Let's abolish the draft officially, now. Nobody has to register, not even men
that is a profoundly dumb idea. The selective service is literally just a big file of everyone in the country who is eligable to serve if world war 3 kicked off
I disagree. I don't think anybody should be compelled to kill or die
conciencious objectors already exist and you can register as one. the draft would only ever be reactivated if a truly terrible war kicked off. It's repeated abolishment and re establishment was a source of great delay in massing troops in ww1 so everyone realized it was cheaper just to establish it and let it sit.
I'm not comfortable with being compelled to fight a war that I may or may not agree with, in whatever capacity.
The state has no right to force people to go to war. Why should citizens pay the price for the flaws of governments and whatever led to this hypothetical war (e.g. terrible foreign policy)? If you go to war and very few people sign up, that should be a huge fucking indicator of how you got to where you are. Supporting the draft is nothing but outdated in the 21st century.
at the point where the largest military force in the world is getting depleted of troops the defense of the nation is actually more important than individual rights. You can argue constitutionality and who's responsible for the war but if there's a war that had destroyed our military then the country itself and the constitutional order is in imminent danger
You must be patriotic than I. I believe in individual rights over protection of a nation that will gladly use its citizens as bullet shields. Also, I'm pretty sure it's been proven that forced military service has more negative side effects than positive ones. Citizens are not pawns that can be moved around by the government without outcry, and if you believe that they are, you do not believe in freedom.
when ww3 happens everyone on the planet dies, draft or no draft
But the US military is huge despite currently being made up of all volunteers, plus modern combat is very unlikely going to require the deployment of millions at any point in the future considering how modern combat generally works.
Without any drafted soldiers currently (afaik) we have one of the largest and most advanced militaries in the world. What does the draft do for us?
In some ridiculous hypothetical scenario where the US is facing an actual invasion I can guarantee you there will be no shortage of volunteers to defend their homes.
I care about people's well being more than arbitary borders I happen to be within. The draft was already abused in vietnam, fuck having something like that happen.
I'm pretty sure this is how you provoke a revolution.
Let's not forget how absolutely broken the VA system is.
If we can spend hundreds of millions on war tech, but can't find the money nor hands to staff the VA, then you really are just treating our service personnel as cannon fodder.
Never go to war if you aren't willing to face the consequences of those who come back.
9/10 our politicians fail to recognize that.
With how the attitude towards how the government runs loosening up, I don't like the look of what they'll be looking to abuse next.
It's really hard to tell what they'll say about the draft in another 18 years of war. There were people in the media saying we are invading because of 'MINERAL RESOURCES', it is absolutely psycho already.
Indeed. There's a gun behind every blade of grass, making an invasion of US soil about as likely to succeed as an invasion of Russia in the Winter.
it has nothing to do with patriotism, its part of the social compact we have with our government
In theory I agree with the principle of a draft- in times of emergency the ability to induct a state's populace into it's armed forces is both a necessary deterrent for any foe and also a great strategic resource to prosecute wars with under certain circumstances. Being guaranteed security and a livelihood by the state, even a relatively free, open, and capitalistic state, I don't think it's unreasonable for said state to ask you to be prepared to defend it such as a war.
Examples being baltic and other European states that do have relatively small populations compared to their preceivd, aggressive neighbors, and that history has shown have been invaded because of that. Being able to call on your populations reserves as quickly as possible is entirely necessary for survival, no matter how peaceful things seem to be.
An ideal world wouldn't be comprised of large, standing armies, missile defense systems, mutually assured destruction and requirements by many governments for the draft. But I think the last decade has shown that the world is not this historically peaceful and stable thing we thought i had become for a few decades after the end of the cold war- look at major governments seemingly rash decisions and outright conquest of territory. As a nation, large or small, you need to be prepared for something like that, and a draft certainly helps.
All that being said, the actual application of the draft in the united states, looking back to it's most recent execution during the Vietnam War, leaves very much to be desired.
In a democratically aligned government, we elect officials to ideally represent our interests. Democracy is the ability to give the masses of people power through a smaller, more practical representation of that power through elected representatives. In reality, some politicians neglect the tenants and values they were elected on, but for the most part they follow those. So when you elect someone, or the majority of your constituents elect someone else, that government IS you. People who elect a candidate who may be more hawkish for war are partly responsible for those actions, and the consequences there of. If a country goes to war based off the elected promises and beliefs of it's electorate, doesn't that electorate also have to fight for that war? Or lets look at your example, let's say some terrible diplomatic choices bungles your country into a war- do you now let your entire country, including the livelihoods of it's citizens, get decimated because the government has made a poor decision and now one should just roll over and die?
