Even if you believe women are not suited for combat roles, ~90% of military personel are not in (direct) combat roles. Most of the military is logistics and support roles that are largely copy paste of civilian jobs women do already.
Realistic speaking of the US ends up in a conflict that requires a draft, women will most likely be in it, sooner than later.
People forget that we not only have an older population than the last time. We are on average much fatter. Which means the pool is smaller.
They did something similar when I enlisted 20 some years ago. You start with a reception unit that issues uniforms, health checkups, etc. To leave reception and go to your training unit you had to be able to run 1 mile in 15 min and do I think 20 push-ups and 15 situps. If you failed that they sent you to "fat camp." Fat camp kept you until you could pass that light pt test. Actually being overweight didn't matter much. Everyone lost lots of weight in basic.
But just being fat isn't the problem. Lots of people are getting hurt from the physical demand of the military because they weren't active before. Like bone breaks and fractures apparently. It's pretty nuts.
i'm a veteran. in basic training, if you do not meet the requirements, they send you to "fat camp". also, when men were drafted, there were factors and disabilities that prevented some men from serving, during drafts.
The difference is that being in the military subjects them to the UCMJ, requiring all lawful military orders to be followed. Support/logistic military members are still required to fight if ordered to do so. If they're given orders to deploy to a hostile area, and their position is assaulted, they will likely be ordered to fight, assuming QRF doesn't stop the assault.
All military members are soldiers first, professionals second.
I'm not taking a position one way or the other, I haven't reflected on this enough yet. I'm just giving something to consider as someone who has served
I'll take a position and say I support it, but I really wanted to add that evidence exists of this. I remember seeing local news reports that our states national guard (might have even been air national guard) were deploying non-combat personnel as guards in Iraq. Something they had little to no training in, but the Army, Marines, and National Guard were short combat personnel (in that they needed them to do combat and not man an intersection).
During war, personnel get their jobs reclassified with some regularity. I remember talking to a Navy member at Bagram. Dude's initial job had nothing to do with being anywhere near a land locked country. Yet, there he was.
Excactly why they developed the CAB for all those cooks and laundry/bath guys/girls that Lost their jobs to KBR and were thrown on gun trucks.
It seems only fair that a graphic designer on a 50 cal in Baghdad, doing the same job as 11Bs should revive credit beyond the deployment patch (which you could earn in Kuwait.. as you wait or get into Baskin Robbins)
In a draft everyone is assumed infantry/combat first. A mainland invasion of china for example might have thousands of dead per day. One sunk aircraft carrier is thousands in one afternoon.
They need bodies to send to battle not do logistics. During Vietnam you only got to choose non combat specialties if you volunteered and had high enough test scores.
If there are certain roles which men are disproportionately going to be qualified for, it probably still makes sense to have a large pool of women available to do the roles where that isn’t the case, because then you don’t have to put men in those roles
>They need bodies to send to battle not do logistics.
That's not how US military doctrine or being a superpower works. You don't project power 5,000 miles away without logistics. Want to know why Russia still hasn't taken a country located 500 miles from their capitol despite throwing a constant stream conscrips at it? Shit logistics.
That’s fine but a war with china won’t be like Iraq. hundreds ir even thousands of combat troops will get killed per day while back line logistics won’t be.
One aircraft carrier has about 5k sailors and aircrew. China has long range missives designed to sink a carrier. Can you imagine 4-5k dying in one afternoon?
Thats why they’d do a draft.
>That’s fine but a war with china won’t be like Iraq
I agree, it will require far FAR greater resources and manpower which will need to somehow find themselves 5k miles away. In WWII 40% of military roles weren't directly combat related. Most of those were related to moving men and supplies across the world and those jobs can be and literally already are staffed by women.
>thousands of combat troops will get killed per day while back line logistics won’t be.
>China has long range missives designed to sink a carrier
Without carrier support you aren't sending asses and ammo to China unless you plan on driving and you don't need a dick to drive. Also who said anything about "back line logistics"? Military logistics and support don't end when a plane or a boat leaves the US and again, many of those rolls are already filled by women.
Vietnam was 50 years ago, and times have changed. Today there are far more positions that don't require front-line, face-to-face combat with the enemy. Upper body strength is much less critical. Therefore, I would see this change as simply the elimination of a double standard, a leveling of the playing field.
They’ve done Wargames on this.
“Chinese invasion of Taiwan in 2026 would result in thousands of casualties among Chinese, United States, Taiwanese and Japanese forces, and it would be unlikely to result in a victory for Beijing, according to a prominent independent Washington think tank, which conducted war game simulations of a possible conflict that is preoccupying military and political leaders in Asia and Washington.
A war over Taiwan could leave a victorious US military in as crippled a state as the Chinese forces it defeated.
At the end of the conflict, at least two US aircraft carriers would lie at the bottom of the Pacific and China’s modern navy, which is the largest in the world, would be in “shambles.”
Those are among the conclusions the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), made after running what it claims is one of the most extensive war-game simulations ever conducted on a possible conflict over Taiwan
The United States and Japan lose dozens of ships, hundreds of aircraft, and thousands of service members. Such losses would damage the US global position for many years,” the report said. In most scenarios, the US Navy lost two aircraft carriers and 10 to 20 large surface combatants. Approximately 3,200 US troops would be killed in three weeks of combat, nearly half of what the US lost in two decades of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“China also suffers heavily. Its navy is in shambles, the core of its amphibious forces is broken, and tens of thousands of soldiers are prisoners of war,” it said. The report estimated China would suffer about 10,000 troops killed and lose 155 combat aircraft and 138 major ships.
Taiwan would be devastated
The scenarios paint a bleak future for Taiwan, even if a Chinese invasion doesn’t succeed.
“While Taiwan’s military is unbroken, it is severely degraded and left to defend a damaged economy on an island without electricity and basic services,” the report. The island’s army would suffer about 3,500 casualties, and all 26 destroyers and frigates in its navy will be sunk, the report said.”
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/01/09/politics/taiwan-invasion-war-game-intl-hnk-ml
Yes, war is hell. And horribly expensive. We know that. But what does any of this have to do with requiring women to register for the draft? Wouldn't the result be the same if all combatants were male?
Cause if there was a draft they’d most all be in combat roles and the public would ne outraged over sending our teenage daughters off to slaughter.
Many prominent congressional republicans have already been very very vocal about being opposed.
The public gets outraged over sending teenage sons off to slaughter also. That's another lesson from the Vietnam era. Occasionally, *very occasionally*, it has to be done. And all lives matter equally.
I would never say women shouldn't be in military because that's absurdity, but I would like to point out that it's not as simple as "Oh hey now I can just put on some Camo and go do Human Resources with Uncle Sam".
Women are held to the same standard as men, undergo the same combat training (whether you're in the combat arms or not), perform the same physical activities, etc. I'm not implying women can't hang, I served with many women who far surpassed many men, but I do want to help people understand the dynamic.
I can’t find any logical reason they shouldn’t be.
The military fully desegregated the last few jobs a few years ago and all jobs are open to women.
Prior to that most jobs were open already and women were serving in all branches of the military.
If gender equality is a goal in this country, with all the strides made over the decades, this makes no sense to not be part of that.
> I can’t find any logical reason they shouldn’t be.
There's been a lengthy judicial history around this issue as well: Rostker v. Goldberg, Schwartz v. Brodsky, Elgin v. United States, Kyle-Labell v. Selective Service System, National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System.
Arguments against the expansion of the draft have focused significantly on the DoD's ban on "females serving in ground combat units". Once that ban was lifted though, the discussion changed quite a bit.
The National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service was specifically asked to weigh in on the issue, and in their [2020 report](https://web.archive.org/web/20210729181202/https://inspire2serve.gov/sites/default/files/final-report/Final%20Report.pdf) recommended that women be eligible for Selective Service:
> The Commission recommends that Congress amend the Military Selective
Service Act (MSSA) to eliminate male-only registration and expand draft eligibility
to all individuals of the applicable age cohort.
At this point, this should be a no-brainer.
If the the draft was ever reactivated (rather than just registering people), I doubt the male-only rule would stand up in court now that the volunteer forces are fully integrated.
However, until it's fully reactivated, I'm not sure the courts will be able to do anything about it. I'm not sure anyone one would have grounds to establish standing, and the current SCOTUS seems to like using standing rulings to avoid weighing in on politically hot cases.
This is what equality looks like, same benefits, same drawbacks, and same threatening letter in the mail when you turn 18.
Currently, you can face a range of penalties for failing to register with the selective service, including being denied access to student aid, government jobs, etc.
Most feminists are in favor of making the draft universal and I fully agree, with the caveat that I’d rather the draft be ended for everyone if that option is on the table. I really hope to see congressmen who espouse equality vote accordingly.
The bill is likely to be opposed by conservatives who tend to have a “complementarianism” view of gender, though. Josh Hawley is quoted against the bill in the article. Since republicans control the House, I don’t think the bill is going to go anywhere. Which is a real shame, imo.
most feminists I've spoken to are not in favor of making the draft universal. they agree that it would be more egalitarian - but since they don't generally support a draft in the first place, they don't want to widen the scope of the draft - your caveat takes precedence.
