• In honor of Muhammad Ali, Sen. Rand Paul will introduce bill to end Selective Service
    86 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471187]Yeah except draftees don't want to fight or you wouldn't need to draft them, training takes precious time, and if you're facing a serious enough threat that you need the draft, you don't even know if the military is going to survive whatever's coming. Civilians have no military footprint; military assets in civilian hands makes for a lot of nasty surprises for an invasion force. An invasion of the mainland US would never happen but if it did it would ultimately fail whether the military was still there or not because Americans would not permit occupation by a foreign power, which makes the draft redundant. Soldiers are targets, civilians are not.[/QUOTE] Draftees don't want to fight....which is exactly why they were compelled to fight many times before and did just that?
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50471210]Draftees don't want to fight....which is exactly why they were compelled to fight many times before and did just that?[/QUOTE] If they wanted to fight you wouldn't need a draft
I love it when people try to justify selective service and the draft when we have one of the largest fighting forces in the world that has the ability to project itself to any country in less than a day. We have more carriers than all the world's navies combined, we have a massive air force, a gigantic spy and surveillance network, some of the best (if not THE best) equipment to date and that's all from a volunteer army. If the draft actually has to be called it's going to be fucking nuclear at that point lol
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471228]If they wanted to fight you wouldn't need a draft[/QUOTE] Duh. Now what if we need more people than our all voluntary force can provide? Draft.
Here's my reasoning. For starters a soldier is wearing a uniform and even if he isn't, then his name and other identifying details are on a list of combatants [I]somewhere[/I] which can rather easily fall into "enemy hands". This means in the event of a successful occupation he's likely to be rounded up and stuck in a holding camp (or shot, depending on who's doing the occupying). Yes he's been trained and equipped on a professional level but that took a long time and he relies on military supply lines which can be disrupted, military chain of command which can falter, and military tactics which can be thwarted. There are currently 2.1 million members of the armed forces across all branches, counting reservists. A civilian knows his hometown. Many civilians own multiple firearms, many of which are equal to or better than military issued weapons (especially considering since they're on the defense, they aren't necessarily lugging those weapons around). He relies on civilian "supply lines", which cannot be disrupted nearly as easily since anyone can do it. There is no chain of command unless he's part of a militia. His name isn't on a list of combatants anywhere. Civilians do not have a footprint as combatants and cannot be singled out of groups of other civilians. There are ~317 million civilians in the US. If even [B]1%[/B] of those took up arms and involved themselves in an active local resistance, that would be [B]3,170,000[/B] extra combatants who aren't wearing uniforms and look like everyone else. I think it would be more than 1%, but we'll stick to that because even that incredibly conservative estimate works for this argument. Considering the civilian resistance would easily outnumber our own armed forces, they'd dwarf even a sizeable invasion force, so even if the military was in such dire straits as to need to institute a draft, it'd still be pointless. Assuming the government was toppled and the military was dismantled, those 3,170,000 extra combatants blend right in to the conquered population. Their [B]360 million[/B] privately owned firearms are next to impossible to fully be rid of - that's 113.5 guns per civilian combatant - and will remain in circulation on the black market for as long as it takes the insurgent resistance to fully rid the country of the occupying force. This is why the draft is [U]redundant[/U] in even the most unlikely and most eminently threatening scenario. For the record, if a more realistic [B]20%[/B] of civilians took up arms against an invading force, that would be [B]63,400,000[/B] un-uniformed, untraceable combatants with 5.6 guns for each of them. The draft is useless.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50471090]Well I agree in most cases unless it's something like WW3 where the security of the country is in grave danger.[/QUOTE] Americans are a strange lot. You don't even need to bring them into the army in a situation where the country is in grave danger. The lower 48 is widely considered to be 100% unassailable, and it's because if you land hostile troops on our soil you aren't just fighting the Army. You're fighting every single citizen as well. So many of us are armed that the line between 'military and civvy' blurs real damn fast. Is that Chevy Suburban just a family trying to do their thing or an improvised technical? You don't know until it opens up. Every house will have a rifle poking out of the window, and you can be guaranteed we're not gonna let someone invade. For those who don't just simply take up arms, military applications will skyrocket. The only noncombatants that would be left here would be the ones that simply can't fight. [editline]7th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471279]Here's my reasoning. For starters a soldier is wearing a uniform and even if he isn't, then his name and other identifying details are on a list of combatants [I]somewhere[/I] which can rather easily fall into "enemy hands". Yes he's been trained and equipped on a professional level but that took a long time and he relies on military supply