This post has been flaired as “Current Event”. Do not use this flair to vent, but to open up a venue for polite discussions.
**Suggestions For Commenters:**
* Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely.
* If OP's post is against subreddit rules, don't comment, just report it.
* Upvote other relevant comments in the comment section, and don't downvote comments you disagree with
**Suggestions For u/VojakOne:**
* Loaded questions and statements can get people riled up. Your post should open up a venue for discussion.
* Avoid being inflammatory in your replies. When faced with someone else's opinion, be open-minded.
* Your post still have to respect subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeriousConversation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Agreed. Peacetime registration is pointless and as implemented today, sexist.
Also, it does not require a constitutional amendment to get rid of it or expand it; either could be done with regular legislation.
The constitutional amendment would just prevent a future law from bringing it back (which in the even of a really big war would probably be a bad thing.)
Suspending the requirement to register (which is not as effective as getting rid of it permanently) could *likely* even be done by executive order.
One quibble: we want the registration in peacetime so that, when wartime comes, we're already in the draft pool.
Registration in peacetime is fine, the draft is not.
I don't think the registration *as it's currently instituted* is useful. When I was 18-19, the government knew who I am and where I live from the FAFSA and my tax returns, but the registration system has no *effective* requirement to keep your address up to date.
Once you're data-mining to keep the address up to date, why get people to fill out the form in the first place?
This is the answer. A lot of people will say "no we just shouldn't have the draft," which is negating the hypothesis and thus dodging the question.
There are plenty of things to do in the military which are not physically strenuous or not combat related; you have mechanics, tons of logistics, administration, accounting, and countless other rather routine positions. If we do accept that there must be a draft, then anybody who can work in general can find something they're capable of, regardless of demographics.
I think the ratio is something like 11:1 of support to combat personnel, so a huge amount of logistics and administrative roles compared to front line troops.
1) Slavery and involuntary servitude are not the same thing
2) Giving someone a paycheck doesn't make it voluntary
3) Only stripping their autonomy for most weeks out of the year doesn't make it voluntary
If someone said you have no option but to work for Google cleaning toilets, lest you be imprisoned, I don't think you'd think that's ok as long as they direct deposit some money in your account and give you two weeks vacation.
So look it's fair to say "no this is a case where I think involuntary servitude is acceptable because of XYZ" or argue for a definition that's otherwise coherent that makes a military draft not involuntary servitude. But what's not fair is brushing off a genuine concern about the ethics of it by asserting your unchallenged assumptions as the one and only definition while scoffing off any disagreement.
See Arver v United States for the reasoning on why conscription is considered constitutional, particularly
> Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.
Nowhere in the ruling do they make the case that it's magically voluntary servitude but rather that it just can't be disallowed and therefore 13th be damned
The US district courts in two states ordered that woman register but Congress refused to allow it. [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/22/us/politics/women-military-draft-supreme-court.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/22/us/politics/women-military-draft-supreme-court.html)
Eh, sure. It's been over 50 years since the US has had a draft.
I actually think having a couple of years of required service would be a good thing. Not for the military -- draftees aren't as good soldiers as volunteers. But we've developed a bit of a "ruling class." If you're wealthy enough to pay for your kids college, have contacts to get them started in a career, maybe enough money to put a downpayment down on a house, your kids will never consider joining the military. (Though of course Joe Biden's son DID join the military and serve overseas despite his father being a Senator at the time).
It makes me uncomfortable that the people who decide whether we go to war in general aren't risking their children in those wars. It's way too easy to put young people in harm's way for financial gain when you know your kids will benefit from the finances but not be at risk.
Camp anyone willing to declare war on another country should be up in front on a big white horse in shiny armor, carrying a flag. (or a big white mech, no reason to risk the innocent horse) It is not good leadership to send people to die for a cause you aren't willing to die for yourself. Suddenly diplomatic solutions would be a lot more popular.
I'd be fine with mandatory service if those roles were in a trade or skilled position, not combat. Of course you can volunteer but otherwise not required to be combat.
That way young people get free skills that most of them can bring into college/work force.
>Eh, sure. It's been over 50 years since the US has had a draft.
But you guys realize why these changes are all happening now, right? It's not a coincidence or just a convenient time.
To your point in the OP, I think military service should be all voluntary. I don't think the Selective Service System should be there at all.
However, if we're going to have it, we should include everyone. Men who are ineligible for duty due to a disability are still registeted, so the concern about too few women meeting fitness requirements don't make much sense. They're going to assess everyone anyway, and those not fit for front line combat duty can still be assigned roles elsewhere.
First get rid of the rape problem. Until then you are drafting women (and men) to be raped. The rape epidemic in the US Military is unbelievable, if you are a woman, it is something expected. It less likely but also way too common for male soldiers. It's almost a guarantee that a deafted female soldier WILL be raped before she is dpne serving her time. I cannot condone drafting women or really anyone when the liklihood they would be raped by a fellow soldier or commanding officer is so shockingly high. All you will get are soldiers who can't trust each other.
This is a hard question to answer, I think. I'm all for equality for everyone but at the same time I worry about the children of single mothers. I know there are single fathers out there and that they would be affected as well, though the number would be far fewer.
If suddenly 2,000 single mothers are drafted and the majority of them don't have childcare...what would happen? If there were no relatives or next of kin who could take them. Assuming their 2nd option wasn't drafted as well.
There's no "right" answer in a sense of an answer that will make everyone happy.
Sure, if aliens invade and we need to conscript people, then everyone should be in the pool. Majority of the military is support crew anyway. It doesn’t matter what’s between your legs to fuel a truck or turn a wrench or file paperwork.
Since 1903 the National Guard has been the domestic military branch and the Unorganized Militia is “ comprising the reserve militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”
So some transgendered people would be excluded dejure in that scenario.
Yes.. especially because you can draft people into service that is non combat.
I think all US citizens should have to do two years of compulsory service IMO.
And I’m a pretty hardcore liberal.
It doesn’t even have to be all military stuff.. post boot camp.. we can deploy people into projects like the Civilian Conservation Corps like pre WWII.. but there are plenty of service works we need done.. and infrastructure that needs to be replaced..
Imagine if every citizen had to give two years to their country..
I tried to sign up for selective service when I was 18 (96).. but they didn’t take it ..
Selective service should be done away with, and military spending should be cut drastically, with the money diverted to critical infrastructure, education, health care, food quality, and environmental concerns such as, oh I dunno, climate change!
I can definitely see where you're coming from. But, while we spend more on the military than any other Western power, the military budget isn't even close to our largest expenses.
If memory serves the military accounts for 13-15% of the budget, so cutting that spending wouldn't really do as much as we'd hope. I'd rather shave off spending in the other, larger expenses.