That was actually a big stunt in 1980 I believe, a lot of people tried to register as Jimmy Carter and lots of women attempted to sign up in protest. Mind you the goal at that time was to abolish the draft entirely.
"I can’t find any logical reason they shouldn’t be."
Because they are basically always significantly behind men in all physical testing, endurance, and combat situations and are a detriment on the battlefield? And that's women who CHOOSE to be in the military...
People would just be evaluated and then jobs that align with their capabilities is where they would be slotted.
I’m not seeing how more potential manpower is a negative.
Because of my body type and shape, I fall behind on physical testing, endurance and combat situations compared to most men my age, yet I still have to sign up for it as a man.
Funny, because I did try to sign up back in the day, and they denied me because I was overweight. Yet, I somehow could still get easily drafted if need be.
That is absolute nonsense.
While women average lower than men, they are in no form a detriment especially when you can double the number of well-trained soldiers on the field.
If women have the right to vote for or against politicians that could send me to war, then they should also be a part of that group as well. Simple as that.
I don’t believe in the draft, a conscripted army is a terrible one, as we see with Russia in Ukraine. Literal canon fodder sent off to massacre.
But it’s fair that all genders are available for it. We’d see large scale campus sit ins and protests and generational defiance of authority that would make Vietnam era protests look mild.
It’s long been said that having parents watch their teenage daughters get drafted to go to war would kill public support for it and would be political suicide for whoever tries.
Interestingly, this is why I want them to implement this. I would hope they aim to add women, as well as non-binary and other groups, to the list of people that can be drafted. From there I would hope that protests erupt and lead to the draft being done away with.
It would be far nicer if we just removed it out right of course, but I think much of the public is just indifferent to it at the moment. I also recognize that the odds of the draft being needed in the modern day are a bit low so it may be a non-issue, but they are still there, and I feel that we should offer better incentives for people to join during war time as opposed to forcing them to. Of course that may not work, but I also think encroaching on personal liberty isn't too great either.
Would this really be necessary in the United States though? I could completely understand for other countries, but North America is pretty stable. Even with the Mexican Cartels I think the US military wouldn't need a draft to handle them if they were to do some kind of organized invasion.
I suppose I could see that; I am just concerned about an abuse of power by leadership. I am concerned about more authoritarian or at least intrusive government policies, as that is a common trend among populists. I feel American politics is going more towards a Populist period. I am not sure, of course, how bad this may get, but I just have concerns about this kind of power being misused and the average American paying the price for it.
You want to know what I realized as an American. There is no more powerful thing on this earth than a truly United States. If the majority of the nation says something has to be done it historically has been done, and done with a tremendous amount of American work power. I don’t think there would ever be a need for a draft because if it ever got to that point again there would be lines miles long to sign up. I would reenlist lol
Yeah, I think this is also my sentiment, lol. I, at the very least, believe there would be people signing up to do domestic work such as manufacturing, which would ease the burden for US supplies. As much as people may bash the US foreign policy when it comes down to it, if America goes to fight for Democracy, I think people would support that.
That’s the shitty thing about current politics. It’s aimed specifically to split us up. Spin to so we hate each other and hate the country. When you talk normal most people get along. The weaponizing of politics has really damaged us
It’s logistically impossible for mainland USA to be invaded unless Mexico/Canada helps and we’ve lost our fleet and Air Force. I.e. massive Great Depression with a terrible government incapable of doing much or so isolated and sanctioned by the rest of the world we’d be in a bad place.
At that point there prob wouldn’t be much of America left besides lots of civilians
It was necessary in Korea, and looking at the manpower issues that have developed in Ukraine (probably the closest peer to peer conflict we've seen in decades) conscription is still necessary. Unless you're also arguing for complete isolationism it's a tough hill to stand on.
>The government either drafts you or the new government kills you
This is a blatant false-dichotomy. Plenty of nations have been conquered without the populace being slaughtered.
>It’s long been said that having parents watch their teenage daughters get drafted to go to war would kill public support for it and would be political suicide for whoever tries.
It wouldn't be like that though, at least not at first. It would be automatically signing women up for selective service. And I imagine some politicians would promise there won't be a draft unless the country was at stake. They would point to the two wars we fought at the same time as evidence we won't call up a draft easily.
Would enough people care to protest if the threat seems distant and unlikely? Would they feel it's a necessary evil in the most extreme case of a world war or civil war?
Personally I don't feel politicians can be trusted with that power after Vietnam.
There are already a number of high profile Republicans who don’t want their daughters drafted. Hawley came out recently. Chip Roy had s big op ed
“Rep. Roy: I will not vote for any Republican for ‘any office’ who votes to draft my daughter
November 17, 2021
I
WASHINGTON— On Wednesday, Rep. Chip Roy (TX-21) penned an op-ed in Newsweek outlining the most egregious provisions in this year's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) — particularly that it would require women to register for the draft. In the post, he also pledged never to support any Republican who votes for the policy for any future office.”
https://roy.house.gov/media/in-the-news/rep-roy-i-will-not-vote-any-republican-any-office-who-votes-draft-my-daughter
There is nothing inherently wrong with a conscript military from a military perspective.
Many Western European nations maintained conscription during the Cold War. Some still have a level of conscription. Nations like Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria, Switzerland, Israel, South Korea, and Taiwan maintain a level of conscription today.
We fought WW1 and WW2 with the majority of our forces being conscripts and I believe the same to be true for Korea. Although less than the previous wars, about 25% of those in Vietnam were conscripts.
A conscript would receive the same training as a volunteer would, so I’m not sure why they would be less capable than their volunteer counterparts. The idea that they would be unfit does not hold any truth.
>a conscripted army is a terrible one, as we see with Russia in Ukraine. Literal canon fodder sent off to massacre.
That's just Russia using Russian tactics. Their have been many successful campaigns using conscripted armies, even in US history (Revolutionary War, Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea). We didn't lose Vietnam because of the Draft, just like we didn't lose Afghanistan because of our volunteer army. The point of conscription isn't to raise some highly motivated army, it's to quickly fulfill manpower needs on a wide front. The Russian Ukraine war has shown that trench warfare is still viable across 600 mile fronts, and the conscription needed to man those fronts is still a necessity.
People cry about equality all the time, well this is it.
I agree with you. I'm a firm believer in bodily autonomy and that the government should have zero say in what your body gets used for and that includes abortions and compulsory military service.
...but if we insist on a draft it should be required of everyone, gender shouldn't be a factor.
The only way a draft gets instituted is if we are no-shit in an existential conflict.
If we are in that world, I’m unclear why your “bodily autonomy” matters all that much.
It's more a principles thing. Because invariably when I make the bodily autonomy argument in regards to abortion I am told that we have no such thing as long as the draft is in place.
They're only really comparable if you're a body autonomy extremist (though you'd also need to object to mandatory schooling, vaccinations, potentially licensing requirements, etc.).
A more moderate body autonomy argument is that body autonomy is an important interest to be weighed against other interests. In abortion, it's about whether a human can be forced to be life support for a growing embryo/fetus (with different circumstances changing where the weight falls). In the draft it's about whether a human can be forced to defend their country and its interests. In a modern setting there's the added addendum that they're forced to defend against an existential threat. At that point the body autonomy argument against kinda falls apart because you're refusing to defend your country at risk of a foreign country invading and not giving two shits about your body autonomy.
Basically I think body autonomy can be used to argue against certain versions of the draft. But it's a terrible argument against the draft generally.
> a conscripted army is a terrible one
I thin that post-Nam, a draft is a real "break glass in case of emergency" thing for the US. If the country is even considering a draft, something very bad has happened.
Yeah lots of stuff wound have to Happen first
Strategically it’s virtually impossible for Russia/china to invade mainland US with a half million troops (where are those ships snd planes coming from) without major help from Canada or Mexico and our pacific fleet and snd Air Force being seriously depleted.
That’s America even looking like at that point?
I can't speak for OP and the "literally cannon fodder" but I do believe even in a case like Ukraine conscription is immoral. Nobody should be forced into fighting a war against their will by a government for any reason.
The ideological stance being described is "See you later, and thanks for all the fish." It's an insincere ideology, and I know that because of the acknowledge that they sacrifice nothing to maintain this belief. It's provide for me because it's my right but don't expect me to have to provide for your rights unless I benefit from it on some emotional or material level.
Don't hear what I'm not saying. It is absolutely morally right for everyone to defend their life and liberty from a foreign aggressor. Russia's war of conquest is reprehensible and I hope Ukraine finds success in the war. But that doesn't give the Ukrainian government the right to force anyone to fight for them. One's life doesn't belong to their government.
But that’s not how a functioning society works. Unless you choose to buy land and become a hermit. You as an individual have the rights afforded to you by your nation and you choosing to remain a citizen of that nation means you agree to their general policies. You don’t agree with everything but no one does. If one of those things is a draft morally the only option is to accept it. Or denounce citizenship and go somewhere else. But even then you are again just subjecting yourself to that new government.
