Selective Service - discriminatory against males

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No however they are more likely to develop fatigue fractures alongside other physical constraints. I don't believe this is the thread to debate this, I was just making the point that I would not sacrifice US national security for gender equality.

I can't see how increasing the pool of candidates to draw from could ever harm the fighting ability of the Armed Forces. OTOH, I can certainly see how relying on press-ganged conscripts instead of volunteer soldiers could.

 

[Alceste]

Conscription is slavery. I don't think that gender equality is any sort of positive (even partially positive) compromise any more than slavery of African Americans would have been helped by allowing white people to be enslaved as well.

IMO, nothing short of a complete abolition of the draft is acceptable. Yes, drafting men is a affront to human dignity, but a system where women were drafted would be no less of an affront.

^ This.

 

[DallasApple]

[QUOTEIMO, nothing short of a complete abolition of the draft is acceptable. Yes, drafting men is a affront to human dignity, ][/QUOTE]

Agreed.

 

[Aquitaine]

I think it would be better for a nation to abolish Selective Service, rather than forcing Females into it as if it's some sort of achievement of Equality to be proud of.

 

[Alceste]

I think it would be better for a nation to abolish Selective Service, rather than forcing Females into it as if it's some sort of achievement of Equality to be proud of.

Yeah, the concept of involuntary conscription is kind of at odds with the concept of women's "liberation", I think.

 

[Aquitaine]

Yeah, the concept of involuntary conscription is kind of at odds with the concept of women's "liberation", I think.

"I now have the right to be involuntarily sent off to a war zone and step on a land mine, woo!"

 

[Caladan]

I can't see how increasing the pool of candidates to draw from could ever harm the fighting ability of the Armed Forces. OTOH, I can certainly see how relying on press-ganged conscripts instead of volunteer soldiers could.

That's a common misconception by people from countries who's armed forces are supposedly composed of volunteers.
If we are to believe the same people, then their pool of volunteer soldiers are usually of particular (low) socio-economic background who's last resort was the military. On the other hand conscription by its very definition includes all sectors of society, and usually weeds out the non compatible out.
In addition, conscripts both direct themselves and are directed towards their ideal goals in their military service. At least in my country the vast majority of combat soldiers request to be combat soldiers to begin with, and many have to compete on their position. Many others are hand picked for other high profile positions, from advanced technology departments, to intelligence.
In fact the debate between conscript armed forces and enlistment armed forces is not foreign to 'volunteers military', as the argument that the military draws soldiers from poor social background for whom the military is a last resort (some volunteering motivation that is) has been voiced again and again. Here is a (albeit several years old) article in The Washington Post which illustrated just that:

As sustained combat in Iraq makes it harder than ever to fill the ranks of the all-volunteer force, newly released Pentagon demographic data show that the military is leaning heavily for recruits on economically depressed, rural areas where youths' need for jobs may outweigh the risks of going to war.

Youths in Rural U.S. Are Drawn To Military

The conscripts pool is much more diverse, has a higher percentage of motivated people (people who don't enlist to the army as a last redeeming social resort), and offers much more human material for the military to use.

I think the facts speak for themselves. The Israeli armed forces is a conscripts army, its soldiers are generally considered highly motivated and well trained, and in certain departments are considered some of the best in the world. And BTW, Israeli women are drafted to the military for 2 years, with more and more combat roles being opened to them. There are Israeli women serving as fighter pilots, foot soldiers, flown medics, and other challenging roles. In general (with a few exceptions) Israeli youth are highly motivated, and already know which branch and unit they aspire to serve in with many of them mentally and physically preparing themselves for their role months and months before their draft. I believe that most of the boys that were in high school with me (and some of the girls) were taking part in combat fitness programs a year or two before our draft dates.
In March 2010 76% of Israeli youth who were eligible for combat service requested to enlist into combat units.

 

[DreadFish]

Have to be 6ft so you can walk to shore if your ship goes down, right?

