NDAA would require women to register for the draft

[Imperializt Russia]

Good thing I'm about to be too old for the draft soon.

It always surprises me when someone turns out to be older than 30 on an internet forum.
I need to find a way to stop that. I guess this is what happens when you spend all your adult life on the things, it skews your perspective.

[Imperializt Russia]

The move to nuclear subs but not carriers is understandable as there are significant tactical reasons for a submarine to get off diesel that aren't as relevant to a carrier.

Very true.

The reasons for selecting a nuclear powerplant in either a submarine or surface combatant have some overlap, but a vast amount of divergence.

[Communal Ecotopia]

Although I would certainly prefer no draft for either/all gender(s), I have to support this.

[Novus America]

Again conscripts do not have to be poorly trained. Also you have to make it like Israel, universal and expected. If people grow up expecting it you are not suprised by it.

I admit it is not politically feasible though at this point.

Eh, that only really makes sense in countries where all your neighbours hate your guts and would, if given the opportunity, invade you. I mean, sure, there's some less extreme examples like Norway and even Switzerland, but they're the exception to the rule.

But even if the US were to go the Norwegian or Swiss route, I hardly see the point. What you want in a military is long-term professional soldiers who won't be gone after a two-year period of service. Conscription offers few benefits to developed countries that aren't in a state of perpetual warfare.

It allows you to build up a huge reserve force.

And again bring in skilled people who would normally go just into private sector.

[The first Galactic Republic]

It's about high time we abolish the selective service.

Presuming this could somehow pass the full house, there would be more impetus to do that. No one gives a shit if men are the ones suffering from something. If women start having to do it too, people might actually give a damn about doing away with it entirely.

It's also possible people don't give a shit because it hasn't been implemented in a long time.

Last time there was a draft was Vietnam. People sure as shit cared then.

[Novus America]

Presuming this could somehow pass the full house, there would be more impetus to do that. No one gives a shit if men are the ones suffering from something. If women start having to do it too, people might actually give a damn about doing away with it entirely.

It's also possible people don't give a shit because it hasn't been implemented in a long time.

Last time there was a draft was Vietnam. People sure as shit cared then.

The problem was more Vietnam than the draft. Their was very little opposition too it in the 40s and 50s.

[Salandriagado]

The military disagrees. Just about every military in the world realised years ago that drafted soldiers aren't useful in modern wars.

I'd like some sauce for these chips, please.

I can imagine that statement being true once we encumber it with more qualifiers than light infantry has ammunition.
Inherently, as typed there? No.

Give me a sec, I'm going from memory from a previous thread. Haven't found the source then yet, but there's references to it here, and there's a quote from General Scales here:

A return to the draft is a very bad idea whose time passed with the world wars, Korea and Vietnam. These wars were tragically wasteful because in large measure they were fought with drafted soldiers.

Drafted soldiers are far more likely to die in combat than long-service professionals. Military leaders know from painful experience that it takes years to produce a fully competent combat soldier. They also know that older soldiers live longer in combat. Drafting teenagers and committing them to combat within only a year of enlistment will create an Army of amateurs. Our Army in particular has a sad history of committing to battle men who are too young and inexperienced to have much hope of surviving against a hardened and skillful enemy.

Drafted units can be kept together for only a short time and invariably march to war as random collections of strangers. Our soldiers performed so superbly in Iraq because they were seasoned. Good soldiers, like good wine, can be produced only with careful cultivation and patient aging. Unfortunately, amateur armies learn to fight only by fighting. Inevitably, the cost of that education is too horrific for the American people to bear.

[Vultyak]

Enough troops for what? The United States has by a significant margin the most powerful military in the world. What national threats do we face to our sovereignty that would compel conscription?

[The first Galactic Republic]

It's also possible people don't give a shit because it hasn't been implemented in a long time.

Last time there was a draft was Vietnam. People sure as shit cared then.

The problem was more Vietnam than the draft. Their was very little opposition too it in the 40s and 50s.

There was huge opposition to it in the 40's, it just got buried under the war bond selling frenzy after Pearl Harbor.

Korea is called the forgotten war for a reason. Plenty of people hated that too but it was buried under the stress of the time period.

[Imperializt Russia]

America's not exactly short on reserves.
I'd call it "huge", considering it probably outnumbers most of its likely opponents' standing forces.

In the west, I still think the way forward is definitely going to be attracting weekend warriors than conscription.
Sifting out the high-quality reserves for retention from conscripts - because let's face it, some of them won't be very good and some flat out won't want to be there - will be finding a needle in a stack of screws, while people who sign up to be reserves are clearly motivated off the bat and in many instances will probably bring their own skills to the military anyway.