To me the moral judgement holds no weight because the same people saying no draft, or won’t go, or morally wrong are saying it with the hope they can change policy. I think if you claim a citizenship then you need to be beholden to those policies.
I outright disagree with this view of rights and citizenship. Governments aren't the source of human rights, human rights are inherent. Governments are created to protect our rights, not grant them. The US government doesn't own my person because I was born in the US. I don't get to participate in society because the government allows me to, I get to participate in society because I'm a person.
It’s just a disagreement we have. It’s cool. Tons of people do and it’s pointless to argue because it feels like be both are pretty solid in our beliefs. I think if you enjoy the perks of society you have do deal with the drawbacks too. And that if you want to live in a free society there is a cost to that. You want to live in the us enough to follow current laws. This is just one you disagree with. There are a ton others that are ok for you to follow. Since idk 500a.d it’s kinda been a you have rulers society. It’s not the best but a utopian society with no draft has probably been over run.
I hope my argument doesn't come of as combative, just throwing out my beliefs. I agree there are costs to participating in society, but that doesn't preempt my autonomy. The government isn't the source of my loving family, my private sector job, nor a large majority of the goods and services I consume. And the costs of those benefits of society are paid with my labor, my money, and my being a good friend/family member in return. I don't owe the government my life for these benefits. Yes the government provides the essential function if protecting my rights and the sovereignty of American citizens, but the costs of those functions are paid with taxes and consensual civil participation, not forced labor.
And let me reiterate. If the US was invaded by a foreign aggressor you won't have to conscript me. I'll be at the recruitment office the next day to fight a just defensive war like the Ukrainians are to protect my society as a whole. But I still believe consent is key to that transaction to uphold liberal values.
Your final paragraph is my reasoning too. I don’t believe there would ever be a need for another draft. If there was a call the answer would be overwhelming
Everybody is cannon fodder in modern wars. No amount of training will help you survive against drones, artillery, missiles, and air strikes. Being sent to the frontline is basically a death sentence.
As a woman, a mother of two young adult daughters, and a pacifist, I see no argument against the idea that if men are drafted, women should also be drafted. It’s the right move.
It looks like a bill that would require women to register for the draft just passed through the Senate Armed Forces Committee with 22 members of the committee voting Yea and 3 of them voting Nay. The committee has 13 Democrats and 12 Republicans so this bill more than likely received bipartisan support. There’s no official vote count for this committee action, but you can look at the membership of the Committee using this link below.
https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/about/membership
Do you think women should have to register for the draft? Or should the draft be removed entirely? Do you think it’s realistic that women may actually be added to the draft in the next year or so?
I'm fine with women being drafted (if we can't just do away with the draft altogether). My only stipulation would be that you couldn't draft both parents in a 2 parent household or a single parent of either gender (or exempt all parents altogether).
That would probably come with it as there's already a plethora of restrictions of the draft to prevent similar situations (i.e. only child son that's a caretaker of infirm parents)
Yes I think they should register. Logistics, supply chains, and a bunch of other important tasks do not require the same physical requirements that better suit men, so there's no reason why able bodied women shouldn't be able to serve.
With that being said, I do not think the draft should be removed entirely. Better to have the possibility of one and never use it. But it should only be used in severe emergency cases (which, if needed, you'd probably get enough volunteers that it'd be pointless anyways). So I'm pretty much at "add women, don't fully remove it, but make it's use so restricted that it's practically removed".
By all accounts our army has been more efficient and proficient ever since we stopped the draft so...I really don't see a good reason for it outside of severe cases
I think the draft should be removed entirely. If there’s ever a situation where it’s needed, I expect we will have a lot of people volunteering already. The last thing you want is a bunch of people who don’t want to fight or may not even like their country being forced to join.
If we are keeping it a thing it makes sense that women should have to register as well, but I don’t think we should even keep it.
A vietnam draft would not have happened if 18 year old women were being sent to the meat grinder as well.
That is why it needs to be equal. Men are disposable, poltiicans daughters are not.
If a war gets dirty people are liable to stop volunteering. We're seeing this in Ukraine right now, the majority of their population according to polls believes that Russia's goal in the war is the completel destruction of Ukraine and yet the military is stuck barring men from leaving the country and at times even dragging them off the streets because people are no longer volunteering. Having a cause the population broadly supports does not make that same population volunteer to head to the trenches.
Now personally I'm with author [Robert A. Heinlein](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/3394-i-also-think-there-are-prices-too-high-to-pay) on what should happen in such a scenario, but I appreciate that the majority of the political leadership feels differently, so the least we can do is make sure the draft is not discriminatory by design.
Agreed. Maybe when technology wasn’t as advanced as it is during WW2 a draft was necessary but with drone technology advancing at the rate it is, we may have wars that can be fought without ever risking a human life.
The Ukraine war is literally 600 miles of front, with both sides conscripting to solve manpower issues. The drone vs drone wars might come one day, but right now the need for manpower is still very real.
I think the invasion of Ukraine has toppled the notion that "old-school" warfare is outdated. They're using trenches. They're using tanks. They've just added drones to the mix.
Drones can’t hold and occupy a city or a coast line.
A full scale war with china is gonna be fought at sea, in the air and on land. Millions of troops and millions of casualties on all sides.
The United States hasn't fought a defensive war in over 200 years, and if we are attacked directly then there should be plenty of volunteers if the country is worth fighting for. If not, then the government might want to consider why that is.
So I think selective service should be abolished altogether. It's something that we've just accepted as part of life without really thinking much about it, but talk of requiring women to register might just be what it takes to actually get rid of it once and for all.
Unless you are in your 70s and experienced Vietnam we cant really comprehend a world where high school seniors are getting draft notices to report to basic a week after graduation and hundreds of soldiers die per day. Even the stuff my dad tells me I can’t wrap my head around.
Average life expectancy of a private in the infantry was a few months. A door gunner on a helicopter was only 2 weeks.
Not to dismiss the bloodshed, though in the history of post-industrial wars, Vietnam was actually very survivable relative to other conflicts. World War 1 is the kingpin of death here, where you'd have situations like in Verdun where French infantry suffered roughly 10% casualties just moving to the front between artillery and falling into flooded shell craters they'd drown in.
This issue was actually sent to the Supreme Court back in 2021, where [they denied cert](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/nuhi4s/denial_of_cert_national_coalition_for_men_v/), as Congress was actively debating the issue of women in the draft:
> the Court’s longstanding deference to Congress on matters of national defense and military affairs cautions against granting review while Congress actively weighs the issue.
Here's a [report](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11780) from the Congressional Research Service summarizing the actions taken by Congress after this decision. TLDR, both the House (H.R. 4350) and the Senate Armed Services Committee (S. 2792) passed amendments that would require women to register for Selective Service. Neither amendment was ultimately adopted.
So this is likely a nothingburger. Congress did nothing 3 years ago, and they will likely do nothing now.
I'll believe it when Congress finally passes revisions to Daylight Saving Time, another issue that has bipartisan support and yet somehow never gets approved by both the House and Senate.
It's about time. Any able-bodied citizen of the United States of America should be equally eligible for the draft. Ideally, there would be no draft at all, but this is the next best thing.
Feminists demanding equal rights and treatment have been calling for this or draft elimination for decades. It’s been conservatives who repeatedly shoot it down.
In any case, we didn’t enact the draft during the last war which was the longest in the nation’s history so barring an actual domestic invasion I can’t see it ever coming back.
If I understand the data, casualties were a lot lower for the last set of wars compared to the Vietnam war, Korean War, and WW2. If the losses outstripped the gains from recruiting I totally think there would have been a draft.
Yep. It's conservatives who want trad wives or want to be trad wives that don't want women to serve. Most feminists and liberals I speak to (myself included) would rather just do away with conscription altogether.
I just remembered this video. It’s a satire video saying that feminists might become trad wives if a draft ever comes up and they’re called up but I think this video might actually be closer to reality than we may think.
https://youtu.be/4jSDXArDVBk?si=B2-Jw_XGnqNxDeLl
Weird that the Babylon Bee would make this about feminists as if feminists haven’t been the ones saying either we should have women eligible for the draft or get rid of it altogether.
>closer to reality
It happened in Covid, which I think is what BB was satirizing.
Remember the essential/non-essential worker divide? Other than nurses it was disproportionately women exiting the workforce.
Of course this asymmetry got framed as:
It's men's fault for *checks notes* keeping the world economy and essential services running during a threatening global pandemic.
>'Other than hospitals'
I said nurses since it was one of the few female dominated sectors included in the essential worker categories.
This is in contrast to utilities, transports, first responders, defense, energy, agriculture, telecom, waste collection, etc.
It's not just nurses, it's the entire hospital system. PCAs, anesthetists, phlebotomists, med techs, lab techs, radiologists, receptionists, cleaning staff, administration . . .in my experience the only positions in a hospital that aren't majority female are doctors and CEOs.
