Yes, thanks for pointing that out.
BTW, I scored in the 99th percentile on the ASVAB, and I’m not a super-rich 1%er. I fear I’ve done something horribly wrong somewhere along the way. 
This thread got me thinking:
-
Let’s alter the premise of this question a little: if the draft were to be reinstituted, is there a way to make the rules such that you give honestly needed exemptions, but keep the exemptions from being exploited by the rich and powerful to keep their kids out? I know that there’s always the medical aspect, as Rush and the current president showed, but might it be easier to sniff out with modern medical technology? On the other hand, would that cost be worth it? If it were only applied to the rich, would it be legal?
-
On the opposite end, would it be legal for the draft reinstatement to specifically exclude families making more than $X a year or having more than $Y in assets, on the logic that they’d just figure out a way out for their kids anyway, so it’d be a waste of resources to try?
Ditto.
Thankfully for this scenario, I would be spared. I only scored in the 90th because I didn’t know a hacksaw from a ripsaw, a cam shaft from an axle. Good thing, or I’d be indistinguishable from those elite, Ivy League intelligentsia.
So how do you account for people deliberately failing the ASVAB (or filling in bubbles at random like several of my class mates did)?
I am quite aware of people failing the test on purpose. I propose we call people in for induction. We test all of them except university graduates, assuming they would pass anyway. Then we take only those who pass, or who are college graduates.
This would give us a larger-than-expected number of college graduates, as some non-graduates would fail.
The reason to do this is to prevent the rich from sending the children of the poor off to fight.
You haven’t answered the fundamental questions about the draft yet. We don’t use the draft today. Most of us are happy with that. Why should that be changed?
Military combat and privilege are hardly mutually exclusive. Our current and previous Vice Presidents, last year’s Democratic VP candidate, and the 2008 GOP Presidential nominee who is also one of the most powerful people in the US Senate, among others, have sons that served/are serving in Iraq.
I assumed in my OP that we decided to draft rich people to fight the wars they start. That was clearly stated.
As for why, to share the burden of war more fairly amongst the social classes and to ensure the ruling class has skin in the game.
Dd you see the link I provided earlier? The “burden of war” is already borne disproportionally by the wealthy. I think you are confused about some fundamental facts.
In fact, bringing back this sort of cockamamie draft would hurt the poor, who use the volunteer military as a way to earn money and gain skills. They’d probably be just as much against it as the rich.
The people who “start wars” are, at most, the president and Congress. You’re going to have a tough time filling out the ranks with their offspring. But why bother with details like that when we’re bashing “the rich”?
If you want “the rich” to be drafted, assuming a reimplementation of the draft, simply eliminate deferments. If they can’t physically serve in the military, make alternative service compulsory and mandate that it be in some supporting industry.
As the professional enlisted corps is composed largely of “the poor”, you can be sure that “the rich” will get every awful duty that can be imposed upon them.
I see. I would have thought the Ruling Class in general started a great many wars. Thank you for clearing that up.
Yes, I read your OP, but when it comes to the ability to start wars and get deferments for their kids, the people I mentioned are, at a minimum, equally as influential as any rich person not involved in national politics. If anything, I was providing an answer to the question you should have asked. Who do you honestly think has more control over whether we go to war, John McCain or Jeff Bezos?
You’re welcome. This place is all about fighting ignorance.
“The ruling class in general starts a great many wars”. That’s not even a meaningful sentence.
You realize how incredibly elitist that sounds? Making the assumption that being very rich = having the greatest aptitude for military service is…bizarre.
Two things that would largely accomplish your apparent goal of sending fewer Americans off to die in wars would be 1) reinstituting the draft with no deferments except for medical reasons, and 2) having Congress re-assert its role in declaring war, instead of having Presidents start conflicts and getting Congress to approve later, like an obedient spaniel. The former seems politically untenable, and the latter would require our elected representatives to have guts, which is even more untenable.
By the way, has the OP considered that it’s not The Rich that is responsible for wars, but instead Big Pharma? Or maybe Monsanto. Just connect the dots. :eek::dubious:
Has this happened yet? I’m not seeing it.
Based on my experience with compulsory military service, I think there is a national benefit to it.