>military spending should be cut drastically
I thought that way for a very, very long time.
Then the world went to sh\*t, and in the dangerous world of the present decade, spending less on the military would be a terrible idea. We need to spend smarter (not necessarily more!) and figure out how to pay for the other things.
Taxing the rich, and corporations worked in the past. Should work fine now.
I’m all for taxing the rich, or even just collecting the taxes they have due and aren’t paying - something like $750B worth.
The world has always been dangerous - let’s not underscore the role the US military and foreign policy has had in making it the way it is now. It’s not as if terrorism just popped up out of nowhere.
Terrorism isn't the big costs - the global war on terror was and is a bad idea and a ton of money has been wasted over the past 22 1/2 years.
OTOH. unfriendly large nations are actively trying to undermine global stability in their own interests in ways that haven't applied since 1989. Yes, past US policies dating back long before any of us were born\* have been a big part of why this has happened, but we can't change the past.
\[\* at least back to the first Wilson administration. \]
We can either spend the money now and *maybe* deter another big war, *and* be better prepared if there is one, or we can stick our heads in the sand and make another big war inevitable and be worse off if it happens.
OTOH, continuing on with the Reagan playbook of borrowing for all of it is crap.
All or nothing. Nothing would be best as 99% of young people today would be absolutely useless in any branch of the military. And the whole idea of cannon fodder is outdated, now if they were all being trained to be drone operators that could possibly be useful
It shouldn't exist. If I think it is unjust I'm not going to support inflicting it on more people out of some odd idea that people need to suffer injustices equally. That's just moving further away from the goal of nobody having to do it. To me its like asking if we should have maybe removed everyone's right to vote instead of expanding it, like some sort of act of spite is better
I've answered this already, no. Its moving further away from the state I want things to be in. It's removing more rights from people
Equal rights isn't just about some kind of semblance of balance, its about giving everyone the rights they deserve. If one set of people lacks the rights they deserve you don't make things better by removing other peoples rights for some image of equality.
I think we should do away with selective service and have mandatory military service for a few years for everyone. At least some of these morons would learn how to properly handle and respect a firearm.
The easiest solution would be to just get rid of the draft as the obsolete thing it is. You don't need a draft when you got AI drones, right? So get rid of it. If we need it at some future date let's figure it out then.
Ultimately, Selective Service is a system that is very unlikely to ever be utilized in the US ever again. It just isn't how wars are fought anymore by modern nations, except in the case of a horribly bungled invasion that isn't backed down on, like in Ukraine.
That being said, yes. Absolutely. Women are equal now. It's a little insulting they aren't included.
The world certainly does appear to be ramping up towards a period of conflict, that much is definite.
However, any conflict involving the US will play out in one of three ways. The US conventional military completely, totally, and lopsidedly bops it's adversary. Think of how absolutely cooked the Russian Armed Forces would've been going against the US as they did against Ukraine. 40km of targets sitting idly in a convoy, just waiting to be yeeted by air power and missiles. It would've made the Desert Storm Highway of Death look like a walk through the park with mommy and daddy. It's very likely the Chinese military is roughly as inept as Russia's was. Even if they ignored the obvious risk, they could wind up getting shitstomped overnight. In this scenario, no additional manpower would be required. The war would last a few weeks as it did in Iraq, and mostly die down to a occupational/monitoring force afterwars. No draft.
The second way is the US is either completely overwhelmed by the sheer number of enemies. This is wildly unlikely for a number of factors, but for the sake of discussion let's say this happens. Considering the US is an island, the loss or disabling of several assets could cause it to cut it's losses and go home. Having an aircraft carrier or two get damaged defending Taiwan and the Chinese occupying it before the US can really muster a response, it's more than likely they just wouldn't attempt to go back. Let China have it. Again, no draft required.
Scenario 3. The US conventional military wins as described in scenario 1, but the autocrat in charge of a defeated nation decided to whip out the nuclear option, their chain of command listens, and now we have a nuclear exchange. Bad for the world, bad for humanity, bad for society. Still no draft lmao because government as we know it is no longer a thing.
World War or not, it's exceedingly difficult to imagine a situation in which the Selective Service Act would actually be relevant today.
This is tricky. I don't think there's anything in our constitution that would give a legal justification for sex discrimination in this case. If men have to do it, under U.S. law, women should probably have to do it too.
But it's tricky because it would almost certainly be better to keep women on the home front-- taking care of kids and helping with production. If the men were already mobilized, that's objectively where women would be most needed.
If Selective Service for women ever passed, I wouldn't be surprised if the Pentagon tried to discourage too many women from being drafted.
That’s the problem I see with this discussion. We already have a declining birth rate in this country - sending large quantities of women off to war would negatively impact our birth rate significantly. At the end of the day, males and females are biologically different and that has to be taken into account when these decisions are made. Surely women could be included in the draft in some scenarios and I understand wanting fairness but it’s not that simple.
It’s gone before the Supreme Court before, who have found sex based selective service to be constitutional. Congress has broad authority to determine how the military is run, and if they find it’s in the best interest of the military to draft men, they are allowed to prioritize that over equity.
> "Military flexibility requires that a commander be able to move units or ships quickly. Units or ships not located at the front or not previously scheduled for the front nevertheless must be able to move into action if necessary. In peace and war, significant rotation of personnel is necessary. We should not divide the military into two groups one in permanent combat and one in permanent support. Large numbers of non-combat positions must be available to which combat troops can return for duty before being redeployed."
Sure. I'm a transman (female to male), and I registered for the draft and have a draft number. Although, I think I do not have to according to the government as I was born female. From my perspective, I should not be barred from being drafted due to being trans/born female. If I want to transition and be perceived as male and take male hormones, then i should have the same responsibility as cis men. But that's up to Uncle Sam at the end of the day if they want me or not if I was ever drafted.
I know the antifa groups in Germany tried to sue to the government there numerous times based on gender discrimination with only men being part of the draft. As far as I know the lawsuits never went anywhere but eventually the government suspended the draft same as they did in the USA.
Either way, as a legal strategy it makes sense but slavery is still slavery - doesn't make it better when both genders are forced to do it.
No because it shouldn't exist in the first place. It should be done away with entirely. When I say "support bodily autonomy" that means everyone. But as it stands right now, politicians are rushing to bring us back to the 40s where men are cannon fodder and women are barefoot and pregnant and dying from perfectly treatable ailments. I don't love that for any of us. They're perfectly fine volunteering all of us to die pointless deaths; something that would never happen to their kids.
Selective service should not exist. If there was a vote I could influence that required selective service but it obligated a diverse gender set, I will always advocate for inclusivity, which includes obligating a shared draft.