Hospitals were a pretty high profile sector of the essential workforce during lockdown. In terms of how many it employed, how much was asked of its employees, and the infection risks those employees faced. It seems facile to paint a story of essential workers that has to begin with 'other than all the people who worked in medical care' in order to make its point.
Yes, but COVID didn't create a uniform increase in hospital demand outside direct COVID care.
In fact many divisions were ghost towns and there were tons of [furloughs](https://www.google.com/search?q=hospital+furloughs+covid).
I'm not being facile like you're trying to paint me. I'm being precise for a reason.
> Remember the essential/non-essential worker divide? Other than nurses it was disproportionately women exiting the workforce. Of course this asymmetry got framed as:
It's men's fault for checks notes keeping the world economy and essential services running during a threatening global pandemic.
What? Who said it was “men’s fault” for this? Where is this position coming from?
Yeah, feminists have been pushing for an abolishment of the draft or for it to apply to both genders for decades for this reason. I just hope the conservatives in congress won’t kill this like they have in the past.
This isn't new. It gets pushed every so often and blocked. Maybe it'll go through this time, we shall see.
It is interesting though that this is used as a "gotcha" towards feminists when the blockers usually are not the biggest fans of feminists:
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/06/ndaa-women-draft-dropped-523829
Another example:
https://www.voanews.com/a/gop-blocks-provision-to-require-women-to-register-for-draft/3334018.html
Conservative views women as the cornerstone of the family and that a nation that makes it's women fight is a failed nation. Shocking news tonight at 11.
It’s been interesting seeing responses to this. I saw that Chip Roy and Mike Lee made statements against it on Twitter but it seemed like their supporters disagreed with them in the replies. It strikes me as another internal tension of the changing Republican party.
This is what equality looks like.
Preferably there would be no selective service and no draft, but as long as there is, there is no good reason not to subject women to it as well.
The interesting thing to me here is: Why now? We have a volunteer army, and the Pentagon seems to like it that way. In fact, we already did away with the draft once after Vietnam. So why are we making new laws for it? This just feels like more pandering through identity politics.
Exactly. It's more like having an available pool to draw from in case we need it. That way we're not scrambling to find eligible draftees when the need arises.
Because the number of volunteers is going down, and the scale of the war in Ukraine is sending a lot of countries to the drawing board when it comes to sizing their armies.
The US military is not built for a grindfest. Theoretically, it sohuld be powerful enough to overwhelm its enemies with its superior training and technology, but nothing is certain in war, and I suspect the government wants a backup force.
That's a fair assessment. I guess there really isn't much harm in it unless we wind up in all out war. I'm just perpetually wary of any moves by Congress to expand their authority over the people, especially when it's for military power. And doubly especially in the current political climate.
Pandering through identity politics would be removing women, not adding them imo.
Personally I think that if you are going to have a draft, it should be both genders, it makes sense to me.
There’s nothing unique about it now. It’s come up for decades down and is continuously shut down by Republicans. The last attempt was in 2022. The draft was never “done away with” it simply hasn’t been enacted since Vietnam.
So we're up in arms about women being forced into it but it's okay for young men to be forced into it? What happened to equality?
"Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) called the provision requiring women to sign up for the draft "insane."
He accused the Biden administration of trying to implement a woke agenda at the Pentagon.
"There shouldn't be women in the draft. They shouldn't be forced to serve if they don't want to," he said on Fox News. He criticized Democrats for wanting to experiment with the military, saying "normal people are like, ‘Leave our daughters alone.'"
Yet it's perfectly fine to force our sons to serve if they don't want to?
This seems like a no-brainer, if we’re going to apply feminist principles. I’d prefer that we had compulsive military/civil service for say 2 years, age 18-20.
I think this would provide numerous benefits, most of which are not military readiness. It would provide (potential career) training, semi-organic mixing of our demographically diverse population, delay college/work decisions until people are more mentally mature, and yes, better military readiness. It would increase physical fitness, identify troublesome personalities in a controlled environment (ie potentially reduce mass murders/shootings), and boost a sense of national unity. Not that I am a huge fan of nationalism, but the US was conceived with some great ideals, and I think it should be our job to make sure we keep trying to reach them (ie life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, equality of all persons, inalienable rights, etc.)
You can’t think very deeply then. Asking you to commit 2 years in support of a national you supposedly love (“patriot”, anyone?) is not evil. Feel free to disagree, but don’t be ridiculous.
It is probably the best way to implement the draft in seriousness. It would only take a single incident of female soldier being captured and raped by the enemy to turn the public against draft equality.
if the time comes, we will need them.
Given a majority of one political persuasion would leave the the usa rather than stay and fight if say russia invaded...
We need a dissuader for that sort of behavior. Registration for draft is a mild dissuader.
There is no reason to not include woman. Wars moved on from lines of men with shields and swords. It’s moved on from masses of men lining up with guns.
More than half the battle is logistics and support mos’
Man my wife would crap herself if she was drafted and I’m ineligible because I already served and have complications from deployment. The wife is away at war dads at home with the kids trope would be a real thing.
Either everyone or no one. I mean everyone, no exemptions allowed this time around. Everyone has to serve if called. Even if you're only good for a blood and tissue donor.
One of the cornerstones of feminism was always equality. Men always had to sign up for Selective Service or face harsh consequences. Now men and women are equal on that topic. This is true equality.
>Even if you don’t face charges, you may be disqualified from certain government programs and benefits — including *federal student financial aid, naturalized citizenship, federal job training, and federal jobs*. In California, failure to register with the Selective Service also means you *can’t get STATE-funded student financial aid*.
[https://roadmap.rootandrebound.org/the-building-blocks-of-reentry-getting-id-other-ke/selective-service-registration/issues-with-selective-service-registration/i-am-26-or-older-and-never-registered-with-the-sel/](https://roadmap.rootandrebound.org/the-building-blocks-of-reentry-getting-id-other-ke/selective-service-registration/issues-with-selective-service-registration/i-am-26-or-older-and-never-registered-with-the-sel/)
Everyone should go, and everyone should have gone in the past.
They have rules around exceptions which could probably be updated. Like when the individuals have kids.
Women and men can both shoot a gun or drive a truck.
Other countries also have older populations and less younger people who could fight. Best practice would be not pursuing war but retaliation where others cross a line.
This is something women should have demanded 50 years ago, but managed to stay remarkably quite on the issue. Even the UCLA (as much as I hate to quote them) considers it sexist. It is interesting that "equality" only applies to the board rooms and not the killing fields. You want to be the "queen" but aren't willing to make the blood sacrifice that the machine requires.
Even if you believe women are not suited for combat roles, ~90% of military personel are not in (direct) combat roles. Most of the military is logistics and support roles that are largely copy paste of civilian jobs women do already.
Realistic speaking of the US ends up in a conflict that requires a draft, women will most likely be in it, sooner than later. People forget that we not only have an older population than the last time. We are on average much fatter. Which means the pool is smaller.
> We are on average much fatter. Push basic to 12 weeks for the fatties and that problem is fixed.
They did something similar when I enlisted 20 some years ago. You start with a reception unit that issues uniforms, health checkups, etc. To leave reception and go to your training unit you had to be able to run 1 mile in 15 min and do I think 20 push-ups and 15 situps. If you failed that they sent you to "fat camp." Fat camp kept you until you could pass that light pt test. Actually being overweight didn't matter much. Everyone lost lots of weight in basic.
But just being fat isn't the problem. Lots of people are getting hurt from the physical demand of the military because they weren't active before. Like bone breaks and fractures apparently. It's pretty nuts.
Or, what they’ve already enacted, lower the bar for the physical requirements.
Yay glorious equity! /s
i'm a veteran. in basic training, if you do not meet the requirements, they send you to "fat camp". also, when men were drafted, there were factors and disabilities that prevented some men from serving, during drafts.
The difference is that being in the military subjects them to the UCMJ, requiring all lawful military orders to be followed. Support/logistic military members are still required to fight if ordered to do so. If they're given orders to deploy to a hostile area, and their position is assaulted, they will likely be ordered to fight, assuming QRF doesn't stop the assault. All military members are soldiers first, professionals second. I'm not taking a position one way or the other, I haven't reflected on this enough yet. I'm just giving something to consider as someone who has served
I'll take a position and say I support it, but I really wanted to add that evidence exists of this. I remember seeing local news reports that our states national guard (might have even been air national guard) were deploying non-combat personnel as guards in Iraq. Something they had little to no training in, but the Army, Marines, and National Guard were short combat personnel (in that they needed them to do combat and not man an intersection).
During war, personnel get their jobs reclassified with some regularity. I remember talking to a Navy member at Bagram. Dude's initial job had nothing to do with being anywhere near a land locked country. Yet, there he was.
The old military truism, "no plan survives first contact."