Even taking into account the effective pay cut a conscripted force will likely face, attracting high-paid reserves in the first place will probably still be cheaper.

[Novus America]

I'd like some sauce for these chips, please.

I can imagine that statement being true once we encumber it with more qualifiers than light infantry has ammunition.
Inherently, as typed there? No.

Give me a sec, I'm going from memory from a previous thread. Haven't found the source then yet, but there's references to it here, and there's a quote from General Scales here:

A return to the draft is a very bad idea whose time passed with the world wars, Korea and Vietnam. These wars were tragically wasteful because in large measure they were fought with drafted soldiers.

Drafted soldiers are far more likely to die in combat than long-service professionals. Military leaders know from painful experience that it takes years to produce a fully competent combat soldier. They also know that older soldiers live longer in combat. Drafting teenagers and committing them to combat within only a year of enlistment will create an Army of amateurs. Our Army in particular has a sad history of committing to battle men who are too young and inexperienced to have much hope of surviving against a hardened and skillful enemy.

Drafted units can be kept together for only a short time and invariably march to war as random collections of strangers. Our soldiers performed so superbly in Iraq because they were seasoned. Good soldiers, like good wine, can be produced only with careful cultivation and patient aging. Unfortunately, amateur armies learn to fight only by fighting. Inevitably, the cost of that education is too horrific for the American people to bear.

Other generals disagree. That is just his opinion. And again Israeli soldiers perform just fine.

[Galloism]

Presuming this could somehow pass the full house, there would be more impetus to do that. No one gives a shit if men are the ones suffering from something. If women start having to do it too, people might actually give a damn about doing away with it entirely.

It's also possible people don't give a shit because it hasn't been implemented in a long time.

Last time there was a draft was Vietnam. People sure as shit cared then.

Men still lose thousands of dollars in benefits, get denied driver's licenses, and other penalties compared to a similarly situated woman who has religious or ethical objections to signing up for the draft.

They're also required to keep their address updated with SS every time they move. This is a burden women don't carry. They can be fined for failure.

They should, if anyone does.

[The East Marches]

There is always the threat of World War. However low that may seem in today's world. Its good to have a backup plan on the books in such an event. Personally, I think this is great. Now they too can enjoy true equality. I'm glad to see the Blood tax affects us all now.

[Shaggy Dog Story]

The move to nuclear subs but not carriers is understandable as there are significant tactical reasons for a submarine to get off diesel that aren't as relevant to a carrier.

Very true.

The reasons for selecting a nuclear powerplant in either a submarine or surface combatant have some overlap, but a vast amount of divergence.

Well of course more power is always a good thing but the primary benefit of a nuclear reactor on a submarine is that its power generation requires neither air nor refueling. Refueling reduction does benefit carriers but they are usually part of a group anyway and have better logistical support.

And of course there's the fact that nuclear reactor based power is very very quiet. A far bigger benefit on a submarine than a massive carrier that regardless of how quiet it runs, is sneaking up on absolutely nobody.

Carriers are designed to have logistical support so the benefit of not needing as much logistical support is a hard thing to balance on a cost benefit analysis.

[Sanctissima]

Eh, that only really makes sense in countries where all your neighbours hate your guts and would, if given the opportunity, invade you. I mean, sure, there's some less extreme examples like Norway and even Switzerland, but they're the exception to the rule.

But even if the US were to go the Norwegian or Swiss route, I hardly see the point. What you want in a military is long-term professional soldiers who won't be gone after a two-year period of service. Conscription offers few benefits to developed countries that aren't in a state of perpetual warfare.

It allows you to build up a huge reserve force.

And again bring in skilled people who would normally go just into private sector.

Given the size of America's militias, as well as its regular army, I'd say the reserve force is already huge. And sure, if handled properly conscription can get skilled people who might go on to become valuable military assets, but that can be achieved by other more effective means.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'd like some sauce for these chips, please.

I can imagine that statement being true once we encumber it with more qualifiers than light infantry has ammunition.
Inherently, as typed there? No.

Give me a sec, I'm going from memory from a previous thread. Haven't found the source then yet, but there's references to it here, and there's a quote from General Scales here:

A return to the draft is a very bad idea whose time passed with the world wars, Korea and Vietnam. These wars were tragically wasteful because in large measure they were fought with drafted soldiers.

Drafted soldiers are far more likely to die in combat than long-service professionals. Military leaders know from painful experience that it takes years to produce a fully competent combat soldier. They also know that older soldiers live longer in combat. Drafting teenagers and committing them to combat within only a year of enlistment will create an Army of amateurs. Our Army in particular has a sad history of committing to battle men who are too young and inexperienced to have much hope of surviving against a hardened and skillful enemy.