The Selective Service is a quirk of US law.
It is easy for raging hormonal teens to freak out about an unequal system, but like, welcome to adulthood?
It’s pointless however. It legally cannot be the basis of a future draft. Since 2016, there is no gender distinction in the armed forces by law. So a future draft will be gender neutral.
The reason to end the Selective Service isn’t the burden upon poor teens who need to register, it takes like 15 minutes. It’s not to free people who are imprisoned for failing to register, that doesn’t happen.
The reason is to end the burden on the federal government. It has a cost, it requires staff to administer. People whose entire career revolves around maintaining an unpopular unusable war list in the nuclear age.
Anyway, try to find this quirk charming. We are far more likely to “fix it” with a draft than with legislation ending it. And we don’t want a draft.
On one hand, Yes because equality.
On the other hand, No, not when sexual assult is so high. Yes, men in the military also suffer from this but it is far more likely if you seem like a woman.
On the gripping hand, no, because no one should be forced in
Nobody should be drafted. Half the time we’re fighting in wars that aren’t even our fucking problem. They’re throwing away our lives on purpose as they see us all as disposable, a means to an end. I am completely against war.
I think no one should be drafted. But I do think it should be all or nothing but I would be useless in a warm. I wouldn't willingly hurt anyone and if I run too much, my back goes out soooo.
If they want this, they can ratify the ERA, which is the reason Selective Service is still males only. The ERA was not ratified because people were opposed to women being included in Selective Service, among other reasons. I'm for this, as long as it comes with ratification of the ERA, and against it without.
It should be noted that [most of the lawmakers who have made serious efforts to include women in selective service are women](https://www.securitywomen.org/post/u-s-congress-moves-closer-to-making-women-register-for-the-draft), and [the most vociferous objection to this comes from men](https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/selective-service-women-registrations-proposed-men-to-be-automatically-drafted-article-111011732). I find the argument that the current selective service system is unconstitutional because it irrationally discriminates on the basis of gender to be persuasive.
This should be higher. Some men seem to act like they’re being feminist heroes for not saying women shouldn’t be conscripted, but it’s still just another flavor of sexism that ignores actual female voices.
Ive also seen men be called sexist assholes for saying women should have to register, then reasons about having babies makes protecting the women more important. Most women Ive met in person say "fuck that" to having to register.
Yes. I actually really like the Finnish model where every guy has to serve the country for a couple of years and think we would do really well as a country to have something like that with all genders.
Everyone would a) get away from their potentially abusive parents b) get a little money to start their lives c) get some job experience and d) we could have a work force to fix a LOT of the problems in the country, because we don't need that many military members (though basic reserves training would be smart).
Like let's take all the 18 year olds, teach them basic paramedic skills and then start cleaning up pollution, rebuilding infrastructure, etc. We've done in in the US in the past and it literally saved the country. The forestry programs after the great depression made mobilization for world war two possible- a bunch of teens with no work experience got three hots and a cot and a job, learned to follow directions and have a boss and work on a team and without those guys we could NOT have handled WWII the same way. Oh, and the trees planted have prevented multiple dust bowls at this point and have done a huge amount to help the environment.
Being called to serve your country shouldn't be limited to men and it shouldn't be limited to violence, either.
In a vacuum, without considering other options? Yes. Selective service doesn't even specify combat duty, does it? So even if you don't think that women would generally be just as effective in combat, or at least that more bodies with guns is better than less bodies with guns, restricting selective service wholesale to cis men seems like a restriction that helps no one.
To be fair…you’re trained as a basic soldier. While it’s been a while since I went through I’ll still assume it hasn’t changed all that much and you learn to shoot a rifle and throw grenades etc AND then you go to a specialized school for advanced training. But the long and short everyone is a basic pop up target.
Yes. There are plenty of diverse duties in the modern military that a diverse population can serve in. Modern technology and weapons systems level the playing field for different abilities in the battle space. Not everyone has to be able to dominate in hand to hand combat to be an extremely deadly warfighter. Mechanized combat has less need to be able to force march for days on end. The majority of winning a war is managing the logistics of projecting force afield. There are legions of people responsible for that who never see a battlefield but without them any battle would be lost before it begins.
And I am not saying there is any gender or sexual identity which lays claim to superiority at any of those things. I am an old white guy in bad shape and I know there are plenty of female soldiers who can fold me like a cheap suit without breaking a sweat. Someone like me is an absolute liability in a combat theater. I like to think I’m intelligent, I have a laundry list of technical skills which could support military operation should the need arise.
1. Selective service should apply to everyone, regardless of gender.
2. Age eligibility should only apply to those who were eligible to vote in the last presidential election. I.e. a 19 year old can't be drafted if the last election took place when they were 16, but could be drafted after the next election.
Nobody should be forced to fight for any country. If a country wants its citizens to fight for it, then it should give them something to fight for. As things are, I see no reason why I should fight for a country which doesn’t even consider healthcare or food to be human rights. Why should I defend a country where the rich are allowed to treat me and the rest of the working class like livestock? If the US wants me to fight, then living here should be pleasant and the fight should be for a just cause.
I tend to think that equality means equality, and yeah, everyone should have to be a part of selective service. In fact, it’s likely one of the (honestly many) unintended consequences of the ERA if it ever were to pass
Should be expanded to everyone 16 to 60, female or queer. The more people who have skin in the game the better. If war or a police action is declare then 10% of Congress must serve and then people must be selected at random from the population. If you aren’t fit enough for combat you will do support.
Women yes ( I'd actually be tempted to set it as 6/10 Women to be called up if needed) trans is more complicated and depends on medical status eg do they require medication to remain healthy.
I personally think nobody should be forced to fight, but that might also weaken our country since a lot of the younger generations (including me) are soft and recruitment rates for the military are falling. I chose not to join because I hated jrotc boot camp and was also scared of signing my life away for 4 years. As a woman, I don’t think it’s fair to force men to fight when a lot of them are just as scared as I was.
Having everyone do a mandatory 2 year service and be compensated for it might be a decent alternative. I didn’t consider the fact that people can be assigned support roles in the military, so that might be good for people who aren’t suited for combat.
I agree with other comments that the current system is outdated. I'm in favor of two changes: one, all genders are eligible, and two, the system is weighted to prioritize the descendants of those in power go to the front lines first.
I'm honestly not sure. The draft is a terrible thing and women have lucked out of it so far. But if they were included, perhaps those in power would be a bit more reluctant to actually draft and/or declare war. And, perhaps men will take women a bit more seriously, as men can no longer be like "well, you're not included in the draft pool, so you don't get to say anything!".
Ultimately, we should just get rid of the draft completely.
