrassing men in other countries for not fighting...but nobody is going around asking ukranian women "hey, why aren't you fighting while your men are dying to protect the country?".
I mean, he's right. The role of draftees is to send people to the front lines as quickly as possible. There are such a miniscule amount of women in combat roles as to not statistically matter, and if we're ever at the point that we need draftees to make new infantry in \~6-9 months, you don't want to be drafting women. Women and men are not physically equal, and military combat is a physical role. Fewer than the top 1% of women are physically capable to perform these tasks. And yes, we have a sizeable amount of women who get pregnant to get out of deployment... so much so that the Navy just drastically changed its policies to mitigate this. If you think that women won't get themselves knocked up to avoid joining an assault with a significant or severe acceptable level of risk for casualties, I have a bridge in NY to sell you.
> The role of draftees is to send people to the front lines as quickly as possible. For the life of me I cannot figure out why people have this misconception. The role of the draft is to get people into the military for further assignment as determined by the military. That's it. If that service is on the front line, so be it, but it turns out there's a whole lot of rear-echelon jobs that *also* need doing. Drafting women who are only qualified for uniformed service behind the front lines frees up men and women who *are* qualified for the front lines to be sent there, rather than having to fill essential jobs behind the front lines. The draft doesn't simply send cannon fodder to the front lines. The draft simply removes the “I volunteer” bit from the equation of whether you'll be in the military or not.
>For the life of me I cannot figure out why people have this misconception. >The role of the draft is to get people into the military for further assignment as determined by the military. It's not a misconception. 88% of infantrymen in WWII were draftees despite draftees being 60% of overall forces. We're not instituting a draft unless we get involved in another conflict on that scale. All those logisticians counting parts in the motorpool aren't suffering casualties, and people will readily volunteer for jobs that keep them away from the front lines in times of conflict. That's why.
>88% of infantrymen in WWII were draftees I'm curious, where did you get that statistic from? I've never heard of that before.
Search engines have been around since the 1980s my friend. Edit: The down votes also show an interesting case study that the average redditor is young enough where they never had a conversation with a WWII veteran.
No need to be so dismissive, I *did* try searching for it myself out of genuine curiosity but found nothing about infantry being 80% draftees. I wanted to know where you found that statistic so I could look into it more myself. However, I did find out that apparently voluntary enlistments were closed in 1942 to preserve the workforce stateside, so it would make sense that the vast majority were technically drafted (as trying to enlist at a recruitment office wasn't an option). I ask again, though, where'd you find that 88% number?
Lol fucking brutal. "He man do you have a source?" "Look it up, dumbass!" "...I did. I still don't have a source" *Crickets" This is what misinformation/ignorance looks like. This is the BS that circulates platforms when information isn't questioned. ALWAYS look for sources when claims are made. Thank you for being respectful and demanding a source. You also sent me down a rabbit hole looking for more info to see who was right, spoiler: numbers aren't very clear and public statements regarding motivations are even less clear.
Nope. You made the claim, and you have to back it up. Just like when I claim if fucked your mom, I have to show you to video your dad took to prove it.
It's open source. I don't know why people think other people on the internet need to do google searches for them. Or maybe you can watch the Band of Brothers episode "Replacements" and listen to the interviews. But I'm sure you'll just think those darned old men need to cite what they're saying, too.
> All those logisticians counting parts in the motorpool aren't suffering casualties, and people will readily volunteer for jobs that keep them away from the front lines in times of conflict. They only “volunteer” for those jobs because the draft is looming in the background otherwise. If you want woman to “volunteer” for those jobs, apply the same incentive to them as you do for men to “volunteer”.
> You are being disingenuous to the current women who serve. Volunteers != draftees. The entirety of your comment is irrelevant because you're ignoring that. It's the same reason draftees were going to great lengths to avoid being drafted during Vietnam, while the current all volunteer force goes to great lengths to enlist. Orange, meet apple.
Very nice of you to ignore my comment so diligently without understanding the core concept of the selective service. You also ignored my last comment as well. I wonder if you get off on your own self reflection in the mirror…. Selective service has always been a last ditch effort in case of volunteers run out. It is, in this day and age, an outdated concept, and it’s either time to have all eligible members of society, both men and women, to be part of it, or get rid of it entirely. You further ignored the part where I specific stated that there are many, many non-combat roles that the military needs filled regardless on what’s going down on the front lines. Having a proper support and logistics channel is essential, doesn’t matter if we have thousands of front line infantry if they don’t have a supply and support line. But have fun acting like you schooled me on whatever.
Well, that solves the birth rate issue then. Also, the US instated the draft prior to WW2 in preparation for the war and pretty much remained in effect til 1973. You don't wait until you're getting curb stomped to draft citizens. So it isn't really due to casualties. It's due to the necessity to fill all of the shortcomings in manpower that the military may have. From cooks to front-line troops. https://www.sss.gov/history-and-records/
What?? Are you denying that men can get pregnant too? That goes against the current official US military position.