Drafted units can be kept together for only a short time and invariably march to war as random collections of strangers. Our soldiers performed so superbly in Iraq because they were seasoned. Good soldiers, like good wine, can be produced only with careful cultivation and patient aging. Unfortunately, amateur armies learn to fight only by fighting. Inevitably, the cost of that education is too horrific for the American people to bear.

The world wars and Korea were very different wars in a very different time to today.

Consider that in both WWI and WWII the US began in a very poor position in terms of proficiency and basically had to learn how to fight with the technology of the day - and after WWII turned out to be really damn good at it.
The US is no longer in that position and no longer fights conflicts on that scale.

[The first Galactic Republic]

It's also possible people don't give a shit because it hasn't been implemented in a long time.

Last time there was a draft was Vietnam. People sure as shit cared then.

Men still lose thousands of dollars in benefits, get denied driver's licenses, and other penalties compared to a similarly situated woman who has religious or ethical objections to signing up for the draft.

They're also required to keep their address updated with SS every time they move. This is a burden women don't carry. They can be fined for failure.

They should, if anyone does.

Why are we talking about the effects of the draft? I never said it has no effects.

But saying society doesn't care about men is strange when it did care the last time the draft served its intended purpose.

[Imperializt Russia]

Very true.

The reasons for selecting a nuclear powerplant in either a submarine or surface combatant have some overlap, but a vast amount of divergence.

Well of course more power is always a good thing but the primary benefit of a nuclear reactor on a submarine is that its power generation requires neither air nor refueling. Refueling reduction does benefit carriers but they are usually part of a group anyway and have better logistical support.

And of course there's the fact that nuclear reactor based power is very very quiet. A far bigger benefit on a submarine than a massive carrier that regardless of how quiet it runs, is sneaking up on absolutely nobody.

Carriers are designed to have logistical support so the benefit of not needing as much logistical support is a hard thing to balance on a cost benefit analysis.

Reactors, while quiet, are actually noisier than electric engines (impacted by overall sub design).

However, they can remain submerged indefinitely so benefit massively from the increased survivability being able to dive out of weapons range brings.

[Uxupox]

America's not exactly short on reserves.
I'd call it "huge", considering it probably outnumbers most of its likely opponents' standing forces.

In the west, I still think the way forward is definitely going to be attracting weekend warriors than conscription.
Sifting out the high-quality reserves for retention from conscripts - because let's face it, some of them won't be very good and some flat out won't want to be there - will be finding a needle in a stack of screws, while people who sign up to be reserves are clearly motivated off the bat and in many instances will probably bring their own skills to the military anyway.

Even taking into account the effective pay cut a conscripted force will likely face, attracting high-paid reserves in the first place will probably still be cheaper.

Not necessarily in the reserve. Unless your civilian job/degree reflects or is the same/similar that off your military job/MOS(Designation) you literally won't be able to do anything with it. There are guidelines that must be followed at all costs or because anything else is "wrong" even if your method is actually superior. Talking from experience you can file an FM back to Ft. Eustis but the chance of big wigs over there listening are fairly low unless you are already high in command/decorated. Though this is how it mostly works in the US (In my experience anyway, don't know about foreign militaries).

[Salandriagado]

Then you screwed up your education, if you wanted non-academic skills.

I'm not saying I'd rather have been a metalworker than a physicist, I just expect, now, that my state education should have furnished me with some form of non-academic skill. A balance.

I blame the over-emphasis on service skills (as in IT, skills which absolutely no-one else in my cohort at school seemed to get either since at the last minute we basically forced the school to change our programme from a full to a half GCSE in IT) and pure academic focus under the Blair government. I feel now that it was misguided over-emphasis.

I'm currently doing a PhD. Along the way, I've also learned a whole lot about programming, a reasonable amount about computer hardware, far more about woodworking and forestry management than I'll ever need, and a reasonable amount about metal work, especially the operation of CNC machines.

You don't fix that with involuntary service. You fix that by turning the Navy into a more promising career option, and making it more appealing to potential recruits. The absolute last thing you want is a bunch of poorly trained irregulars who don't really want to be there.

Again conscripts do not have to be poorly trained. Israeli troops are not poorly trained irregulars.

Also you have to make it like Israel, universal and expected. If people grow up expecting it you are not suprised by it.

I admit it is not politically feasible though at this point.

And, again: I end up spending my most productive years pretending to be a soldier, rather than doing something actually productive. Training people up is a slow, expensive process, and maintaining a draft is just inefficient, since you spend all that time and money training them, then they leave.