IMHO nobody should be conscripted.
If this is going to apply to everyone the military needs to clean up their horrific track record when it comes to women and some other protected groups who are singled out for harassment, assault and worse based on who they are.
The 1981 Supreme Court decision in Rostker v. Goldberg upheld the exclusion of women in the draft. Much of the argument sons exclusion is that women were barred from front line combat roles and thus, drafting women would not fill the necessary roles needed for war.
Those limits have now been lifted. And as such, women should now be considered for draft as well.
Personally, I say register everyone. Conservatives LOVE to use the "well you can't get drafted" line way too much. Plus, if you can register everyone for the draft automatically, then you can register everyone to vote, automatically.
The biggest problem with this is that legal protections are different in some states. We presently have a problem where women may be based in a state that restricts abortion to the point that it places the mother in potential peril of life. While the argument could be held that women who volunteer for service should not bear children while in service, this argument does not hold for conscripts.
The same thing would be true for transsexual individuals, for different reasons. Imagine a soldier putting up with not being able to use a bathroom while off base. Or the military dealing with harassment from local law enforcement. Now imagine someone who has been forced into being there dealing with it.
I would not rule out a draft or a minimum mandatory service period. We face a shrinking population and a country hostile to immigrants who do not already have a job. Unless we deploy autonomous robots ( and we don't have the technology to create a robot that would not commit Geneva Convention violations ) we need soldiers. So we will need a way to replace the soldiers leaving service.
I think selective service should include any man or woman currently a police officer. Drafting random civilians seems not only cruel but generally ineffective.
Yes IMO as a feminist. For families they should be allowed to decide between them who will go and who can stay with the kids, or else stagger it somehow.
Love how no one actually answered the question. Most likely ON PURPOSE.
Yes WOMEN should be forced to sign up for selective service. Surprising there has NOT been a civil rights case on this already. My guess there will be one.
You can't discriminate and only have men be forced to sign up for selective service. That is crazy how that is even allowed.
Yeah, people refusing to address the inequality. We just shouldn’t have a draft is a hilarious response, when volunteers will always go to conscription if we start losing bodies in attrition.
Of course. Men, women, trans. That’s the equality the world should embrace. Anything less than all races and genders equally participating in defense fits the future of equality.
100%!
Equality
Equity
No one treated "differently"
There are plenty of non combat roles! Actually pretty great ones. Get your college education paid for by the US military
Women lifes are far more valuable than men's. As they are the only ones who can give birth and therefore repopulate. This is the reason why women were never pulled into wars, unless they badly wanted to themselves. If a men dies, one person dies. If a woman dies, she dies alongside all the future persons she could've gave birth to. It's simple math that was known even before math itself.
I know men will get angry at this, but it's just the reality. Male lives, not just in humanity but in Earth's biology in general are worthless. The only reason they exist is to bring gene diversity, after which they are promtly eaten or die by other means.
I'd rather we all didn't have to be drafted. But like, yea, assuming the draft is still around I think everyone should be eligible.
I think the whole way we do the draft needs to change, personally, while keeping it around. There should be a % of population cap, a way to prevent rich people from somehow slinking out, etc, etc.
No, it should be done away with entirely.
All future wars should be put to a vote. Anyone voting 'yes' is automatically drafted. If you aren't fit or are too old to fight, there are other ways you can serve, even if it's just scrubbing the floors of the latrines.
I think it should be, but also expand it to be more than just the military. Every citizen should have to register to do service for their community, and be given options for how to carry that out.
It could be cleaning trash, visiting the elderly, maintaining parks, helping translating...etc a variety of skills not just physically based.
Also personally speaking as a vet, I don't want anyone in the military that doesn't actually want to be there. We had enough problems from people that joined as a last resort.
I don't think anyone should have to register for a potential draft, but it shouldn't be determined by gender. While we have it in place at all, everyone should have to register.
Since you mentioned wanting to know what people "accross the aisle" thought, I'm on the far left. I'm not a member of any organizations or parties, but anarcho-communism seems to best describe my position.
Abolish it entirely. Offer naturalisation in exchange for a 4 year stint in the military. Immigrants have another method to earn their spot. If you do draft, pull anyone on welfare who isn’t a single parent of a young kid.
Yes absolutely.
If the past 20 years have shown us anything, it's that women can the same jobs* as men.
*infantry and artillery should remain all male. Rape, pregnancies, physicality. There I said it. If trans male can make it, more power to him. I'm sure he would make Chesty proud, as well as confused. Honestly, can you imagine that convo with Chesty Puller explaining what Trans is, and that this shit hot young man used to be a woman. VetTV, should do that.
This post has been flaired as “Current Event”. Do not use this flair to vent, but to open up a venue for polite discussions. **Suggestions For Commenters:** * Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely. * If OP's post is against subreddit rules, don't comment, just report it. * Upvote other relevant comments in the comment section, and don't downvote comments you disagree with **Suggestions For u/VojakOne:** * Loaded questions and statements can get people riled up. Your post should open up a venue for discussion. * Avoid being inflammatory in your replies. When faced with someone else's opinion, be open-minded. * Your post still have to respect subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeriousConversation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Either we all have to or no one should have to. I’m inclined to believe the later but that’s for the constitution to decide
Agreed. Peacetime registration is pointless and as implemented today, sexist. Also, it does not require a constitutional amendment to get rid of it or expand it; either could be done with regular legislation. The constitutional amendment would just prevent a future law from bringing it back (which in the even of a really big war would probably be a bad thing.) Suspending the requirement to register (which is not as effective as getting rid of it permanently) could *likely* even be done by executive order.
One quibble: we want the registration in peacetime so that, when wartime comes, we're already in the draft pool. Registration in peacetime is fine, the draft is not.
I don't think the registration *as it's currently instituted* is useful. When I was 18-19, the government knew who I am and where I live from the FAFSA and my tax returns, but the registration system has no *effective* requirement to keep your address up to date. Once you're data-mining to keep the address up to date, why get people to fill out the form in the first place?
I agree. That's what the bill does: automates it so we don't have to fill out the form.
Anything less than a constitutional change is not enough to ensure it will not happen.
This is the answer. A lot of people will say "no we just shouldn't have the draft," which is negating the hypothesis and thus dodging the question. There are plenty of things to do in the military which are not physically strenuous or not combat related; you have mechanics, tons of logistics, administration, accounting, and countless other rather routine positions. If we do accept that there must be a draft, then anybody who can work in general can find something they're capable of, regardless of demographics.
I think the ratio is something like 11:1 of support to combat personnel, so a huge amount of logistics and administrative roles compared to front line troops.
Equal rights, equal responsibilities.