They don't have higher standards than any other service, they just don't need people as bad so they aren't as willing to give waivers. Actually, the Army is hard to get into as well right now. They are trying to cut down, or at least they were a year ago when I left. A few years ago they needed people badly though. They let everyone in: you are a 40 year old, overweight, felon? Sure we'll give you three waivers to get in. Today, if you don't meet the requirements you don't get in.

It was my impression that they had higher standards on the ASVAB than other branches or something like that; at least, as far as regular enlistment. Im probably mixing that up with certain specific ratings (as in, doing mental math while flutter kicks and having cold water poured on you in rescue swimmer training ).

And yeah, I got that joke from my uncle; he was in the navy. He told it to me when I mentioned an interest in joining the Coast Guard. Im so far the only man on my dads side of the family to not join the military (thought my dad was only in it for a very short time due to a misunderstanding). I was in the Civil Air Patrol for a while though and planned on the military immediately after high school.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

^ This.

Let the record show I support this position too. That's at least three. They'll change federal laws if three RF members agree, right?

 

[Me Myself]

Conscription is slavery. I don't think that gender equality is any sort of positive (even partially positive) compromise any more than slavery of African Americans would have been helped by allowing white people to be enslaved as well.

IMO, nothing short of a complete abolition of the draft is acceptable. Yes, drafting men is a affront to human dignity, but a system where women were drafted would be no less of an affront.

Makes sense to me,

No one should be forced to support war like that. Tax is more than enough.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Bet the Army wouldn't care if they drafted him in a war.

Depends who "the army is". The officers who actually have to be near or in combat absolutely care whether or not the people serving with them volunteered and definitely more than they'd care about 20 friggin' lbs. One of the guys who trained with me at some seminar knew an ex-SEAL who had come to try-outs (they don't just let you into BUD/S) without knowing how to swim and being a bit overweight. Apparently they told him repeatedly he wasn't going to make it, and according to him the only reason he did was to prove them wrong.

Meanwhile, from what I've read the military had a pretty hard time in the Vietnam days dealing with lots and lots of soldiers who'd rather score drugs, deal drugs, skip out on duties, and generally behave like people who hated being where they were and thinking that they didn't sign up for this (which, wonder of wonders, they actually didn't). It's not such a problem for the upper echelon of the DOD, because they have boots on the ground when they want them, and lower-level officers to blame for failures.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's a common misconception by people from countries who's armed forces are supposedly composed of volunteers.
If we are to believe the same people, then their pool of volunteer soldiers are usually of particular (low) socio-economic background who's last resort was the military.

That isn't my experience. I have several friends in the Canadian Forces, and to a man they're very intelligent, capable people who would have no problem finding opportunities outside the military.

On the other hand conscription by its very definition includes all sectors of society, and usually weeds out the non compatible out.

Hardly. Especially in the American example, it tended to be people of lower socio-economic status who would be drafted. The wealthy could afford to send their kids to college, which would exempt them from the draft; the well-connected could pull strings so that if their son's number did come up, he'd be assigned to some role with a low likelihood of combat.

In addition, conscripts both direct themselves and are directed towards their ideal goals in their military service. At least in my country the vast majority of combat soldiers request to be combat soldiers to begin with, and many have to compete on their position. Many others are hand picked for other high profile positions, from advanced technology departments, to intelligence.

If you're right, then conscripting these eager soldiers is redundant and useless. Why force someone to do something they would have done anyhow?

In fact the debate between conscript armed forces and enlistment armed forces is not foreign to 'volunteers military', as the argument that the military draws soldiers from poor social background for whom the military is a last resort (some volunteering motivation that is) has been voiced again and again. Here is a (albeit several years old) article in The Washington Post which illustrated just that:

Youths in Rural U.S. Are Drawn To Military

The US military has issues, certainly. But this doesn't mean that the answer is to start enslaving people.

The conscripts pool is much more diverse, has a higher percentage of motivated people (people who don't enlist to the army as a last redeeming social resort), and offers much more human material for the military to use.

People who are forced against their will to be in the military are more motivated? Are you talking about the armed forces of Bizarro-land?