Eh, that only really makes sense in countries where all your neighbours hate your guts and would, if given the opportunity, invade you. I mean, sure, there's some less extreme examples like Norway and even Switzerland, but they're the exception to the rule.

But even if the US were to go the Norwegian or Swiss route, I hardly see the point. What you want in a military is long-term professional soldiers who won't be gone after a two-year period of service. Conscription offers few benefits to developed countries that aren't in a state of perpetual warfare.

It allows you to build up a huge reserve force.

And again bring in skilled people who would normally go just into private sector.

This is otherwise known as "putting a drain on your economy".

There is always the threat of World War. However low that may seem in today's world. Its good to have a backup plan on the books in such an event. Personally, I think this is great. Now they too can enjoy true equality. I'm glad to see the Blood tax affects us all now.

It's not that world wars are unlikely, per se: it's that conscript armies aren't going to be a major factor in it: who is left over after every major military target has had a nuke dropped on it is going to be the deciding factor in who loses least badly.

[Salandriagado]

Give me a sec, I'm going from memory from a previous thread. Haven't found the source then yet, but there's references to it here, and there's a quote from General Scales here:

The world wars and Korea were very different wars in a very different time to today.

Consider that in both WWI and WWII the US began in a very poor position in terms of proficiency and basically had to learn how to fight with the technology of the day - and after WWII turned out to be really damn good at it.
The US is no longer in that position and no longer fights conflicts on that scale.

Which makes a draft even more pointless.

[Melfar]

It's definitely something designed for equality but I don't think it's very important or going to do anything. Honestly just get rid of the draft altogether so all the peoples can live regardless of penis or vagina or anything else. And do it before the end of Obama's term just in case Trump is elected *shivers*

Side note: I have been curious as to whether transgender people would have to sign up or not. Can you force a f2m to sign up because they identify as male? Can you force a m2f to sign up because their biological sex at birth was male?

[Novus America]

The problem was more Vietnam than the draft. Their was very little opposition too it in the 40s and 50s.

There was huge opposition to it in the 40's, it just got buried under the war bond selling frenzy after Pearl Harbor.

Korea is called the forgotten war for a reason. Plenty of people hated that too but it was buried under the stress of the time period.

Pearl Harbor happened in 41. So. And there was little protest against Korea. And after Korea the draft continued in peace time with little opposition until the later 60s.

[Oasisa]

Or, you know, nobody registers and nobody gets drafted. That'd be good too.

It's about high time we abolish the selective service.

Ya, that would be good. A high- tech professional military that is selectively/ smartly used doesn't need a draft.

[The East Marches]

I'm not saying I'd rather have been a metalworker than a physicist, I just expect, now, that my state education should have furnished me with some form of non-academic skill. A balance.

I blame the over-emphasis on service skills (as in IT, skills which absolutely no-one else in my cohort at school seemed to get either since at the last minute we basically forced the school to change our programme from a full to a half GCSE in IT) and pure academic focus under the Blair government. I feel now that it was misguided over-emphasis.

I'm currently doing a PhD. Along the way, I've also learned a whole lot about programming, a reasonable amount about computer hardware, far more about woodworking and forestry management than I'll ever need, and a reasonable amount about metal work, especially the operation of CNC machines.

Again conscripts do not have to be poorly trained. Israeli troops are not poorly trained irregulars.

Also you have to make it like Israel, universal and expected. If people grow up expecting it you are not suprised by it.

I admit it is not politically feasible though at this point.

And, again: I end up spending my most productive years pretending to be a soldier, rather than doing something actually productive. Training people up is a slow, expensive process, and maintaining a draft is just inefficient, since you spend all that time and money training them, then they leave.

It allows you to build up a huge reserve force.

And again bring in skilled people who would normally go just into private sector.

This is otherwise known as "putting a drain on your economy".

There is always the threat of World War. However low that may seem in today's world. Its good to have a backup plan on the books in such an event. Personally, I think this is great. Now they too can enjoy true equality. I'm glad to see the Blood tax affects us all now.

It's not that world wars are unlikely, per se: it's that conscript armies aren't going to be a major factor in it: who is left over after every major military target has had a nuke dropped on it is going to be the deciding factor in who loses least badly.

I have to disagree, I think that the initial stages of World War 3 will be conventional. Nukes will be a weapon of last resort or to break a deadlock at the front. The nuclear powers aren't totally suicidal. I fear an modern repetition of World War 1, only this time with more drones/mechanization and more meat for the grinder. It'll either be over by Christmas or a long affair.