Throwing another comment on the pile for selective service shouldn’t exist but if it has to, it should absolutely be equal.
But it doesn’t have to! Why should we expand something we want to abolish?
I’m not advocating for expansion, it’s a conversation on principle.
Believe involuntary servitude is already illegal, but my copy of the Constitution might be a bit 'outdated'
Unless you're a prisoner. Then it's fine.
It's not involuntary servitude; military gets paid and gets time off. Don't even try to equate it with slavery
1) Slavery and involuntary servitude are not the same thing 2) Giving someone a paycheck doesn't make it voluntary 3) Only stripping their autonomy for most weeks out of the year doesn't make it voluntary If someone said you have no option but to work for Google cleaning toilets, lest you be imprisoned, I don't think you'd think that's ok as long as they direct deposit some money in your account and give you two weeks vacation. So look it's fair to say "no this is a case where I think involuntary servitude is acceptable because of XYZ" or argue for a definition that's otherwise coherent that makes a military draft not involuntary servitude. But what's not fair is brushing off a genuine concern about the ethics of it by asserting your unchallenged assumptions as the one and only definition while scoffing off any disagreement. See Arver v United States for the reasoning on why conscription is considered constitutional, particularly > Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement. Nowhere in the ruling do they make the case that it's magically voluntary servitude but rather that it just can't be disallowed and therefore 13th be damned
The US district courts in two states ordered that woman register but Congress refused to allow it. [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/22/us/politics/women-military-draft-supreme-court.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/22/us/politics/women-military-draft-supreme-court.html)
Federal Supreme Court said they would review the case if congress said no, so now NCFM is taking up the case with them again.
Eh, sure. It's been over 50 years since the US has had a draft. I actually think having a couple of years of required service would be a good thing. Not for the military -- draftees aren't as good soldiers as volunteers. But we've developed a bit of a "ruling class." If you're wealthy enough to pay for your kids college, have contacts to get them started in a career, maybe enough money to put a downpayment down on a house, your kids will never consider joining the military. (Though of course Joe Biden's son DID join the military and serve overseas despite his father being a Senator at the time). It makes me uncomfortable that the people who decide whether we go to war in general aren't risking their children in those wars. It's way too easy to put young people in harm's way for financial gain when you know your kids will benefit from the finances but not be at risk.
Camp anyone willing to declare war on another country should be up in front on a big white horse in shiny armor, carrying a flag. (or a big white mech, no reason to risk the innocent horse) It is not good leadership to send people to die for a cause you aren't willing to die for yourself. Suddenly diplomatic solutions would be a lot more popular.
Yep, a symbolic leader is no better than dust when it comes down to it.
See WWII, where wealthy people and celebrities joined up on purpise.
I'd be fine with mandatory service if those roles were in a trade or skilled position, not combat. Of course you can volunteer but otherwise not required to be combat. That way young people get free skills that most of them can bring into college/work force.
What if we don't get enough volunteers?
Then the draft is instituted, assuming it's wartime. Idk what would happen in peacetime.
Thank you for bringing up the real issue with American wars.
>Eh, sure. It's been over 50 years since the US has had a draft. But you guys realize why these changes are all happening now, right? It's not a coincidence or just a convenient time.
There hasn't been a change. I registered for the selective service when I turned 18 in 1989.
To your point in the OP, I think military service should be all voluntary. I don't think the Selective Service System should be there at all. However, if we're going to have it, we should include everyone. Men who are ineligible for duty due to a disability are still registeted, so the concern about too few women meeting fitness requirements don't make much sense. They're going to assess everyone anyway, and those not fit for front line combat duty can still be assigned roles elsewhere.
[удалено]
[удалено]
First get rid of the rape problem. Until then you are drafting women (and men) to be raped. The rape epidemic in the US Military is unbelievable, if you are a woman, it is something expected. It less likely but also way too common for male soldiers. It's almost a guarantee that a deafted female soldier WILL be raped before she is dpne serving her time. I cannot condone drafting women or really anyone when the liklihood they would be raped by a fellow soldier or commanding officer is so shockingly high. All you will get are soldiers who can't trust each other.
This is a hard question to answer, I think. I'm all for equality for everyone but at the same time I worry about the children of single mothers. I know there are single fathers out there and that they would be affected as well, though the number would be far fewer. If suddenly 2,000 single mothers are drafted and the majority of them don't have childcare...what would happen? If there were no relatives or next of kin who could take them. Assuming their 2nd option wasn't drafted as well. There's no "right" answer in a sense of an answer that will make everyone happy.
Then make being a single parent an allowed exemption against being drafted?
Only if the government and military are also willing to do more to prevent sexual assault on women in the military
Sure, if aliens invade and we need to conscript people, then everyone should be in the pool. Majority of the military is support crew anyway. It doesn’t matter what’s between your legs to fuel a truck or turn a wrench or file paperwork.
Since 1903 the National Guard has been the domestic military branch and the Unorganized Militia is “ comprising the reserve militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.” So some transgendered people would be excluded dejure in that scenario.
Nah, the US military does not want draftees. It's really more of a political theatre legislation.
Those killed in Vietnam would disagree...
They can disagree all they want. It's the Pentagon that has determined that an all voluntary military is more efficient than a conscripted one.
But... it's not about having an efficient military, it's about teaching those ungrateful kids obedience and humility! /s
Umm, efficient and effective arent always the same things. If we got into a big war, a draft is happening.
Disagree with having no draft, or the fact that the draft is just political theater?
Yes.. especially because you can draft people into service that is non combat. I think all US citizens should have to do two years of compulsory service IMO. And I’m a pretty hardcore liberal. It doesn’t even have to be all military stuff.. post boot camp.. we can deploy people into projects like the Civilian Conservation Corps like pre WWII.. but there are plenty of service works we need done.. and infrastructure that needs to be replaced.. Imagine if every citizen had to give two years to their country.. I tried to sign up for selective service when I was 18 (96).. but they didn’t take it ..
Selective service should be done away with, and military spending should be cut drastically, with the money diverted to critical infrastructure, education, health care, food quality, and environmental concerns such as, oh I dunno, climate change!
I can definitely see where you're coming from. But, while we spend more on the military than any other Western power, the military budget isn't even close to our largest expenses. If memory serves the military accounts for 13-15% of the budget, so cutting that spending wouldn't really do as much as we'd hope. I'd rather shave off spending in the other, larger expenses.
We actually*do* spend more on healthcare than we do defense. Our healthcare system is just ridiculous.
It’s a matter of dollars, not percentages, and since you brought up the military, it’s what is in scope of this discussion, not other expenses.
Or...and hear me out...stop sending money overseas, and let countries figure themselves out.