As any nation, even when you make a terrible decision or mistake, it's the duty of that nation to still try to find the best resolution- though compromise, conflict, or otherwise, to guarantee the prosperity of it's citizen and by extension, itself. Fighting a war, justified or not, is no different.
I guess the point I really take contention with is not even the draft, but the notion in a lot of democracies right now that "since I didn't vote x party/policies into power, I should bear no responsibility for my governments actions and ignore everything- including the consequences thereof."
Democracies are designed, in theory, for the peaceful transition of power when the people disagree with the current type or leadership of government. Vote, write your elected officials, use the press, even protest- those are all methods to not only take responsibility, but to deal with governments and policies you don't like.
So when there's a draft for an unpopular war, I believe the point is not to get rid of the draft. I've argued before it's a necessary mechanism to ensure the survival of the state. Citizens should try to changed the flaws of that government to ensure better government. Specify the draft is for defensive wars only, be more egalitarian about selectment and recruitment, ensure the power to commit troops and war is in the hands of congress, which is more representative of the people, rather than the singular president. We are all in some ways responsible for what our governments do, weather it be who we immediately elected, or for the long term policies or laws that we or the previous generation have been complacent about that needed changing.
The social contract is bunk if the government doesn't uphold their end of the deal. Look at how the government treats veterans, poor people, minorities and other marginalized groups right now. They have no obligation to serve a state that uses them and leaves them behind.
And how exactly is the social contract consensual?
Bullshit, governements have zero rights to force citizens to fight and kill for them. That's nationalist and authoritarian as fuck. Any military or law enforcement should be purely be vonlunteers.
Citizens pay taxes, the governement takes care of public services, should help the country prosper through sensible legislation, and do the necesary beauraucracy to run it, and that's it. The governement serves the public, not the other way around.
Since you are, presumably, talking about the liberal theory, which is very specific for the "social compact" ( social contract ) part, then you aren't really correct.
"Locke believes that authority should arise from below rather than above and can only be based solely upon the consent of the governed. In other words, the role and legitimacy of the state must be based upon the agreement of the people."
https://www.tutor2u.net/politics/reference/social-contract-liberalism
Right, but that doesn't mean it can be vetoed by the disagreement of one or more people. Part of the role of a state is to imposed the will of the many on the will of the few. Otherwise, given your description, a criminal could object to the contract. Locke was a bit more of an optimist, but if we look at Hobbes we see this purpose clearly in his philosophy.
'Consent of the governed' doesn't require the consent of every individual, it requires the consent of a majority of the population. You don't ask individuals whether they're okay with paying taxes or being subject to the police.
Conscription is consistent with consent of the governed if it has widespread public support, as opposed to being mandated by the state against the will of the people, which was common at the time when Locke was writing. It's not about individuals.
It is no coincidence that the increasing aggressiveness of US's foreign policy is correlated with a shift from a citizen army to professional soldiers. Fighting foreign wars is much more acceptable to the public when it isn't your son, husband, or father being called up to serve. You just pay your taxes and let someone else do the dirty work.
Conscription remains in use in countries like Switzerland partly as a national obligation to provide for the common defense, but also as a preventative measure against making going to war just a little too easy.
Social contract does not see people being put into trenches to be used as fodder for machine guns.
If a threat poses a true existential threat to a nation the government should have no problem convincing its citizens that the war is justified. Reliance on a draft is fucked up and will invariably produce less effective soldiers.
You guys seem to be acting like you're suddenly going be drafted right now. You're not. The selective service as it stands right now is in it's essence a contingency. We have well over a million active duty personnel and like 500k+ reserve personnel.
We quite literally have to have nearly the entire active and reserve components destroyed for you to be considered to be drafted up. It wouldn't be another Vietnam situation, seeing as in the 90s and 00s we didnt have a draft pulled in to force people to goto Iraq and Afghanistan.
The draft has exclusively been used to engage in wars abroad over the past century so excuse me if it seems disingenuous to say that the US would only use the draft if it were experiencing eminent existential threat.
Why would people be opposed to a draft being utilized for a Vietnam War scale conflict? That war was started with a false flag, then sabotaged to benefit the Nixon campaign.
It is perfectly reasonable to be diametrically opposed to the use of a draft, and to voice this opinion any time it is brought up. Without public support the Vietnam War would not have been sustainable in any capacity. We cannot even trust that these actions were taken for some esoteric geopolitical reason.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
