Ah, sorry, but no. This is patently ridiculous. Did you just wake up from being frozen in the 60s or something?! 
There is a huge, huge leap from being appreciative, respectful, and honest about the indispensable job the people in the military must do, to wanting to reinstate the draft!
This is a view I promote as well. During the Cuban Missile Crisis a conventional war probably would have spilled over into a nuclear war. But I think that is because of the lower level of technology involved. At that point, we didn’t have access to reliable launch detection systems and neither did the Soviets. What this means is that instead of knowing for sure if we were being attacked, both sides would have to guess. Which means one side would at some point probably determine “well fuck, we’re sinking each other’s ships, Cuba is overrun with fighting…the other guy is going to pull the trigger…we have to now as well to get the best possible outcome from the nuclear exchange.”
The launch detection system we had at the time was simply not reliable, but it lead to the Defense Support Program in 1970, which provided us with highly reliable launch detection. The Russians have launch detection as well. So for this reason an immediate “war declared–>nukes go” reaction would not be necessary and likely would not happen. Yes, nuclear weapons can still be dropped from planes or delivered via means other than rocket launches but a few planes dropping nukes would be a smaller initial disaster than taking the full ICBM stockpile of Russia/America. Particularly since both sides have rigorous air defenses designed to stop enemy bombing runs. It’s quite likely that in a limited war with Russia (or China I should add), both sides would restrict themselves in various ways. I doubt America would be launching bombs into China or Russia proper, and I suspect any realistic war would be happening on “someone else’s ground.” Meaning we’d be fighting Russia or China in a third country as the battlefield.
But none of the three country would tolerate true invasion, maybe fighting around the borders and such, but if looked like the country was going to collapse to military invaders I do think any of the three countries would start launching nukes. But I think that reality would limit the scope of the war. Not saying war with China or Russia is anything be economic/political/humanitarian nightmare for the entire world, but there is no reason that in 2015 it must automatically lead to nuclear war.
You obviously don’t spend too much time talking to Texan veterans. I don’t doubt that your neighbors agree with you.
:rolleyes:
The last few times drafts have been suggested in congress (and never gone anywhere) it seems there’s a left winger behind it, likely trying to get the public to turn on whatever military action is going on at the time.
May I ask how many of you served?
I served 4 years in the Navy and from my experience I’ll say i’d hate to have a lowest common denominator unwilling idiot next to me I might have to count on.
I was a shipboard firefighter. I’m glad the guy on the hose next to me was a dedicated volunteer.
Talking to Viet Nam vets and stories of Soviet armies are about inefficient unmotivated stories.
This is sounding way more rah rah than I intend but remember the military is there to kill people and blow shit up. It’s not a social experiment or job source for it’s own sake. I hate the idea of the politians sending them on missions that aren’t their job. Like prison guards. To that I have no solution and off topic, just want to illustrate what I think the military is for.
I can’t imagine a between the us and either country getting to the point where reinstated the draft would be necessary before going nuclear (in which case the “draft” would consist of local authorities conscripting able bodied survivors into labor & agricultural battalions).
Letting the nukes fly is never the first option, but what happens when one side is about to lose either way?
That depends on what do you mean by “losing”, doesn’t it? “Defeat” may not be an existential threat. What if the losing side gets a call that says, “OK, we now hold securely the whole of the smoking ruins of that piece of land you vowed to liberate/protect (or, we have now sunk the threatening fleet), we’re ready to call it a day if you are”? Or maybe the winning side gets one saying “President has had freak horseback tiger-hunting accident. Trampled by tiger and eaten by horse. How about we all cease fire at current line for talks?”
But we are shutting down bases. Here’s a Wikipedia summary.
There certainly is a manpower shortage as relates to what the Pentagon would like. They’re offering all sorts of recruitment incentives, and lowering their requirements.
There certainly is not a manpower shortage in terms of what is needed to maintain our strategic presence worldwide, let alone to defend the homeland. But if we ever started to fall that far short, non-conscription recruitment incentives could be devised to bring in the warm bodies.
The military doesn’t really drool at the thought of tens of thousands of unwilling, reluctant, coerced, dissatisfied, grumpy soldiers-in-handcuffs. It’s a recipe for draft-dodging and desertion.
Meanwhile, if there were really some actual threat to the country, people would volunteer. Look at the spike in volunteer rates after 911.
Any defeat that still leaves one’s borders, populace and nation relatively intact, in my opinion, does not call for nukes. The USA “lost” the Vietnam War, but life at home in America itself was hardly affected in any significant sense.
Now, if your country itself were about to be physically overrun by mass invading armies, or the entire populace were facing imminent death (say, an enemy blockades you for months with intent to starve everyone in your nation to death), then the use or threat of nukes becomes much more warranted, IMO.
Exactly right, although using words like “justified” and “warranted” kind of misses the mark. The issue is self-interest. The only time the use of nukes makes sense for a country is if they face total defeat and enslavement, and/or genocide. The wild card is whether a regime that is defeated would sooner sacrifice the entire country than lose power, and whether the people in direct control of the nukes would carry out such senseless orders. North Korea is so indoctrinated I could see it happening, but not for anyone else.
Anyway, to get back on the thread topic, I think that draft conscription, in the absence of a dire national crisis, would be political suicide. And in the presence of a dire national crisis, it probably wouldn’t be necessary, there’d be huge numbers of Americans lining up to enlist to join the military.
So a draft conscription would either be political suicide, or unnecessary.
Or say “Well, darn, we’d love to go to war, but we just don’t have the manpower for it…”
FWIW, much to the chagrin of all my Democrat friends and family, I voted for Reagan in 1980 because Carter had just reinstated the draft (and I had to sign up). I imagine he lost for a host of reasons, but we’re all told that our votes count.