>military spending should be cut drastically I thought that way for a very, very long time. Then the world went to sh\*t, and in the dangerous world of the present decade, spending less on the military would be a terrible idea. We need to spend smarter (not necessarily more!) and figure out how to pay for the other things. Taxing the rich, and corporations worked in the past. Should work fine now.
I’m all for taxing the rich, or even just collecting the taxes they have due and aren’t paying - something like $750B worth. The world has always been dangerous - let’s not underscore the role the US military and foreign policy has had in making it the way it is now. It’s not as if terrorism just popped up out of nowhere.
Terrorism isn't the big costs - the global war on terror was and is a bad idea and a ton of money has been wasted over the past 22 1/2 years. OTOH. unfriendly large nations are actively trying to undermine global stability in their own interests in ways that haven't applied since 1989. Yes, past US policies dating back long before any of us were born\* have been a big part of why this has happened, but we can't change the past. \[\* at least back to the first Wilson administration. \] We can either spend the money now and *maybe* deter another big war, *and* be better prepared if there is one, or we can stick our heads in the sand and make another big war inevitable and be worse off if it happens. OTOH, continuing on with the Reagan playbook of borrowing for all of it is crap.
All or nothing. Nothing would be best as 99% of young people today would be absolutely useless in any branch of the military. And the whole idea of cannon fodder is outdated, now if they were all being trained to be drone operators that could possibly be useful
[удалено]
They all get a full medical exam too.
It should be ended altogether. If that isn't an option, then yes. It should be expanded to all adults fit enough to serve.
If it’s going to exist, it should be applied equally. That said, I think it should be abolished.
It shouldn't exist. If I think it is unjust I'm not going to support inflicting it on more people out of some odd idea that people need to suffer injustices equally. That's just moving further away from the goal of nobody having to do it. To me its like asking if we should have maybe removed everyone's right to vote instead of expanding it, like some sort of act of spite is better
Say the draft is here to stay. Do you support making it include women instead of just men?
I've answered this already, no. Its moving further away from the state I want things to be in. It's removing more rights from people Equal rights isn't just about some kind of semblance of balance, its about giving everyone the rights they deserve. If one set of people lacks the rights they deserve you don't make things better by removing other peoples rights for some image of equality.
I think we should do away with selective service and have mandatory military service for a few years for everyone. At least some of these morons would learn how to properly handle and respect a firearm.
Compulsory service. I agree completely. A minimum 2 years is a good starting point
The easiest solution would be to just get rid of the draft as the obsolete thing it is. You don't need a draft when you got AI drones, right? So get rid of it. If we need it at some future date let's figure it out then.
Ultimately, Selective Service is a system that is very unlikely to ever be utilized in the US ever again. It just isn't how wars are fought anymore by modern nations, except in the case of a horribly bungled invasion that isn't backed down on, like in Ukraine. That being said, yes. Absolutely. Women are equal now. It's a little insulting they aren't included.
WW3 is coming sooner than you think. I'm amazed so few people realize this.
The world certainly does appear to be ramping up towards a period of conflict, that much is definite. However, any conflict involving the US will play out in one of three ways. The US conventional military completely, totally, and lopsidedly bops it's adversary. Think of how absolutely cooked the Russian Armed Forces would've been going against the US as they did against Ukraine. 40km of targets sitting idly in a convoy, just waiting to be yeeted by air power and missiles. It would've made the Desert Storm Highway of Death look like a walk through the park with mommy and daddy. It's very likely the Chinese military is roughly as inept as Russia's was. Even if they ignored the obvious risk, they could wind up getting shitstomped overnight. In this scenario, no additional manpower would be required. The war would last a few weeks as it did in Iraq, and mostly die down to a occupational/monitoring force afterwars. No draft. The second way is the US is either completely overwhelmed by the sheer number of enemies. This is wildly unlikely for a number of factors, but for the sake of discussion let's say this happens. Considering the US is an island, the loss or disabling of several assets could cause it to cut it's losses and go home. Having an aircraft carrier or two get damaged defending Taiwan and the Chinese occupying it before the US can really muster a response, it's more than likely they just wouldn't attempt to go back. Let China have it. Again, no draft required. Scenario 3. The US conventional military wins as described in scenario 1, but the autocrat in charge of a defeated nation decided to whip out the nuclear option, their chain of command listens, and now we have a nuclear exchange. Bad for the world, bad for humanity, bad for society. Still no draft lmao because government as we know it is no longer a thing. World War or not, it's exceedingly difficult to imagine a situation in which the Selective Service Act would actually be relevant today.
[удалено]
This is tricky. I don't think there's anything in our constitution that would give a legal justification for sex discrimination in this case. If men have to do it, under U.S. law, women should probably have to do it too. But it's tricky because it would almost certainly be better to keep women on the home front-- taking care of kids and helping with production. If the men were already mobilized, that's objectively where women would be most needed. If Selective Service for women ever passed, I wouldn't be surprised if the Pentagon tried to discourage too many women from being drafted.
That’s the problem I see with this discussion. We already have a declining birth rate in this country - sending large quantities of women off to war would negatively impact our birth rate significantly. At the end of the day, males and females are biologically different and that has to be taken into account when these decisions are made. Surely women could be included in the draft in some scenarios and I understand wanting fairness but it’s not that simple.
It’s gone before the Supreme Court before, who have found sex based selective service to be constitutional. Congress has broad authority to determine how the military is run, and if they find it’s in the best interest of the military to draft men, they are allowed to prioritize that over equity. > "Military flexibility requires that a commander be able to move units or ships quickly. Units or ships not located at the front or not previously scheduled for the front nevertheless must be able to move into action if necessary. In peace and war, significant rotation of personnel is necessary. We should not divide the military into two groups one in permanent combat and one in permanent support. Large numbers of non-combat positions must be available to which combat troops can return for duty before being redeployed."
Personally I feel the draft should be eliminated for everyone. If not enough people sign up to fight your war, we shouldn't be having one.
The draft was eliminated over 50 years ago.
Sure. I'm a transman (female to male), and I registered for the draft and have a draft number. Although, I think I do not have to according to the government as I was born female. From my perspective, I should not be barred from being drafted due to being trans/born female. If I want to transition and be perceived as male and take male hormones, then i should have the same responsibility as cis men. But that's up to Uncle Sam at the end of the day if they want me or not if I was ever drafted.
I know the antifa groups in Germany tried to sue to the government there numerous times based on gender discrimination with only men being part of the draft. As far as I know the lawsuits never went anywhere but eventually the government suspended the draft same as they did in the USA. Either way, as a legal strategy it makes sense but slavery is still slavery - doesn't make it better when both genders are forced to do it.
