Thread: Is a military draft justified?

Originally Posted by Oozlefinch

I guess battlefield in depth means nothing to you.

population of NJ 8.8 million
population of AK 0.7 million

your criteria, my friend....also note that Alaska's population is concentrated in very few cities....

Originally Posted by UtahBill

Like when does your post make sense?

Now, is when we are talking about. These past drafts, that you referenced, were for a different military style of fighting in a different kind of war. We were not playing world policeman in those wars (although Vietnam was close) we went in to "git-r-done", then either did or gave up. Except for Vietnam, none were nation building or attempting to win hearts and minds, they were "classic" wars that sought to destroy any means for the enemy to continue to fight. My point is that the draft popualtion was ONLY young men, and that many more drafted were acceptable physically then. We now must play PC games and deal with a much larger pool (females), and many more will able to weasel out of a draft on physical and OTHER exemption factors than ever before.

Originally Posted by ttwtt78640

Now, is when we are talking about. These past drafts, that you referenced, were for a different military style of fighting in a different kind of war. We were not playing world policeman in those wars (although Vietnam was close) we went in to "git-r-done", then either did or gave up. Except for Vietnam, none were nation building or attempting to win hearts and minds, they were "classic" wars that sought to destroy any means for the enemy to continue to fight. My point is that the draft popualtion was ONLY young men, and that many more drafted were acceptable physically then. We now must play PC games and deal with a much larger pool (females), and many more will able to weasel out of a draft on physical and OTHER exemption factors than ever before.

if an actual attack on the USA, all bets are off....which is how it should have been right after 9/11...

Originally Posted by Oozlefinch

I guess battlefield in depth means nothing to you.

I think once the New Jersey 'merchant marine' ferries its troops to occupy Juneau, Anchorage, Nome, and perhaps a few arctic facilities those garrisons would be enough. Since land and rail transportation of commodities and consumer goods is minimal there shouldn't be too much of a problem with letting the few insurgents who decided to live in the wilderness to go on and do that.

Originally Posted by UtahBill

population of NJ 8.8 million
population of AK 0.7 million

your criteria, my friend....also note that Alaska's population is concentrated in very few cities....

Originally Posted by Sherman123

I think once the New Jersey 'merchant marine' ferries its troops to occupy Juneau, Anchorage, Nome, and perhaps a few arctic facilities those garrisons would be enough. Since land and rail transportation of commodities and consumer goods is minimal there shouldn't be too much of a problem with letting the few insurgents who decided to live in the wilderness to go on and do that.

Yes, and you both totally fail to see the point. New Jersey could send 4 times the number of people then Alaska has, and still not control anything.

Alaska is a massive state, and the real wealth of that state is scattered all over the place. Sure, they could conquer a few cities, but they would still own nothing. The Oil is on the North shore, the mineral wealth is all over, from the central part to the East border with Canada. The Agriculture is centered in the Matanuska Valley, and the fishing is all over, from Anchorage to Bethel, from the islands down the Panhandle and up the West Coast to the Arctic Circle.

How are they going to control all of that? Take the oil fields and Valdez, that still leaves over 800 miles of the main Alaska Pipeline and all the feder lines undefended.

That is why a smaller nation-states, even one as heavily populated as New Jersey (Germany), can't hope to have a reasonable chance to conquer and control a much larger one, like Alaska (Soviet Union).

Sure, they could take over the capitol, and the major city, but then what? There are hundreds of thousands of square miles that they do not control. And in the end, they really control nothing. Because in the case of Alaska, one is a governmental city, and the other is a sea port. The wealth of the state may pass through there, but it is not made there.

That is what you both totally fail to grasp. And that is what "battlefield in depth" means. Israel has no chance to take over, or even seriously hurt Iran. Heck, Tehran is barely within the absolute longest range of their aircraft, and all those are are fighters. And trust me, you are not going to do serious damage to a city with more population then the entire nation of Israel with a fighter strike.

And no, they are not going to Nuke them either. If they did not use nukes in the Yom Kippur War where they were almost destroyed, they are not going to use them now.

No.
No government agency has the right to force you to become part of their machine.
Just think if the department of [enter whatever department you hate the most] had a draft.

Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist

No.
No government agency has the right to force you to become part of their machine.
Just think if the department of [enter whatever department you hate the most] had a draft.

I'm surprised, as a socialist don't you believe collectivism and utilitarianism makes more sense in this circumstance?

Originally Posted by MadLib

This issue is not given much attention normally. However, IMAO, it is one of the most important issues that concerns our freedom.

Is a military draft justified? When? Should the U.S. be able to draft an army whenever? Does it have to be in a war, specifically in one that directly affects the safety of the country? Or is a draft antithetical to freedom?

Other: No, but it's not "tyranny", it's just bad policy. If you draft a bunch of people who don't ****ing want to be there in the first place, morale is going to start low. Send them off into combat, they're going to resist, they aren't going to follow orders, they're going to subvert ops, and waste valuable resources doing it. Command ends up wasting more time on the ****bag than the Soldiers who volunteered, all of which cripples the war effort from day 1.

So no, **** the draft. I had to deal with ****bags who did volunteer, I'd hate to have to deal with ones who are forced to be there under threat of imprisonment.

A draft is the last thing the vast majority of us who are actually in the military would ever want. I have no desire to lead and train people who didn’t choose to be there. And as others have said, we are too technology driven nowadays to make it practical.

But even aside from that, I do think it is tyrannical. If the People TRULY support a war a draft wouldn’t be needed. It would likely a take a full out invasion of the US to rise to that occasion, though.

Originally Posted by Lokiate

Other: No, but it's not "tyranny", it's just bad policy. If you draft a bunch of people who don't ****ing want to be there in the first place, morale is going to start low. Send them off into combat, they're going to resist, they aren't going to follow orders, they're going to subvert ops, and waste valuable resources doing it. Command ends up wasting more time on the ****bag than the Soldiers who volunteered, all of which cripples the war effort from day 1.

So no, **** the draft. I had to deal with ****bags who did volunteer, I'd hate to have to deal with ones who are forced to be there under threat of imprisonment.

The draft is remarkably effective as a logistical tool, and the precedent of the Civil War, World War I, and World War II offer a pretty convincing case.