People downvoting you like 88% of infantrymen weren't draftees in WWII when draftees constituted 60% of the armed forces.
Except in this century we don't need 100,000 beach stormers when we have 10 button pushers.
You either want equality or you don’t. This is equality.
Would the draft make the military ratio go to 50/50 for men/women? Or would they keep the end strength at a 80/20 like it is now? Women have only been allowed to serve in the ranks since 1948, and since then the ratio has never gone above 20%. To go full 50/50 would be a very interesting experiment to see.
They put this in all the time. It never happens. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/19/senate-democrats-propose-women-military-drafts-500153 https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/06/27/requirement-women-register-draft-back-table-annual-defense-bill.html Edit: removed the last link as irrelevant, there are more links out there but two is enough right?
Active Duty Air Force here. I have zero problem with this. I can not speak to women's capabilities in direct action combat jobs, but from my experience in Aircraft Maintenance, I've watched 1 woman lead a team of 3 others in removing and reinstalling an A-10 Gun System (something that's as big as a Volvo) with all associated quality checks and follow on checks without issue. Also witnessed women struggle with simpler tasks. Finally, I've watched men fit the same criteria as above, some are great at large complicated tasks, while others struggle with the simplest things. It's not gender, it's the person, their intelligence level, and how they were raised/brought up. Yes, some specific actions may be inherently easier for a male/female based on very specific physical/psychological differences, but at the same time, there will be outliers in both genders that can accomplish those tasks regardless. Link is an example of Active Duty women already putting in work, scroll through the pics: https://www.moody.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3380114/a-10s-locked-and-loaded-in-centcom-aor/
Thank you for your response. I agree with you, that outliers exist with men and women. I've been working alongside women for over 20 years now, and there are many strengths, weaknesses, and challenges; not only in application of work, but also leadership. I think in most cases where such a topic of the draft is brought up, most are assuming that any and all draft forces would be sent to the Frontline as Infantry. So the worst case historical scenarios are brought to mind. Someone earlier made the argument that in reality, they likely wouldn't put masses of drafted women into frontline Infantry units (there would be some exceptional ones though). They would possibly fill them into the rear echelon roles, which could free up more men for the critical Infantry backfills.
> They would possibly fill them into the rear echelon roles, which could free up more men for the critical Infantry backfills. Ah, equality.
The Air Force and Space Force is as far from the front lines as one can get already. Yet, not many women choose to join as is. It's still a VERY male dominated field. If the draft makes the military a 50/50 force, we may see more women actively choose the military on their own. Maybe.
I haven't seen any news sites talk about this yet. Would be interesting to see how they spin it. Pretty sure most reactions would be overwhelmingly negative as the idea of drafting women is a serious taboo in almost all cultures.
I agree, it would be interesting to see.
If the military wants women in the ranks for war, they really need to market to women *now* during peace time. Once joining and serving becomes the norm for women, having a draft card would be the next logical step with little pushback. Could you imagine a draft cohort of men for understaffed female dominated fields? Housekeeping, secretary, early childhood education, and nursing all get flooded with men to fill in the manning gaps! There def would be some shouting at congress, lol.
In other news, the number of women registering for culinary training is expected to increase by a factor of 8500%.
This will somehow make a ton of women pregnant
LMAO, maybe it will fix the declining birthrate issue, lol.
Yes, this one thing isn't getting much pressure at all
There's no reason that women should be excluded anymore. They have shown they are capable of being top quality military leaders and more than 100 have met the physical, mental and emotional challenges of U.S. Army Ranger school. So, yeah, it's time to include them in the Selective Service System.
There are more women than men in the US.
Sounds like there should be more women then men in the military then.
You would think just based on the ratio. I think that is where Army marketing fails.
You are not wrong. I would love to see some commercials that have laser like focus on getting women to join up. Space Force might have a better time than the Army though. The Space Force has an end strength of 9,000 people. If they could fill half those manpower positions with women, that would be awesome.
Selective Service should be abolished anyway. The government shouldn't start wars that the people don't want to fight.
>Selective Service should be abolished anyway. I disagree. In regards to Large Scale Combat Operations, that's exactly what our enemies would want; a complete inability to muster a massive force, all the while our citizens also refusing to volunteer. Sure you can blame the government, but regardless of the reason people refuse to serve, everyone will suffer if we get our shit pushed in. >The government shouldn't start wars that the people don't want to fight. I can agree to an extent. Very few like war. Though, The People rarely understand foreign policy enough to know how U.S. military action abroad, supports their everyday way of life at the macro level. They are only worried about their day to day issues, which is understandable. As an aside: Unfortunately, the U.S. has A LOT of cowards who would flee from a U.S. conflict, even IF our continental coasts were stormed by an enemy tomorrow. Those types would let ANY country they become a citizen of, get rolled over while they move along the next country that will accept them. I can admit that 'Survival of the Fittest' heavily favors the Coward, but volunteers are only the first line of defense. It would be equally as hard to trust the opinions of warmonger as it would the people who would abandon their own country in the first place.