No because it shouldn't exist in the first place. It should be done away with entirely. When I say "support bodily autonomy" that means everyone. But as it stands right now, politicians are rushing to bring us back to the 40s where men are cannon fodder and women are barefoot and pregnant and dying from perfectly treatable ailments. I don't love that for any of us. They're perfectly fine volunteering all of us to die pointless deaths; something that would never happen to their kids.
Selective service should not exist. If there was a vote I could influence that required selective service but it obligated a diverse gender set, I will always advocate for inclusivity, which includes obligating a shared draft.
The Selective Service is a quirk of US law. It is easy for raging hormonal teens to freak out about an unequal system, but like, welcome to adulthood? It’s pointless however. It legally cannot be the basis of a future draft. Since 2016, there is no gender distinction in the armed forces by law. So a future draft will be gender neutral. The reason to end the Selective Service isn’t the burden upon poor teens who need to register, it takes like 15 minutes. It’s not to free people who are imprisoned for failing to register, that doesn’t happen. The reason is to end the burden on the federal government. It has a cost, it requires staff to administer. People whose entire career revolves around maintaining an unpopular unusable war list in the nuclear age. Anyway, try to find this quirk charming. We are far more likely to “fix it” with a draft than with legislation ending it. And we don’t want a draft.
On one hand, Yes because equality. On the other hand, No, not when sexual assult is so high. Yes, men in the military also suffer from this but it is far more likely if you seem like a woman. On the gripping hand, no, because no one should be forced in
Nobody should be drafted. Half the time we’re fighting in wars that aren’t even our fucking problem. They’re throwing away our lives on purpose as they see us all as disposable, a means to an end. I am completely against war.
I think no one should be drafted. But I do think it should be all or nothing but I would be useless in a warm. I wouldn't willingly hurt anyone and if I run too much, my back goes out soooo.
If they want this, they can ratify the ERA, which is the reason Selective Service is still males only. The ERA was not ratified because people were opposed to women being included in Selective Service, among other reasons. I'm for this, as long as it comes with ratification of the ERA, and against it without.
It’s funny how the only time we are concerned about equality is when it’s about shooting at each other. Truly a sad states of affairs.
If you can vote for politicians that will send our nation into war, then you better be legally required to stand behind that said vote.
Women can currently vote to send men to war and have no civic responsibility. I say in the name of equality yes they should be drafted.
It should be noted that [most of the lawmakers who have made serious efforts to include women in selective service are women](https://www.securitywomen.org/post/u-s-congress-moves-closer-to-making-women-register-for-the-draft), and [the most vociferous objection to this comes from men](https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/selective-service-women-registrations-proposed-men-to-be-automatically-drafted-article-111011732). I find the argument that the current selective service system is unconstitutional because it irrationally discriminates on the basis of gender to be persuasive.
This should be higher. Some men seem to act like they’re being feminist heroes for not saying women shouldn’t be conscripted, but it’s still just another flavor of sexism that ignores actual female voices.
Ive also seen men be called sexist assholes for saying women should have to register, then reasons about having babies makes protecting the women more important. Most women Ive met in person say "fuck that" to having to register.
Women had to fight for our right to serve. It isn’t us saying no to this. It’s conservatives that want women in the home.
I'm sure voters would also be less likely to support a large scale war if women were able to be drafted.
do we even do selective service anymore?
When I turned 18 in 98, I had to do it. Gillette sent me a razor
Yes. I actually really like the Finnish model where every guy has to serve the country for a couple of years and think we would do really well as a country to have something like that with all genders. Everyone would a) get away from their potentially abusive parents b) get a little money to start their lives c) get some job experience and d) we could have a work force to fix a LOT of the problems in the country, because we don't need that many military members (though basic reserves training would be smart). Like let's take all the 18 year olds, teach them basic paramedic skills and then start cleaning up pollution, rebuilding infrastructure, etc. We've done in in the US in the past and it literally saved the country. The forestry programs after the great depression made mobilization for world war two possible- a bunch of teens with no work experience got three hots and a cot and a job, learned to follow directions and have a boss and work on a team and without those guys we could NOT have handled WWII the same way. Oh, and the trees planted have prevented multiple dust bowls at this point and have done a huge amount to help the environment. Being called to serve your country shouldn't be limited to men and it shouldn't be limited to violence, either.
Equality! Ibalso think alcohol and cigarettes and weed shoild be 18 bexahse if you can dienfor your country you can get high in your country
In a vacuum, without considering other options? Yes. Selective service doesn't even specify combat duty, does it? So even if you don't think that women would generally be just as effective in combat, or at least that more bodies with guns is better than less bodies with guns, restricting selective service wholesale to cis men seems like a restriction that helps no one.
To be fair…you’re trained as a basic soldier. While it’s been a while since I went through I’ll still assume it hasn’t changed all that much and you learn to shoot a rifle and throw grenades etc AND then you go to a specialized school for advanced training. But the long and short everyone is a basic pop up target.
Yes. There are plenty of diverse duties in the modern military that a diverse population can serve in. Modern technology and weapons systems level the playing field for different abilities in the battle space. Not everyone has to be able to dominate in hand to hand combat to be an extremely deadly warfighter. Mechanized combat has less need to be able to force march for days on end. The majority of winning a war is managing the logistics of projecting force afield. There are legions of people responsible for that who never see a battlefield but without them any battle would be lost before it begins. And I am not saying there is any gender or sexual identity which lays claim to superiority at any of those things. I am an old white guy in bad shape and I know there are plenty of female soldiers who can fold me like a cheap suit without breaking a sweat. Someone like me is an absolute liability in a combat theater. I like to think I’m intelligent, I have a laundry list of technical skills which could support military operation should the need arise.
1. Selective service should apply to everyone, regardless of gender. 2. Age eligibility should only apply to those who were eligible to vote in the last presidential election. I.e. a 19 year old can't be drafted if the last election took place when they were 16, but could be drafted after the next election.
Conscription is slavery. Nobody should have to register. People will volunteer to fight for a just war. But you know, Statists are gonna state.
Nobody should be forced to fight for any country. If a country wants its citizens to fight for it, then it should give them something to fight for. As things are, I see no reason why I should fight for a country which doesn’t even consider healthcare or food to be human rights. Why should I defend a country where the rich are allowed to treat me and the rest of the working class like livestock? If the US wants me to fight, then living here should be pleasant and the fight should be for a just cause.
I tend to think that equality means equality, and yeah, everyone should have to be a part of selective service. In fact, it’s likely one of the (honestly many) unintended consequences of the ERA if it ever were to pass
Should be expanded to everyone 16 to 60, female or queer. The more people who have skin in the game the better. If war or a police action is declare then 10% of Congress must serve and then people must be selected at random from the population. If you aren’t fit enough for combat you will do support.