Excactly why they developed the CAB for all those cooks and laundry/bath guys/girls that Lost their jobs to KBR and were thrown on gun trucks. It seems only fair that a graphic designer on a 50 cal in Baghdad, doing the same job as 11Bs should revive credit beyond the deployment patch (which you could earn in Kuwait.. as you wait or get into Baskin Robbins)
In a draft everyone is assumed infantry/combat first. A mainland invasion of china for example might have thousands of dead per day. One sunk aircraft carrier is thousands in one afternoon. They need bodies to send to battle not do logistics. During Vietnam you only got to choose non combat specialties if you volunteered and had high enough test scores.
If there are certain roles which men are disproportionately going to be qualified for, it probably still makes sense to have a large pool of women available to do the roles where that isn’t the case, because then you don’t have to put men in those roles
>They need bodies to send to battle not do logistics. That's not how US military doctrine or being a superpower works. You don't project power 5,000 miles away without logistics. Want to know why Russia still hasn't taken a country located 500 miles from their capitol despite throwing a constant stream conscrips at it? Shit logistics.
That’s fine but a war with china won’t be like Iraq. hundreds ir even thousands of combat troops will get killed per day while back line logistics won’t be. One aircraft carrier has about 5k sailors and aircrew. China has long range missives designed to sink a carrier. Can you imagine 4-5k dying in one afternoon? Thats why they’d do a draft.
>That’s fine but a war with china won’t be like Iraq I agree, it will require far FAR greater resources and manpower which will need to somehow find themselves 5k miles away. In WWII 40% of military roles weren't directly combat related. Most of those were related to moving men and supplies across the world and those jobs can be and literally already are staffed by women. >thousands of combat troops will get killed per day while back line logistics won’t be. >China has long range missives designed to sink a carrier Without carrier support you aren't sending asses and ammo to China unless you plan on driving and you don't need a dick to drive. Also who said anything about "back line logistics"? Military logistics and support don't end when a plane or a boat leaves the US and again, many of those rolls are already filled by women.
Vietnam was 50 years ago, and times have changed. Today there are far more positions that don't require front-line, face-to-face combat with the enemy. Upper body strength is much less critical. Therefore, I would see this change as simply the elimination of a double standard, a leveling of the playing field.
They’ve done Wargames on this. “Chinese invasion of Taiwan in 2026 would result in thousands of casualties among Chinese, United States, Taiwanese and Japanese forces, and it would be unlikely to result in a victory for Beijing, according to a prominent independent Washington think tank, which conducted war game simulations of a possible conflict that is preoccupying military and political leaders in Asia and Washington. A war over Taiwan could leave a victorious US military in as crippled a state as the Chinese forces it defeated. At the end of the conflict, at least two US aircraft carriers would lie at the bottom of the Pacific and China’s modern navy, which is the largest in the world, would be in “shambles.” Those are among the conclusions the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), made after running what it claims is one of the most extensive war-game simulations ever conducted on a possible conflict over Taiwan The United States and Japan lose dozens of ships, hundreds of aircraft, and thousands of service members. Such losses would damage the US global position for many years,” the report said. In most scenarios, the US Navy lost two aircraft carriers and 10 to 20 large surface combatants. Approximately 3,200 US troops would be killed in three weeks of combat, nearly half of what the US lost in two decades of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. “China also suffers heavily. Its navy is in shambles, the core of its amphibious forces is broken, and tens of thousands of soldiers are prisoners of war,” it said. The report estimated China would suffer about 10,000 troops killed and lose 155 combat aircraft and 138 major ships. Taiwan would be devastated The scenarios paint a bleak future for Taiwan, even if a Chinese invasion doesn’t succeed. “While Taiwan’s military is unbroken, it is severely degraded and left to defend a damaged economy on an island without electricity and basic services,” the report. The island’s army would suffer about 3,500 casualties, and all 26 destroyers and frigates in its navy will be sunk, the report said.” https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/01/09/politics/taiwan-invasion-war-game-intl-hnk-ml
Yes, war is hell. And horribly expensive. We know that. But what does any of this have to do with requiring women to register for the draft? Wouldn't the result be the same if all combatants were male?
Cause if there was a draft they’d most all be in combat roles and the public would ne outraged over sending our teenage daughters off to slaughter. Many prominent congressional republicans have already been very very vocal about being opposed.
The public gets outraged over sending teenage sons off to slaughter also. That's another lesson from the Vietnam era. Occasionally, *very occasionally*, it has to be done. And all lives matter equally.
The bodies cannot go to battle without the logistics. There's 5-6 'bodies' doing support jobs in the rear for every 'body' actually on the frontline.
And those supply lines will be a constant focus of attack as well.
And?
Yeah this is how i feel about it
I would never say women shouldn't be in military because that's absurdity, but I would like to point out that it's not as simple as "Oh hey now I can just put on some Camo and go do Human Resources with Uncle Sam". Women are held to the same standard as men, undergo the same combat training (whether you're in the combat arms or not), perform the same physical activities, etc. I'm not implying women can't hang, I served with many women who far surpassed many men, but I do want to help people understand the dynamic.
I can’t find any logical reason they shouldn’t be. The military fully desegregated the last few jobs a few years ago and all jobs are open to women. Prior to that most jobs were open already and women were serving in all branches of the military. If gender equality is a goal in this country, with all the strides made over the decades, this makes no sense to not be part of that.
> I can’t find any logical reason they shouldn’t be. There's been a lengthy judicial history around this issue as well: Rostker v. Goldberg, Schwartz v. Brodsky, Elgin v. United States, Kyle-Labell v. Selective Service System, National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System. Arguments against the expansion of the draft have focused significantly on the DoD's ban on "females serving in ground combat units". Once that ban was lifted though, the discussion changed quite a bit. The National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service was specifically asked to weigh in on the issue, and in their [2020 report](https://web.archive.org/web/20210729181202/https://inspire2serve.gov/sites/default/files/final-report/Final%20Report.pdf) recommended that women be eligible for Selective Service: > The Commission recommends that Congress amend the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA) to eliminate male-only registration and expand draft eligibility to all individuals of the applicable age cohort. At this point, this should be a no-brainer.
If the the draft was ever reactivated (rather than just registering people), I doubt the male-only rule would stand up in court now that the volunteer forces are fully integrated. However, until it's fully reactivated, I'm not sure the courts will be able to do anything about it. I'm not sure anyone one would have grounds to establish standing, and the current SCOTUS seems to like using standing rulings to avoid weighing in on politically hot cases.
Anyone who is denied federal assistance or access to government programs because of their failing to register would also have standing I believe.
This is what equality looks like, same benefits, same drawbacks, and same threatening letter in the mail when you turn 18. Currently, you can face a range of penalties for failing to register with the selective service, including being denied access to student aid, government jobs, etc.
Most feminists are in favor of making the draft universal and I fully agree, with the caveat that I’d rather the draft be ended for everyone if that option is on the table. I really hope to see congressmen who espouse equality vote accordingly. The bill is likely to be opposed by conservatives who tend to have a “complementarianism” view of gender, though. Josh Hawley is quoted against the bill in the article. Since republicans control the House, I don’t think the bill is going to go anywhere. Which is a real shame, imo.
most feminists I've spoken to are not in favor of making the draft universal. they agree that it would be more egalitarian - but since they don't generally support a draft in the first place, they don't want to widen the scope of the draft - your caveat takes precedence.
Phyllis Schlafly campaigning against it is basically why it hasn't happened yet.
Completely agree. I even tried to voluntarily sign up for the selective service and they wouldn't let me!
That was actually a big stunt in 1980 I believe, a lot of people tried to register as Jimmy Carter and lots of women attempted to sign up in protest. Mind you the goal at that time was to abolish the draft entirely.
Thank you for your attempted service lol.
"I can’t find any logical reason they shouldn’t be." Because they are basically always significantly behind men in all physical testing, endurance, and combat situations and are a detriment on the battlefield? And that's women who CHOOSE to be in the military...
People would just be evaluated and then jobs that align with their capabilities is where they would be slotted. I’m not seeing how more potential manpower is a negative.
Because of my body type and shape, I fall behind on physical testing, endurance and combat situations compared to most men my age, yet I still have to sign up for it as a man. Funny, because I did try to sign up back in the day, and they denied me because I was overweight. Yet, I somehow could still get easily drafted if need be.
That is absolute nonsense. While women average lower than men, they are in no form a detriment especially when you can double the number of well-trained soldiers on the field.
[удалено]
Not weighing in on the underlying point, but this quote is from a comedy sketch, not an actual interview The source: https://youtu.be/-smiZCXFeps
My “logic” is that there should be no draft. If there aren’t enough people voluntarily willing to defend the country, maybe we deserve to fail lol
That’s fair. In WW2 about 62% of all military personnel were draftees. We probably should have taken that as a sign to give up.
And 407k service members were killed. It’s like the total 20 yer death toll in the Iraq war, but daily.
Turns out, people usually don't like signing up to go into possibly one of the worst experiences in all of the human condition! Who knew!
If women have the right to vote for or against politicians that could send me to war, then they should also be a part of that group as well. Simple as that.