I think the facts speak for themselves. The Israeli armed forces is a conscripts army, its soldiers are generally considered highly motivated and well trained, and in certain departments are considered some of the best in the world. And BTW, Israeli women are drafted to the military for 2 years, with more and more combat roles being opened to them. There are Israeli women serving as fighter pilots, foot soldiers, flown medics, and other challenging roles. In general (with a few exceptions) Israeli youth are highly motivated, and already know which branch and unit they aspire to serve in with many of them mentally and physically preparing themselves for their role months and months before their draft. I believe that most of the boys that were in high school with me (and some of the girls) were taking part in combat fitness programs a year or two before our draft dates.
In March 2010 76% of Israeli youth who were eligible for combat service requested to enlist into combat units.

Again: if people actually want to be in the military, then you don't have to conscript them. Conscription is only necessary for the cases where people wouldn't choose the military of their own free will. For any particular conscript, it's either redundant or coercive; there are no other options.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hardly. Especially in the American example, it tended to be people of lower socio-economic status who would be drafted. The wealthy could afford to send their kids to college, which would exempt them from the draft....

Minor point.....the student deferment had been eliminated eliminated when I was due to be drafted (lottery number = 34). But fortunately, Nixon cancelled the draft just before my move to Canuckistan.

the well-connected could pull strings so that if their son's number did come up, he'd be assigned to some role with a low likelihood of combat.

Al Gore was an example.

 

[Caladan]

That isn't my experience. I have several friends in the Canadian Forces, and to a man they're very intelligent, capable people who would have no problem finding opportunities outside the military.

Not to offend your Canadian friends, but I would better rely on Israeli soldiers myself and I do believe their reputation in modern warfare is a bit more solid than the Canadians.

Hardly. Especially in the American example, it tended to be people of lower socio-economic status who would be drafted. The wealthy could afford to send their kids to college, which would exempt them from the draft; the well-connected could pull strings so that if their son's number did come up, he'd be assigned to some role with a low likelihood of combat.

Definitely not the Israeli model. Conscripts arrive from diverse backgrounds. Anything from secular Kibbutzim youth to Arab Druze from northern Israel (while the majority of other Arab/Muslim youth are exempt from service).

If you're right, then conscripting these eager soldiers is redundant and useless. Why force someone to do something they would have done anyhow?

No, it's not. It's a social duty, and an active social participation in light of the circumstances of one's nation. In the case of Israel it makes perfect sense. Also, your point doesn't make sense in light of what I was saying. Conscription in the Israeli case brings a more diverse choice for the military when they consider each soldier for each role.

The US military has issues, certainly. But this doesn't mean that the answer is to start enslaving people.

Obviously not in Canada, whose major borders are with the US, the Atlantic, and the Pacific. But for Israel which has already engaged in several major wars in its several decades of existence there is a need to put a standard to society where citizens need to contribute. Also your dramatic insistence to call this 'enslavement' is childish and renders a serious discussion of the topic useless.

People who are forced against their will to be in the military are more motivated? Are you talking about the armed forces of Bizarro-land?

Maybe you live in a naturally unpatriotic and unmotivated society. Certainly not my example. The point is simple, conscription includes MOST sectors of society by default (in Israel), and is different from an American model which draws people from a certain social background who enlist for reasons such as coming out of social hardships (now THAT is enslavement).

Again: if people actually want to be in the military, then you don't have to conscript them. Conscription is only necessary for the cases where people wouldn't choose the military of their own free will. For any particular conscript, it's either redundant or coercive; there are no other options.

Sure there are. There are social standards, and social duties. There are various nations around the world that conscription is the right model for them. Their militaries also have more options to choose from when it comes to human resources pool.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here's the crux of the matter:

No, it's not. It's a social duty, and an active social participation in light of the circumstances of one's nation. In the case of Israel it makes perfect sense. Also, your point doesn't make sense in light of what I was saying. Conscription in the Israeli case brings a more diverse choice for the military when they consider each soldier for each role.

Conscription only results in a "more diverse" military if it brings people into the military who would have not chosen enlistment for themselves.

As I said, it's either coercive or redundant. If the person wanted to enlist anyhow, then you didn't need to conscript him. If he didn't want to enlist, then you're forcing him to do something he didn't want to do.