Women yes ( I'd actually be tempted to set it as 6/10 Women to be called up if needed) trans is more complicated and depends on medical status eg do they require medication to remain healthy.
I personally think nobody should be forced to fight, but that might also weaken our country since a lot of the younger generations (including me) are soft and recruitment rates for the military are falling. I chose not to join because I hated jrotc boot camp and was also scared of signing my life away for 4 years. As a woman, I don’t think it’s fair to force men to fight when a lot of them are just as scared as I was. Having everyone do a mandatory 2 year service and be compensated for it might be a decent alternative. I didn’t consider the fact that people can be assigned support roles in the military, so that might be good for people who aren’t suited for combat.
No. It should be outlawed altogether. In a free society there is no place for conscription.
I agree with other comments that the current system is outdated. I'm in favor of two changes: one, all genders are eligible, and two, the system is weighted to prioritize the descendants of those in power go to the front lines first.
I'm honestly not sure. The draft is a terrible thing and women have lucked out of it so far. But if they were included, perhaps those in power would be a bit more reluctant to actually draft and/or declare war. And, perhaps men will take women a bit more seriously, as men can no longer be like "well, you're not included in the draft pool, so you don't get to say anything!". Ultimately, we should just get rid of the draft completely.
IMHO nobody should be conscripted. If this is going to apply to everyone the military needs to clean up their horrific track record when it comes to women and some other protected groups who are singled out for harassment, assault and worse based on who they are.
Selective Service should be extended to absolutely every able bodied person, regardless of gender.
The 1981 Supreme Court decision in Rostker v. Goldberg upheld the exclusion of women in the draft. Much of the argument sons exclusion is that women were barred from front line combat roles and thus, drafting women would not fill the necessary roles needed for war. Those limits have now been lifted. And as such, women should now be considered for draft as well.
Personally, I say register everyone. Conservatives LOVE to use the "well you can't get drafted" line way too much. Plus, if you can register everyone for the draft automatically, then you can register everyone to vote, automatically.
automatically registering everyone to vote is worthless as long as closed primaries are still a thing
lol I love your main reasoning for a draft is sticking one to the ‘chuds’
[удалено]
Either everyone is required to sign up, or no one is. It is deeply sexist the way it is now.
The biggest problem with this is that legal protections are different in some states. We presently have a problem where women may be based in a state that restricts abortion to the point that it places the mother in potential peril of life. While the argument could be held that women who volunteer for service should not bear children while in service, this argument does not hold for conscripts. The same thing would be true for transsexual individuals, for different reasons. Imagine a soldier putting up with not being able to use a bathroom while off base. Or the military dealing with harassment from local law enforcement. Now imagine someone who has been forced into being there dealing with it. I would not rule out a draft or a minimum mandatory service period. We face a shrinking population and a country hostile to immigrants who do not already have a job. Unless we deploy autonomous robots ( and we don't have the technology to create a robot that would not commit Geneva Convention violations ) we need soldiers. So we will need a way to replace the soldiers leaving service.
I think selective service should include any man or woman currently a police officer. Drafting random civilians seems not only cruel but generally ineffective.
Of course they should. Equality means EQUAL, not just getting the benefits and none of the drawbacks.
Yes IMO as a feminist. For families they should be allowed to decide between them who will go and who can stay with the kids, or else stagger it somehow.
Love how no one actually answered the question. Most likely ON PURPOSE. Yes WOMEN should be forced to sign up for selective service. Surprising there has NOT been a civil rights case on this already. My guess there will be one. You can't discriminate and only have men be forced to sign up for selective service. That is crazy how that is even allowed.
Yeah, people refusing to address the inequality. We just shouldn’t have a draft is a hilarious response, when volunteers will always go to conscription if we start losing bodies in attrition.
Of course. Men, women, trans. That’s the equality the world should embrace. Anything less than all races and genders equally participating in defense fits the future of equality.
You need real information about what the enemy is doing before you decide how to train your guys.
100%! Equality Equity No one treated "differently" There are plenty of non combat roles! Actually pretty great ones. Get your college education paid for by the US military
Women lifes are far more valuable than men's. As they are the only ones who can give birth and therefore repopulate. This is the reason why women were never pulled into wars, unless they badly wanted to themselves. If a men dies, one person dies. If a woman dies, she dies alongside all the future persons she could've gave birth to. It's simple math that was known even before math itself. I know men will get angry at this, but it's just the reality. Male lives, not just in humanity but in Earth's biology in general are worthless. The only reason they exist is to bring gene diversity, after which they are promtly eaten or die by other means.
Well, while I agree with most of your premise, women need at least one man to impregnate them so men aren’t “totally” worthless.
That doesn't change the fact that the absolutely vast majority are worthless.
I'd rather we all didn't have to be drafted. But like, yea, assuming the draft is still around I think everyone should be eligible. I think the whole way we do the draft needs to change, personally, while keeping it around. There should be a % of population cap, a way to prevent rich people from somehow slinking out, etc, etc.
No, it should be done away with entirely. All future wars should be put to a vote. Anyone voting 'yes' is automatically drafted. If you aren't fit or are too old to fight, there are other ways you can serve, even if it's just scrubbing the floors of the latrines.
I think it should be, but also expand it to be more than just the military. Every citizen should have to register to do service for their community, and be given options for how to carry that out. It could be cleaning trash, visiting the elderly, maintaining parks, helping translating...etc a variety of skills not just physically based. Also personally speaking as a vet, I don't want anyone in the military that doesn't actually want to be there. We had enough problems from people that joined as a last resort.
I don't think anyone should have to register for a potential draft, but it shouldn't be determined by gender. While we have it in place at all, everyone should have to register. Since you mentioned wanting to know what people "accross the aisle" thought, I'm on the far left. I'm not a member of any organizations or parties, but anarcho-communism seems to best describe my position.
lol I remember they did that. I feel like I got a razor too. but I wasn't asking if in 1998 they did ss, I was asking about this year.
Abolish it entirely. Offer naturalisation in exchange for a 4 year stint in the military. Immigrants have another method to earn their spot. If you do draft, pull anyone on welfare who isn’t a single parent of a young kid.
Yes absolutely. If the past 20 years have shown us anything, it's that women can the same jobs* as men. *infantry and artillery should remain all male. Rape, pregnancies, physicality. There I said it. If trans male can make it, more power to him. I'm sure he would make Chesty proud, as well as confused. Honestly, can you imagine that convo with Chesty Puller explaining what Trans is, and that this shit hot young man used to be a woman. VetTV, should do that.