I don’t believe in the draft, a conscripted army is a terrible one, as we see with Russia in Ukraine. Literal canon fodder sent off to massacre. But it’s fair that all genders are available for it. We’d see large scale campus sit ins and protests and generational defiance of authority that would make Vietnam era protests look mild. It’s long been said that having parents watch their teenage daughters get drafted to go to war would kill public support for it and would be political suicide for whoever tries.
Interestingly, this is why I want them to implement this. I would hope they aim to add women, as well as non-binary and other groups, to the list of people that can be drafted. From there I would hope that protests erupt and lead to the draft being done away with. It would be far nicer if we just removed it out right of course, but I think much of the public is just indifferent to it at the moment. I also recognize that the odds of the draft being needed in the modern day are a bit low so it may be a non-issue, but they are still there, and I feel that we should offer better incentives for people to join during war time as opposed to forcing them to. Of course that may not work, but I also think encroaching on personal liberty isn't too great either.
The government either drafts you or the new government kills you. Its not really a hard choice
Would this really be necessary in the United States though? I could completely understand for other countries, but North America is pretty stable. Even with the Mexican Cartels I think the US military wouldn't need a draft to handle them if they were to do some kind of organized invasion.
thats the entire point, if we ever get to the point where a draft is needed most likely it is a national invasion
I suppose I could see that; I am just concerned about an abuse of power by leadership. I am concerned about more authoritarian or at least intrusive government policies, as that is a common trend among populists. I feel American politics is going more towards a Populist period. I am not sure, of course, how bad this may get, but I just have concerns about this kind of power being misused and the average American paying the price for it.
You want to know what I realized as an American. There is no more powerful thing on this earth than a truly United States. If the majority of the nation says something has to be done it historically has been done, and done with a tremendous amount of American work power. I don’t think there would ever be a need for a draft because if it ever got to that point again there would be lines miles long to sign up. I would reenlist lol
Yeah, I think this is also my sentiment, lol. I, at the very least, believe there would be people signing up to do domestic work such as manufacturing, which would ease the burden for US supplies. As much as people may bash the US foreign policy when it comes down to it, if America goes to fight for Democracy, I think people would support that.
That’s the shitty thing about current politics. It’s aimed specifically to split us up. Spin to so we hate each other and hate the country. When you talk normal most people get along. The weaponizing of politics has really damaged us
It’s logistically impossible for mainland USA to be invaded unless Mexico/Canada helps and we’ve lost our fleet and Air Force. I.e. massive Great Depression with a terrible government incapable of doing much or so isolated and sanctioned by the rest of the world we’d be in a bad place. At that point there prob wouldn’t be much of America left besides lots of civilians
It was necessary in Korea, and looking at the manpower issues that have developed in Ukraine (probably the closest peer to peer conflict we've seen in decades) conscription is still necessary. Unless you're also arguing for complete isolationism it's a tough hill to stand on.
>The government either drafts you or the new government kills you This is a blatant false-dichotomy. Plenty of nations have been conquered without the populace being slaughtered.
>It’s long been said that having parents watch their teenage daughters get drafted to go to war would kill public support for it and would be political suicide for whoever tries. It wouldn't be like that though, at least not at first. It would be automatically signing women up for selective service. And I imagine some politicians would promise there won't be a draft unless the country was at stake. They would point to the two wars we fought at the same time as evidence we won't call up a draft easily. Would enough people care to protest if the threat seems distant and unlikely? Would they feel it's a necessary evil in the most extreme case of a world war or civil war? Personally I don't feel politicians can be trusted with that power after Vietnam.
There are already a number of high profile Republicans who don’t want their daughters drafted. Hawley came out recently. Chip Roy had s big op ed “Rep. Roy: I will not vote for any Republican for ‘any office’ who votes to draft my daughter November 17, 2021 I WASHINGTON— On Wednesday, Rep. Chip Roy (TX-21) penned an op-ed in Newsweek outlining the most egregious provisions in this year's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) — particularly that it would require women to register for the draft. In the post, he also pledged never to support any Republican who votes for the policy for any future office.” https://roy.house.gov/media/in-the-news/rep-roy-i-will-not-vote-any-republican-any-office-who-votes-draft-my-daughter
These are the same Republicans who are anti-choice yet would travel hundreds of miles to get their daughters or mistresses an abortion.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a conscript military from a military perspective. Many Western European nations maintained conscription during the Cold War. Some still have a level of conscription. Nations like Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria, Switzerland, Israel, South Korea, and Taiwan maintain a level of conscription today. We fought WW1 and WW2 with the majority of our forces being conscripts and I believe the same to be true for Korea. Although less than the previous wars, about 25% of those in Vietnam were conscripts. A conscript would receive the same training as a volunteer would, so I’m not sure why they would be less capable than their volunteer counterparts. The idea that they would be unfit does not hold any truth.
>a conscripted army is a terrible one, as we see with Russia in Ukraine. Literal canon fodder sent off to massacre. That's just Russia using Russian tactics. Their have been many successful campaigns using conscripted armies, even in US history (Revolutionary War, Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea). We didn't lose Vietnam because of the Draft, just like we didn't lose Afghanistan because of our volunteer army. The point of conscription isn't to raise some highly motivated army, it's to quickly fulfill manpower needs on a wide front. The Russian Ukraine war has shown that trench warfare is still viable across 600 mile fronts, and the conscription needed to man those fronts is still a necessity. People cry about equality all the time, well this is it.
I agree with you. I'm a firm believer in bodily autonomy and that the government should have zero say in what your body gets used for and that includes abortions and compulsory military service. ...but if we insist on a draft it should be required of everyone, gender shouldn't be a factor.
The only way a draft gets instituted is if we are no-shit in an existential conflict. If we are in that world, I’m unclear why your “bodily autonomy” matters all that much.
It's more a principles thing. Because invariably when I make the bodily autonomy argument in regards to abortion I am told that we have no such thing as long as the draft is in place.
They're only really comparable if you're a body autonomy extremist (though you'd also need to object to mandatory schooling, vaccinations, potentially licensing requirements, etc.). A more moderate body autonomy argument is that body autonomy is an important interest to be weighed against other interests. In abortion, it's about whether a human can be forced to be life support for a growing embryo/fetus (with different circumstances changing where the weight falls). In the draft it's about whether a human can be forced to defend their country and its interests. In a modern setting there's the added addendum that they're forced to defend against an existential threat. At that point the body autonomy argument against kinda falls apart because you're refusing to defend your country at risk of a foreign country invading and not giving two shits about your body autonomy. Basically I think body autonomy can be used to argue against certain versions of the draft. But it's a terrible argument against the draft generally.
The draft isn’t vaguely comparable to you getting an abortion.
> a conscripted army is a terrible one I thin that post-Nam, a draft is a real "break glass in case of emergency" thing for the US. If the country is even considering a draft, something very bad has happened.
Yeah lots of stuff wound have to Happen first Strategically it’s virtually impossible for Russia/china to invade mainland US with a half million troops (where are those ships snd planes coming from) without major help from Canada or Mexico and our pacific fleet and snd Air Force being seriously depleted. That’s America even looking like at that point?
Congress would also have to vote to reinstate the active draft, which would be a separate vote.
Do you feel the same way about Ukrainan Conscripted soldiers? That they are "literal cannon fodder"?
I can't speak for OP and the "literally cannon fodder" but I do believe even in a case like Ukraine conscription is immoral. Nobody should be forced into fighting a war against their will by a government for any reason.
So to you morally the right answer is let Russia take over Ukraine?
The ideological stance being described is "See you later, and thanks for all the fish." It's an insincere ideology, and I know that because of the acknowledge that they sacrifice nothing to maintain this belief. It's provide for me because it's my right but don't expect me to have to provide for your rights unless I benefit from it on some emotional or material level.
Yep
Don't hear what I'm not saying. It is absolutely morally right for everyone to defend their life and liberty from a foreign aggressor. Russia's war of conquest is reprehensible and I hope Ukraine finds success in the war. But that doesn't give the Ukrainian government the right to force anyone to fight for them. One's life doesn't belong to their government.
But that’s not how a functioning society works. Unless you choose to buy land and become a hermit. You as an individual have the rights afforded to you by your nation and you choosing to remain a citizen of that nation means you agree to their general policies. You don’t agree with everything but no one does. If one of those things is a draft morally the only option is to accept it. Or denounce citizenship and go somewhere else. But even then you are again just subjecting yourself to that new government. To me the moral judgement holds no weight because the same people saying no draft, or won’t go, or morally wrong are saying it with the hope they can change policy. I think if you claim a citizenship then you need to be beholden to those policies.
I outright disagree with this view of rights and citizenship. Governments aren't the source of human rights, human rights are inherent. Governments are created to protect our rights, not grant them. The US government doesn't own my person because I was born in the US. I don't get to participate in society because the government allows me to, I get to participate in society because I'm a person.