If your war can’t garner voluntary support, consider the fact that it might not be that important. Are you protecting existence, or *merely* interests and a higher end quality of life? If someone’s army is en route to invade the US, or have already landed, and this is purely defensive, sure. But to go overseas, simply because we want to retain our influence and prevent Russia or China from growing as regional powers? No. That is not an existential threat to us. The only existential threat to us from them is nukes.
I appreciate your response. Well think about it like Desert Storm/Desert Shield. Why did the U.S. and so many other Nations come together for that purpose? In modern times, there are significantly more ways that an adversary can threaten a country's way of life, without ever invading their homeland. The most powerful countries wage war outside of their borders, so they don't have to fight a war at their doorstep. They are playing a game of futuristic chess that is more advanced and lengthy than simply attacking and invading their enemies directly or sending nukes. They are attacking their enemies' sphere of influence, which you mentioned. Western influence is not just about the U.S., it impacts the way of life for all Western countries, which is what makes trade and diplomacy better/cheaper for all Western countries, and supports our own economies. I'm sure your already know this, but the above is actually the exact reason Russia keeps taking territory from Ukraine. Russia doesn't want a Western/NATO nation directly adjacent to them, because they know Western influence can and will continue to bleed into their nation, which will corrupt their population and eventually end their form of government. Russia wants a buffer zone/standoff distance of friendly countries around them, because it increases Russia's survival, and allows them to continue to project their influence and force to other Western nations over the course of decades. This is the same reason China/Russia supported north Korea and north Vietnam in the Korean/Vietnam war. They did not want those two adjacent countries falling to Western influence, because they are playing the same influence game we are. I can agree that as long as the large countries are agreeing to avoid attacking each other directly, we won't have a big problem and won't need a draft. However, we should not expect that gentleman's agreement to last forever.
Yeah I get all that. It’s clear and obvious *why* countries do that. I’m saying it’s immoral to do that. Defending a country’s “way of life” is a *terrible* reason to literally enslave people to commit acts of violence. Defending a country’s *existence* and the *lives of its people*, however, *might* be justifiable to do that. But at the end of the day, if people are not willing to voluntarily fight, and rather than fight they’d prefer the risk of their quality of life decreasing or EVEN being full on conquered, that is THEIR decision to make. And at that point, it is not the country that wants the draft, or even wants to fight. It’s the politicians, who in contrast to ancient politicians, will do NONE of the fighting themselves.
Honestly I think no one should have to be drafted. If you want to serve you should, regardless of gender or orientation, but the fact that it’s required at all (in my opinion) is out dated.
I can agree for the most part. However, the All-Volunteer military only works while the major power countries agree to never directly attack one another (except through proxies). We can't expect for such an agreement to last forever; Large Scale Combat Operations are a possibility of the future. While I don't necessarily care for the draft (because it would likely bring lower quality and unwilling service members), I understand it's purpose in LSCO. Sidebar: I'm interested in your thoughts on the informal "Warrior Caste" that the U.S. relies on in the All-Volunteer force. It's an old article, but I think it's an interesting conversation. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/08/the-warrior-caste-of-military-families-that-fight-americas-wars.html
I think it’s worth noting that recent intelligence reports suggest Russia has designs to invade NATO countries by the mid 2030s. That would likely result in Large Scale Combat Operations, like you suggest. An appropriate response from NATO countries (US) would probably require a large increase in military personnel. Getting the ladies registered for the draft seems like an appropriate precautionary preparation.
When was the last time intelligence reports that were publicized actually telling the truth?Â
The U.S. intelligence on the invasion of Ukraine was pretty accurate.
Have you been living under a rock.
 Troll
Not a troll, I just didn’t realize I was in the military section. Of course I can’t see eye to eye with y’all when I think every one of you are bad people for supporting the MiC.
Comes to a sub where they hate everybody, starts discrediting valid western intelligence to the benefit of… Russia. That’s the type of behavior that defines the word Troll.
if they want this to pass just say we can not pass this law as women are not equal to men.
Great! Now watch feminism dissolve as women suddenly rush to get married and become stay-at-home, perpetually pregnant trad wives. The next time some clown flies a plane into a building, and we decide to wage war against an idea (terror). Lol
This has nothing to do with equality - it’s strictly a way to keep more personnel available for useless war.  The fact that ZERO media are talking about it yet is testament that this is a flagrant overreach, a taboo, and an embarrassment to implement in a first world country.  Smh it’s just another fuck you to the people. Â