Ravenman, you do know most people don’t actually show up when called for jury duty, right?
It’s rather easier to be all idealistic about this when you’re not being invaded. Especially when the invader has a giant conscript army.
I’m trying to figure out what relevance this has to anything.
Could you explain why having a young man fill out a form on his 18th birthday (merely consisting of his address and Social Security number) would result in greater compliance with a summons up to seven years later?
And could you also explain why this comment addresses the need to keep a $25 million program running year after year when there is no foreseeable scenario under which we would resort to conscription?
It’s not a ‘Men’s Rights’ issue, IMHO. As for the second part of the question, I see no reason to keep the current incarnation of the Selective Service, at least from a military perspective (I suppose having that information on file is good for someone or something).
None. The military has come out repeatedly and said they don’t want draftees. They do this pretty much every time there is some sort of knee jerk stir about the draft being re-instituted.
Um, no. The draft is so the Government can have an efficient and at least quasi-fair and uniform way to bring in a lot of people in a short time if the country is in a dire military situation. It would take a core or existential threat to the US to EVER have a draft again, since our voluntary service military is more than adequate (as long as we keep funding it) to handle any military threat likely to happen.
They don’t have to register for the draft and they receive no penalty by not doing so (unlike men atm). They can, of course, volunteer and serve if they so choose. Society has always been reluctant to have women serving in the military, and with only one exception I can think of most societies completely shy away from drafting women into combat.
My guess is that if America were truly up against the wall (say a Posleen invasion), then women would indeed be drafted to serve…if nothing else, they would be drafted to serve in non-combat roles. They aren’t right now because the current Selective Service structure is just a hold over from an earlier time, and I don’t think it’s necessary anymore. If we REALLY wanted to institute a draft I think the government has access to sufficient information at it’s fingertips to start sending out draft notices without having to have people register first.
No, that’s crazy. I’m all for getting rid of the Selective Service…I don’t think it’s needed anymore, and I believe it’s a waste of resources. But banning conscription? That’s insane. You never know when you might need that, and if the situation is dire enough to outweigh the huge political negative of re-instituting the draft would be, then we will probably need it…badly.
I think that you are under the impression that we would draft people for some military adventure like Iraq or Afghanistan. However, I don’t believe that anyone (the politicians, the military or most civilians) would go for that, for a variety of reasons. The only thing that would make bring back a draft feasible is if the US’s backs were firmly to the wall and the very existence of the country were at stake…in which case, we’d really need that draft.
It would remove or block an option that the US may someday have to make, cutting it off or delaying it while the blocks were removed. And it would do so for something that is completely unnecessary. We don’t NEED a constitutional ban on conscription. The political costs, the public negativity and the fact that the military doesn’t WANT conscription except in the most dire need is going to preclude a draft anyway.
Get rid of the Selective Service and put the money into something else. I’m good with that.
-XT
Well, you say the fact that we call jurors without people having to register means we can conscript people without them having to register.
Now, I agree that Selective Service registration probably doesn’t help much (I was somewhat surprised to discover that I had already registered somehow when I signed up for student loans this year).
I’m not sure about the exact process, but if the Government ever wanted to re-institute the draft I believe they would have to pass legislation to do so. Assuming they can’t just do it by fiat, simply tack on some verbiage making it mandatory (with penalties for non-compliance) for anyone sent official notice that they have been drafted.
-XT
I think he means we can find people to send them stuff, not that we can actually draft them. Were the draft reinstated, it would indeed be by an Act of Congress.
Well, could China invade us? Could they get troops through Russian territory to Alaska across the Bering Strait?
They do have their own coastline, you know.
Why would they need to go through Russia to get to Alaska??
The answer to your question (if you could see my post) is ‘no’…they could not invade the US. I don’t think a Chinese invasion is something we need to reasonably worry about in the next thousand years or so.
-XT
It is (at the very least) extremely close to enforced servitude, and the solution I do desire is that enforced servitude be abolished for all. But when I frame it as a men’s rights issue I am addressing the mentality behind conscription. The mentality behind it is incredibly sexist, and is scarcely different than saying “men are expendable”. I brought up the men’s rights aspect of this because this “men are expendable” Heinlein mentality can’t be ignored when you bring up this subject.
The mentality isn’t the most important issue. If the mentality were “everybody is expendable when the state decides they are,” that would not be any better. It’s true that men have done most of the fighting and killing throughout history. There are a lot of reasons for that, starting with the fact that men tend to be bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than women. I don’t think the reasons are relevant to why forced conscription is wrong.
§ 460. Selective Service System
…(h) Maintenance of System after institution of all volunteer program for meeting manpower needs
The Selective Service system [1] shall be maintained as an active standby organization, with
(1) a complete registration and classification structure capable of immediate operation in the event of a national emergency (including a structure for registration and classification of persons qualified for practice or employment in a health care occupation essential to the maintenance of the Armed Forces), and
(2) personnel adequate to reinstitute immediately the full operation of the System, including military reservists who are trained to operate such System and who can be ordered to active duty for such purpose in the event of a national emergency.
Bolding mine. This is in the United States Code, and in face a “doctor’s draft” was instituted in the past, nost recently from 1950-1973. While in the past a medical professional’s draft only affected male medical professionals, this will not likely be the case in the future.
This may make me a giant hypocrite and harm my feminist credentials, such as they are - but I have no problem with a men-only draft. I’d be terrified to serve, but if my country needed me I would do it to the best of my ability. On the other hand, I would never be willing to see my sister in danger, even in the event of national emergency. I can tolerate the prospect of a draft for men, but I would vehemently oppose one for women.
Yeah, I don’t have a real problem with a males only DRAFT (not that I believe we’ll ever need something like that again). By the same token I have no problem with women volunteering, though I realize that, from a practical perspective it causes problems in the military.
I don’t really think this is a men’s rights issue…and I don’t think it’s a problem that needs to be ‘fixed’ or a big issue. Right now I see the Selective Service as being a waste of money and resources, but not a total waste, and small scale compared to other government waste.
-XT
I have been called for numerous jury duties, the last one just two weeks ago, and this doesn’t match my experiences at all. For example, this last jury pool was around 300 potential jurors, and there were 4 no-shows. Given that this was for federal court, perhaps that skews things, but I’ve been called often for county courts and experienced the same thing.
It’s more patronizing than anything else, I think.
Why?
-XT
I think it’s more apt than saying the position is hypocritical or un-feminist.
It is interesting that some here say that the draft would be okay for emergencies which threaten the very existence of the nation. The question I have is, how will we know if such an emergency is taking place?
I suspect the next major war will be a resource war. In some ways, our current adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan are the precursors to such an event. Would a war for oil be an emergency that threatens the existence of the nation? A threat doesn’t have to be one of land invasion. I could be more of a siege. Starve the nation of oil, then invade at your leisure.
I was overstating things a bit. The national no-show rate is about 10%, but the no-show rate for urban areas is about 50% (big .pdf).