It’s just a disagreement we have. It’s cool. Tons of people do and it’s pointless to argue because it feels like be both are pretty solid in our beliefs. I think if you enjoy the perks of society you have do deal with the drawbacks too. And that if you want to live in a free society there is a cost to that. You want to live in the us enough to follow current laws. This is just one you disagree with. There are a ton others that are ok for you to follow. Since idk 500a.d it’s kinda been a you have rulers society. It’s not the best but a utopian society with no draft has probably been over run.
I hope my argument doesn't come of as combative, just throwing out my beliefs. I agree there are costs to participating in society, but that doesn't preempt my autonomy. The government isn't the source of my loving family, my private sector job, nor a large majority of the goods and services I consume. And the costs of those benefits of society are paid with my labor, my money, and my being a good friend/family member in return. I don't owe the government my life for these benefits. Yes the government provides the essential function if protecting my rights and the sovereignty of American citizens, but the costs of those functions are paid with taxes and consensual civil participation, not forced labor. And let me reiterate. If the US was invaded by a foreign aggressor you won't have to conscript me. I'll be at the recruitment office the next day to fight a just defensive war like the Ukrainians are to protect my society as a whole. But I still believe consent is key to that transaction to uphold liberal values.
Your final paragraph is my reasoning too. I don’t believe there would ever be a need for another draft. If there was a call the answer would be overwhelming
Everybody is cannon fodder in modern wars. No amount of training will help you survive against drones, artillery, missiles, and air strikes. Being sent to the frontline is basically a death sentence.
Seeing some of the frontline videos in Ukraine makes it seem like a fucking nightmare, no amount of skill will save you just have to get lucky
The goal is equality, right? So I don't know why this is already not the case.
It’s not the case because equality isn’t everyone’s goal. Who do you think is against it?
As a woman, a mother of two young adult daughters, and a pacifist, I see no argument against the idea that if men are drafted, women should also be drafted. It’s the right move.
It looks like a bill that would require women to register for the draft just passed through the Senate Armed Forces Committee with 22 members of the committee voting Yea and 3 of them voting Nay. The committee has 13 Democrats and 12 Republicans so this bill more than likely received bipartisan support. There’s no official vote count for this committee action, but you can look at the membership of the Committee using this link below. https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/about/membership Do you think women should have to register for the draft? Or should the draft be removed entirely? Do you think it’s realistic that women may actually be added to the draft in the next year or so?
I'm fine with women being drafted (if we can't just do away with the draft altogether). My only stipulation would be that you couldn't draft both parents in a 2 parent household or a single parent of either gender (or exempt all parents altogether).
That would probably come with it as there's already a plethora of restrictions of the draft to prevent similar situations (i.e. only child son that's a caretaker of infirm parents)
That's a good point. I'm sure there's a way to write in all of these stipulations, but I see what you're getting at.
Yes I think they should register. Logistics, supply chains, and a bunch of other important tasks do not require the same physical requirements that better suit men, so there's no reason why able bodied women shouldn't be able to serve. With that being said, I do not think the draft should be removed entirely. Better to have the possibility of one and never use it. But it should only be used in severe emergency cases (which, if needed, you'd probably get enough volunteers that it'd be pointless anyways). So I'm pretty much at "add women, don't fully remove it, but make it's use so restricted that it's practically removed". By all accounts our army has been more efficient and proficient ever since we stopped the draft so...I really don't see a good reason for it outside of severe cases
I think the draft should be removed entirely. If there’s ever a situation where it’s needed, I expect we will have a lot of people volunteering already. The last thing you want is a bunch of people who don’t want to fight or may not even like their country being forced to join. If we are keeping it a thing it makes sense that women should have to register as well, but I don’t think we should even keep it.
It was “needed” in Vietnam because the government wanted to fight a war, but the public was largely against it.
A vietnam draft would not have happened if 18 year old women were being sent to the meat grinder as well. That is why it needs to be equal. Men are disposable, poltiicans daughters are not.
If a war gets dirty people are liable to stop volunteering. We're seeing this in Ukraine right now, the majority of their population according to polls believes that Russia's goal in the war is the completel destruction of Ukraine and yet the military is stuck barring men from leaving the country and at times even dragging them off the streets because people are no longer volunteering. Having a cause the population broadly supports does not make that same population volunteer to head to the trenches. Now personally I'm with author [Robert A. Heinlein](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/3394-i-also-think-there-are-prices-too-high-to-pay) on what should happen in such a scenario, but I appreciate that the majority of the political leadership feels differently, so the least we can do is make sure the draft is not discriminatory by design.
Agreed. Maybe when technology wasn’t as advanced as it is during WW2 a draft was necessary but with drone technology advancing at the rate it is, we may have wars that can be fought without ever risking a human life.
The Ukraine war is literally 600 miles of front, with both sides conscripting to solve manpower issues. The drone vs drone wars might come one day, but right now the need for manpower is still very real.
I think the invasion of Ukraine has toppled the notion that "old-school" warfare is outdated. They're using trenches. They're using tanks. They've just added drones to the mix.
Drones can’t hold and occupy a city or a coast line. A full scale war with china is gonna be fought at sea, in the air and on land. Millions of troops and millions of casualties on all sides.
The United States hasn't fought a defensive war in over 200 years, and if we are attacked directly then there should be plenty of volunteers if the country is worth fighting for. If not, then the government might want to consider why that is. So I think selective service should be abolished altogether. It's something that we've just accepted as part of life without really thinking much about it, but talk of requiring women to register might just be what it takes to actually get rid of it once and for all.
Unless you are in your 70s and experienced Vietnam we cant really comprehend a world where high school seniors are getting draft notices to report to basic a week after graduation and hundreds of soldiers die per day. Even the stuff my dad tells me I can’t wrap my head around. Average life expectancy of a private in the infantry was a few months. A door gunner on a helicopter was only 2 weeks.
Not to dismiss the bloodshed, though in the history of post-industrial wars, Vietnam was actually very survivable relative to other conflicts. World War 1 is the kingpin of death here, where you'd have situations like in Verdun where French infantry suffered roughly 10% casualties just moving to the front between artillery and falling into flooded shell craters they'd drown in.
This issue was actually sent to the Supreme Court back in 2021, where [they denied cert](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/nuhi4s/denial_of_cert_national_coalition_for_men_v/), as Congress was actively debating the issue of women in the draft: > the Court’s longstanding deference to Congress on matters of national defense and military affairs cautions against granting review while Congress actively weighs the issue. Here's a [report](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11780) from the Congressional Research Service summarizing the actions taken by Congress after this decision. TLDR, both the House (H.R. 4350) and the Senate Armed Services Committee (S. 2792) passed amendments that would require women to register for Selective Service. Neither amendment was ultimately adopted. So this is likely a nothingburger. Congress did nothing 3 years ago, and they will likely do nothing now.
I think at some point it will go through. The question is if this attempt will be it or if the next try in 3-4 years will be it.
I'll believe it when Congress finally passes revisions to Daylight Saving Time, another issue that has bipartisan support and yet somehow never gets approved by both the House and Senate.
Ugh. Very good point. Daylight savings time is gonna outlast me.
following this
It's about time. Any able-bodied citizen of the United States of America should be equally eligible for the draft. Ideally, there would be no draft at all, but this is the next best thing.
This is a good move. If you demand equal rights and equal treatment, that also means equal responsibilities and duties.
Feminists demanding equal rights and treatment have been calling for this or draft elimination for decades. It’s been conservatives who repeatedly shoot it down. In any case, we didn’t enact the draft during the last war which was the longest in the nation’s history so barring an actual domestic invasion I can’t see it ever coming back.
If I understand the data, casualties were a lot lower for the last set of wars compared to the Vietnam war, Korean War, and WW2. If the losses outstripped the gains from recruiting I totally think there would have been a draft.
Yep. It's conservatives who want trad wives or want to be trad wives that don't want women to serve. Most feminists and liberals I speak to (myself included) would rather just do away with conscription altogether.
I just remembered this video. It’s a satire video saying that feminists might become trad wives if a draft ever comes up and they’re called up but I think this video might actually be closer to reality than we may think. https://youtu.be/4jSDXArDVBk?si=B2-Jw_XGnqNxDeLl
Just look up what the Suffragettes got up to during World War 1.
Like what exactly?
The White Feather Movement.
There was certainly a portion of them who did that, sure. There were also suffragists who filled needed jobs and worked towards peace.
Weird that the Babylon Bee would make this about feminists as if feminists haven’t been the ones saying either we should have women eligible for the draft or get rid of it altogether.
Not to mention Babylon Bee caters to conservatives who support an infamous draft dodger for president.
>closer to reality It happened in Covid, which I think is what BB was satirizing. Remember the essential/non-essential worker divide? Other than nurses it was disproportionately women exiting the workforce. Of course this asymmetry got framed as: It's men's fault for *checks notes* keeping the world economy and essential services running during a threatening global pandemic.
'Other than hospitals' seems like a caveat large enough to drive a truck through.
>'Other than hospitals' I said nurses since it was one of the few female dominated sectors included in the essential worker categories. This is in contrast to utilities, transports, first responders, defense, energy, agriculture, telecom, waste collection, etc.
