But you’re missing the point, which is that instituting the draft in the first place would require the will of people who don’t want to be drafted. I don’t want to be drafted. I’m sure as hell not going to vote for the draft to be brought back, nor am I going to vote for a candidate who makes that part of his campaign. Most people aren’t going to support it, because most people don’t want to serve in the military. The only way you’re going to get a draft is if the people in power deem it sufficiently urgent to build up our military that they go against the popular will. And if that happens, they’re going to build in exactly the same exceptions to spare their kids from service that we had in the old version of the draft.
I think you’re missing the point that many laws are enacted which are contrary to the will of the people. The question isn’t whether or not the people don’t want a law; the issue is to what extent are they willing to go to get rid of it.
Your vote isn’t required to bring the draft back. Nor is mine. We don’t have a democracy; we have a federated republic with democratic principles. We select people who make the laws. The only way to make sure that good laws are passed to the exclusion of bad laws is elect better people. The public doesn’t seem to favor that technique. Besides which is the fact that many people think a draft, or at least some obligatory service, is a good idea.
I happen to think some small portion of obligatory federal service is a good idea, irrespective of one’s station in life. The rich, poor, and all in between have a lot to learn of one another. The military normalizes these people because their background is no longer relevant. Rich, poor, or other, the latrines still need to get cleaned, and floors still need to be mopped. By having these people of various backgrounds all set equal to one another for a short duration of time, there is a great risk that they might actually begin to understand one another.
But the draft in OPs suggestion won’t accomplish that because of the numbers involved.
I kinda thought they were. For my MOS you need a GT of 110 or higher. Two months ago I checked the GT’s of a group of new privates. Out of five of them only 2 had 110 or higher. The others…and consequently the ones that caused the most headaches…were 80 or lower.
Presumably, these guys will be in BSEP at the earliest possible moment?
Few MOSs have a requirement of a gt score that high; one wonders what kind of fun MOS you chose 
I’m a Brit but heres my two pennorth,a draft in peacetime is counterproductive as you’ll fill up the armed forces with a lot of pissed off people who not only wont help the team but will quite often deliberately hinder it.
If your country is, or is very likely to in the near future be involved in a serious war where your homeland is likely to be under threat of invasion then yes you should have a draft.
If there is a possibility of that happening because of the region that you live in(Think pre war Europe)then yes have a draft to train up people in the event of a potential war becoming an actual war so when it happens you just need to give them some brush up training rather then starting from scratch but don’t send them into any police actions or minor wars.
Recluctant soldiers are a drag on the system plus you get the political fallout of electoral disapproval of things military.
A quick aside about volunteers financial background, IME is that there are plenty of the better off who join up, but because of their families being able to afford a private education for them they are able to join as officers rather then enlisted.(But its not always the case)
In the U.K. the upper classes tend to view military service as a thing to be proud of and something to be sought out so it totally disgusts me when I read about wealthy families in the U.S. using their influence to get their offspring non combat postings when your draft was in effect.
I dont think that a universal draft would benefit the U.S. or most of the liberal,Western democracies.
No, I’m not missing it. I dealt with that explicitly in the post you just quoted.
The OP wants a draft to stop war. He also wants a reluctant military. Of course in reality, it doesn’t work like that. The machine gun (and a number of other weapons) was supposed to make war “unthinkable”. It did just the opposite. The politicos will either get their kids out somehow, or get them cushy safe jobs.
It seems to me that NOT having a draft is much more likely to restrain the impulses of the leadership to involve the military in more foreign adventures.
For example, even if Bush had wanted to invade Iran, he knew he couldn’t do it, because the military didn’t have the manpower.
I’m not sure why you’d think that giving the political leadership an unlimited number of soldiers would somehow reduce their tendency to engage in conflict.
But the biggest reason you don’t want a draft now is because a modern military is highly technical and requires smart, motivated people. You could get away with draftees when you needed lots of cannon fodder, or if your tactics involved mass charges at the enemy or foot patrols with a rifle and not much else.
Today, soldiers are specialists. They work in highly integrated teams under close coordination. Their equipment is high-tech and complex. One bitter, stoned draftee with motivational issues can destroy the effectiveness of the entire unit. Soldiers today have a lot more to learn. Many specialties require degrees or tech school educations. An infantry soldier would probably rate ‘Journeyman’ for his level of knowledge in his specialty.
The U.S. military simply is no longer suited for draftees, any more than you could staff General Electric with draftees drawn at random from the population.
The 10% draft would not be used to increase the military, just replace 10% of the needed quotas with draftees.
What are the current requirements to volunteer? A high school education, a physical, some basic aptitude test? I don’t know, but I’d image a healthy percentage of the random people drafted would qualify (you could even slightly raise the requirement to volunteer that would cut the bottom 10% thereby keeping a 90/10 military the same as before, if not better)
The only problem I’d see is motivation. But surely basic training and 90% volunteers would at least get a draftee to do his job sufficiently for a two-year period (my made up length of service for draftees). And being drafted doesn’t necessarily equal = don’t want to be in military.
I agree with your point about the military being more high-tech and complex, than say, even the 1980’s military (post Vietnam when there was no draft). But so is the current generation of 18-22yr olds.
This is a pretty shakey idea. You seem to be trying to turn the armed forces into a bunch of hostages.
I disagree. Historically, the military has been able to take in conscripts and turn them into good troops. The reduced motivation of conscripts is balanced by the wider pool of available talent. Some people who have skills that would be beneficial to the military choose to use them in other jobs - a draft would bring these skills into the armed forces.
I don’t know if 10% would be enough, but I certainly agree that having a draft would put the breaks on going to war. The Vietnam war became very unpopular once college kids started getting drafted. But the problem, as **Miller **has pointed out, is that it ain’t gonna happen. The people don’t want a draft, the politicians don’t want a draft and the military brass doesn’t want a draft. That’s all there is to it.
This. The professional soldiery are going to run the Pentagon. If you give them the right to conscript the citizenry, you make the citizenry servile to them, not the other way around. In the Twentieth Century, the USA sent draftees into wars of foreign adventurism. :eek:
Your entire OP was based on a false premise - that the military is disproportionately drawn from the lower classes. When this is shown to be untrue, you’re still right! Is there any evidence that would make you reconsider your position?
Your new plan is to replace people who want to be there with people who don’t - drawn from the same backgrounds. Despite the fact that you’re only drafting 300,000 people (and turning away volunteers) from a total population of 306 million, this will magically discourage overseas adventures.
To say this is ill thought out is being kind.
It would be a thousand times simpler, cheaper, and more effective to cut military spending by 33-50% and more tightly integrate NATO. That would have kept us out of Iraq. Remember too, we had NATO support going into Afghanistan.
It’s too expensive to train someone who isn’t going to stick around in the military considering that even an infantry grunt in today’s army needs to be trained in high-tech equipment. In short, it’s a bad idea.
Your math is off, he was actually talking about 30m. 10% of 300m is 30m.
I’m guessing it’s 10% of the 3 million military guys is the US armed forces.
What do you do with those that don’t qualify? How much time & money do you want to waste on conscripts who repeatedly fail physical, psychological, and apptitude tests?
Oh ok, then maybe I read the word problem wrong. 
They should redo the test so that it eliminates the disparate impact against us white males.
I included “gung ho” types, or people who want to be in the military solely for the reason that it’s their desire to be there.
This would be good evidence…Is there any other democratic countries that use peacetime drafts?
This looks like one: Swiss Military
Sure…Germany, Greece, Austria, Denmark, Israel, Russia, South Korea…