I agree, but I also believe women & other non-traditional soldiers could be usefully integrated if a draft arises.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Military Draft
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
Sultan Of Swing
Well-Known Member
And what about when you're carrying an injured squadmate off the field? Or where speed and strength really is of the essence, any sort of assault or special operation?
I have no problems with women in the armed forces as long as they can keep up with the men, or have roles in which such attributes are unneeded.
Sultan Of Swing
Well-Known Member
You're right, I suppose they can be drafted as long as they are in roles which they can perform just as well as any man can.
I suppose that even if there are roles where non-traditional soldiers don't perform as well, they could still be useful.
Sultan Of Swing
Well-Known Member
I will support that when we run out of eligible men.
I imagine something phased in with an optimal mix.I will support that when we run out of eligible men.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Which would justify for a selection based on physical strength and not based on gender.
And even then, there is a ton of situations where the extra strength would mean nothing.
Sultan Of Swing
Well-Known Member
The perceived problem with this is that hardly any women, if any, would actually meet the requirements, and so the equality debate rages on...
I'd expect that some women could meet the physical standards, & perform well enuf. How many? I expect a small percentage.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
When it comes down to involuntary service, a LOT of men wouldn't fit the standards you are talking about either.
I guess that is an easy solution then: Remain unfit to avoid it.
Well, I was proposing that everyone serve. But I know that isn't practical, which is why I also proposed the plan of very high compensation for draftees. It's a move in the direction of fairness, while the high cost would discourage politicians from foreign adventurism.
Sultan Of Swing
Well-Known Member
You'd be surprised, I would say the majority of men could meet the standards if properly trained. I am not sure exactly how much time is given to train the men when they are drafted, though. If they are thrown straight into combat then yes that'd be a problem, but I doubt it's that simple.
Doesn't the government already spend ridiculous amounts of money on subcontractors, 'disposable' war materiel, bribes, pay-offs and tribute?
Why should a security guard, cafeteria worker or laundry worker get paid fifty or a hundred tax-free dollars an hour to maintain the warriors who do the actual fighting (for peanuts)?
War is a money pit. Luckily the 1% manages not only to get the 99% to pay for it, but makes a profit on the deal.
Of course, the whole purpose of the wars is to secure markets for the 1%'s corporations to begin with. We haven't had a war for freedom or national defense in a long time.
Personally, I agree a universal draft would go a long way toward democratizing foreign policy, but I still oppose mandatory service on the grounds that 'government' has no legitimate claim on my self or my labor. I'm not owned by any government. I'm a free agent, free to chose my own allegiance and alliances.
Last edited by a moderator:
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Can you be more specific as to what standards you are talking about?
It strictly depends on the needs, I guess.
Considering the current situation of USA, it is safe to say it could happen ( in the foreseeable future ) only in a case of emergency. In other words, don't expect much time to prepare.
Re: sexist discrimination.
I agree that Nature has molded most males to excel at hunting and females at gathering and child rearing -- it's an evolution thing. A greater percentage of males have the skills to make good infantrymen (
) than females.
On the other hand, aptitude varies even within sexes. As a good socialist I'd say "from everyone according to their ability."
Just a thought:
Dogs are valued members of the military, and we've experimented with seals and dolphins as reconnaissance platforms and suicide bombers. Pigeons used to be a valuable communications resource (and may be again - it's hard to electronically surveil a pigeon). Rat's can sniff out mines.
All are absolute s**t in a firefight.
I agree that Nature has molded most males to excel at hunting and females at gathering and child rearing -- it's an evolution thing. A greater percentage of males have the skills to make good infantrymen (
On the other hand, aptitude varies even within sexes. As a good socialist I'd say "from everyone according to their ability."
Just a thought:
Dogs are valued members of the military, and we've experimented with seals and dolphins as reconnaissance platforms and suicide bombers. Pigeons used to be a valuable communications resource (and may be again - it's hard to electronically surveil a pigeon). Rat's can sniff out mines.
All are absolute s**t in a firefight.
dust1n
Zindīq
Far preferably the latter.
Whiterain
Get me off of this planet
The sexist idea of Women not taking to the battlefield is regarding Chivalry, I believe, over sexism. The order of war has tried to maintain chivalry and this is to exclude women combatant for the most part. Women constantly want on the front line and now there is the argument of sexism and the "Equal Opportunity" policies the women warriors want to dispute.
Chivalry on the battlefield, it may be an outlandish concept to many.
Other than that in the US you have to right to argue with the government, even though they hosed down those hipsters in the Vietnam era.
You have your right to argue but still stand your ground and try not to be a coward.
Chivalry on the battlefield, it may be an outlandish concept to many.
Other than that in the US you have to right to argue with the government, even though they hosed down those hipsters in the Vietnam era.
You have your right to argue but still stand your ground and try not to be a coward.
An interesting study which indicates that legislators are more likely
to favor the draft if it's someone else's kid who will go to war....
Legislators less likely to support a military draft if their kids are at risk: Study
to favor the draft if it's someone else's kid who will go to war....
Legislators less likely to support a military draft if their kids are at risk: Study
Silverscale derg
Active Member
How about just no. I wouldn't want to die in the name of "protecting peace" or "freedom" just look at the US. It's a country that is failing. The economy is down, "free speech" may be legal but it's flawed. The universities are liberal brainwashing centers...the US sucks. I know I wouldn't defend it.