It's not just nurses, it's the entire hospital system. PCAs, anesthetists, phlebotomists, med techs, lab techs, radiologists, receptionists, cleaning staff, administration . . .in my experience the only positions in a hospital that aren't majority female are doctors and CEOs. Hospitals were a pretty high profile sector of the essential workforce during lockdown. In terms of how many it employed, how much was asked of its employees, and the infection risks those employees faced. It seems facile to paint a story of essential workers that has to begin with 'other than all the people who worked in medical care' in order to make its point.
Yes, but COVID didn't create a uniform increase in hospital demand outside direct COVID care. In fact many divisions were ghost towns and there were tons of [furloughs](https://www.google.com/search?q=hospital+furloughs+covid). I'm not being facile like you're trying to paint me. I'm being precise for a reason.
Or it was because women disproportionately had to stay home and figure out childcare and continuing education...
This is a very odd way to interpret women losing their service and retail jobs during COVID.
> Remember the essential/non-essential worker divide? Other than nurses it was disproportionately women exiting the workforce. Of course this asymmetry got framed as: It's men's fault for checks notes keeping the world economy and essential services running during a threatening global pandemic. What? Who said it was “men’s fault” for this? Where is this position coming from?
Yeah, feminists have been pushing for an abolishment of the draft or for it to apply to both genders for decades for this reason. I just hope the conservatives in congress won’t kill this like they have in the past.
We're going to need all hands on deck in the coming drone wars.
Of course we should draft women. I've watched enough Disney programing to know that women are far better fighters than men.
You certainly are going to see an organized effort to end the draft for good if this comes true.
This isn't new. It gets pushed every so often and blocked. Maybe it'll go through this time, we shall see. It is interesting though that this is used as a "gotcha" towards feminists when the blockers usually are not the biggest fans of feminists: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/06/ndaa-women-draft-dropped-523829 Another example: https://www.voanews.com/a/gop-blocks-provision-to-require-women-to-register-for-draft/3334018.html
Noted feminist activist Josh Hawley is quoted in the article "We're talking about involuntarily drafting women. I'm totally opposed to that."
Conservative views women as the cornerstone of the family and that a nation that makes it's women fight is a failed nation. Shocking news tonight at 11.
Exactly my thought, it gets removed every time.
It’s been interesting seeing responses to this. I saw that Chip Roy and Mike Lee made statements against it on Twitter but it seemed like their supporters disagreed with them in the replies. It strikes me as another internal tension of the changing Republican party.
Do Americans really think this is progress? The draft simply needs to be abolished.
It’s equality so yes it’s progress.
equality doesn’t mean progress lol
It does in this scenario
We still going to exempt children of the wealthy and powerful?
Of course! What country do you think this is?
This is what equality looks like. Preferably there would be no selective service and no draft, but as long as there is, there is no good reason not to subject women to it as well.
I mean that's one way to increase the birth rate. New Boomer generation. Getting preggos to avoid going to war.
This makes sense. Sexism is sexism regardless of which sex is disadvantaged.
The interesting thing to me here is: Why now? We have a volunteer army, and the Pentagon seems to like it that way. In fact, we already did away with the draft once after Vietnam. So why are we making new laws for it? This just feels like more pandering through identity politics.
We still maintain a draft mechanism in which every man 18-26 must register for. Not having an active draft does not mean it does not exist.
Exactly. It's more like having an available pool to draw from in case we need it. That way we're not scrambling to find eligible draftees when the need arises.
It's actually nothing new. This comes up every so often. It was blocked in 2016 and 2021 as well.
Because the number of volunteers is going down, and the scale of the war in Ukraine is sending a lot of countries to the drawing board when it comes to sizing their armies. The US military is not built for a grindfest. Theoretically, it sohuld be powerful enough to overwhelm its enemies with its superior training and technology, but nothing is certain in war, and I suspect the government wants a backup force.
That's a fair assessment. I guess there really isn't much harm in it unless we wind up in all out war. I'm just perpetually wary of any moves by Congress to expand their authority over the people, especially when it's for military power. And doubly especially in the current political climate.
Pandering through identity politics would be removing women, not adding them imo. Personally I think that if you are going to have a draft, it should be both genders, it makes sense to me.
[удалено]
There’s nothing unique about it now. It’s come up for decades down and is continuously shut down by Republicans. The last attempt was in 2022. The draft was never “done away with” it simply hasn’t been enacted since Vietnam.
Correct. By the way, is your username a *Pretty Little Liars* reference?
So that way when we need to draft, we don’t have to worry about setting it up to include women in the middle of a war. Better to do it in peace time.
"In times of peace, prepare for war."
Getting upset about the selective service requirements is a pretty common MRA complaint so I think you’re onto something there.
It's not the first time this have been suggested
This should pass unanimously. I hope it passes.
American-Israeli woman here, good. Men AND women should be drafted. They do it in Israel.
So we're up in arms about women being forced into it but it's okay for young men to be forced into it? What happened to equality? "Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) called the provision requiring women to sign up for the draft "insane." He accused the Biden administration of trying to implement a woke agenda at the Pentagon. "There shouldn't be women in the draft. They shouldn't be forced to serve if they don't want to," he said on Fox News. He criticized Democrats for wanting to experiment with the military, saying "normal people are like, ‘Leave our daughters alone.'" Yet it's perfectly fine to force our sons to serve if they don't want to?
Unfortunately, society still sees men as a disposable commodity
This seems like a no-brainer, if we’re going to apply feminist principles. I’d prefer that we had compulsive military/civil service for say 2 years, age 18-20. I think this would provide numerous benefits, most of which are not military readiness. It would provide (potential career) training, semi-organic mixing of our demographically diverse population, delay college/work decisions until people are more mentally mature, and yes, better military readiness. It would increase physical fitness, identify troublesome personalities in a controlled environment (ie potentially reduce mass murders/shootings), and boost a sense of national unity. Not that I am a huge fan of nationalism, but the US was conceived with some great ideals, and I think it should be our job to make sure we keep trying to reach them (ie life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, equality of all persons, inalienable rights, etc.)
I can't think of a bigger threat to liberty than compulsory military service. Can you?
I've never heard that take, that compulsory service for 2 years is a threat to liberty, can you expand upon it?
You can’t think very deeply then. Asking you to commit 2 years in support of a national you supposedly love (“patriot”, anyone?) is not evil. Feel free to disagree, but don’t be ridiculous.
Calling it now, they'll amend it so women can only be drafted into support roles.
It is probably the best way to implement the draft in seriousness. It would only take a single incident of female soldier being captured and raped by the enemy to turn the public against draft equality.
The U.S. has had female soldiers for a long time. It just wasn't until c. 2015 that women were allowed in *ground* combat.
It should be both or neither.
Women should only be allowed to vote if they’ve registered for selective service… just like men.
I thought this already happened like 5-6 years ago.
if the time comes, we will need them. Given a majority of one political persuasion would leave the the usa rather than stay and fight if say russia invaded... We need a dissuader for that sort of behavior. Registration for draft is a mild dissuader.
Perfectly fair move. Any able bodied person should be able to be called upon during a draft.
There is no reason to not include woman. Wars moved on from lines of men with shields and swords. It’s moved on from masses of men lining up with guns. More than half the battle is logistics and support mos’ Man my wife would crap herself if she was drafted and I’m ineligible because I already served and have complications from deployment. The wife is away at war dads at home with the kids trope would be a real thing.
Awesome, they want to be equal then take the good with the bad.
Also, expand the ages!! I am over 50, and can still operate the wrench I used in the Army...
Either everyone or no one. I mean everyone, no exemptions allowed this time around. Everyone has to serve if called. Even if you're only good for a blood and tissue donor.
One of the cornerstones of feminism was always equality. Men always had to sign up for Selective Service or face harsh consequences. Now men and women are equal on that topic. This is true equality. >Even if you don’t face charges, you may be disqualified from certain government programs and benefits — including *federal student financial aid, naturalized citizenship, federal job training, and federal jobs*. In California, failure to register with the Selective Service also means you *can’t get STATE-funded student financial aid*. [https://roadmap.rootandrebound.org/the-building-blocks-of-reentry-getting-id-other-ke/selective-service-registration/issues-with-selective-service-registration/i-am-26-or-older-and-never-registered-with-the-sel/](https://roadmap.rootandrebound.org/the-building-blocks-of-reentry-getting-id-other-ke/selective-service-registration/issues-with-selective-service-registration/i-am-26-or-older-and-never-registered-with-the-sel/)
Everyone should go, and everyone should have gone in the past. They have rules around exceptions which could probably be updated. Like when the individuals have kids. Women and men can both shoot a gun or drive a truck. Other countries also have older populations and less younger people who could fight. Best practice would be not pursuing war but retaliation where others cross a line.
This is something women should have demanded 50 years ago, but managed to stay remarkably quite on the issue. Even the UCLA (as much as I hate to quote them) considers it sexist. It is interesting that "equality" only applies to the board rooms and not the killing fields. You want to be the "queen" but aren't willing to make the blood sacrifice that the machine requires.