lines which can be disrupted, military chain of command which can falter, and military tactics which can be thwarted. There are currently 2.1 million members of the armed forces across all branches, counting reservists. A civilian knows his hometown. Many civilians own multiple firearms, many of which are equal to or better than military issued weapons (especially considering since they're on the defense, they aren't necessarily lugging those weapons around). He relies on civilian "supply lines", which cannot be disrupted nearly as easily since anyone can do it. There is no chain of command unless he's part of a militia. His name isn't on a list of combatants anywhere. Civilians do not have a footprint as combatants and cannot be singled out of groups. There are ~317 million civilians in the US. If even 1% of those took up arms and involved themselves in an active local resistance, that would be 3,170,000 extra combatants who aren't wearing uniforms and look like everyone else. I think it would be more than 1%, but we'll stick to that because even that incredibly conservative estimate works for this argument. Considering the civilian resistance would easily outnumber our own armed forces, they'd dwarf even a sizeable invasion force, so even if the military was in such dire straits as to need to institute a draft, it'd still be pointless. Assuming the government was toppled and the military was dismantled, those 3,170,000 extra combatants blend right in to the conquered population. Their [B]360 million[/B] privately owned firearms are next to impossible to fully be rid of - that's 113.5 guns per civilian combatant - and will remain in circulation on the black market for as long as it takes the insurgent resistance to fully rid the country of the occupying force. This is why the draft is [U]redundant[/U] in even the most unlikely and most eminently threatening scenario.[/QUOTE] Can confirm. If hostile troops invade America and make it as far as TN my mosin is going to be poking out the window. Not only do those points make it redundant to have a draft in America, they also make it pretty much suicide to actually invade us in the first place. The lower 48, anyway, are widely considered unassailable because of it.
[QUOTE=orgornot;50470829]Did you really need someone famous to die just to introduce this bill? All conscription should be abolished anyways because it has no place in modern times.[/QUOTE] we don't have conscription in the US, you just register for the draft when you turn 18 and they put your name in a database all the selective service is is a database of names in case something were to happen and it were needed, paul is just a typical anti-government libertarian to be afraid of the government having a list of names [editline]7th June 2016[/editline] [quote]selective service had a racial disparity, because a lot of rich white kids either got a deferment or went to college or got out of the draft. I’m opposed to Selective Service[/quote] this isn't even an issue, back then it was harder to get into college period. if a draft were introduced today it would have much different requirements
While any nation invading the continental US would definitely have a hard, if not impossible time, I think some of you in this thread are severely overestimating the power of the 'armed citizenry'. Owning a gun does not give yourself the ability to be a soldier. Sure, you can cite Afghanistan as a good case where an armed populous held out an army but keep in mind three things: 1; The Taliban were in control of the country for ten years, giving them full access to military grade weapons while they were pushed into the mountains and 2; look at the death toll of American soldiers vs Afghan insurgents and you'll find that majority of these "armed American citizens" will lose their life before taking any one of a professional enemy soldier. 3; The American invasion was not the country's first time fighting as in insurgency, much of the Taliban and Afghan fighters had 10 years of experience prior in the 80s fighting the USSR while only a few gun-owning vets in the US are capable of maintaining fire on enemy positions while being under fire (of which will no doubt be the first called back to the actual military). Besides that, not every American owns a gun contrary to popular belief. Fewer have access to a plethora of guns. And even fewer of that have the ability to successfully fight a trained, professional army under fire.
While I'm sure there will be many Americans that will give any invasion hell, it's absurd to believe it'll cause such a ruckus that the invasion will fail or be slowed due to an American insurgency.
[QUOTE=TestECull;50471509]Can confirm. If hostile troops invade America and make it as far as TN my mosin is going to be poking out the window.[/QUOTE] This is such a silly mentality, even as someone who loves the 2nd. Generic troops without any kind of support aren't going to waltz up and down your suburban/rural neighborhood waiting to get shot by every redneck with a shotgun. It's same style of fantasy people have when they stash guns all over their house thinking they'll have a running gun battle if people try to take them away. Having weapons makes the transition [I]after[/I] invasion difficult on whatever nation is stupid enough to attempt it. They're not going to bother with civilians while the government and military are still alive and well. And as much as I'd love to beat my patriotic chest and bleat on about how wonderful civilian militias would be, the vital communication lines would be cut off faster than you could blink. All it would take is some half-armored fighting vehicle with lots of ammo to shut down masses of civilians with "better than military issue" weapons. I mean, unless ol' Joe hid an RPG or something. Realistically, as messy and dumb as it all works out to be on paper, there just aren't really any countries left to actually pose a threat of colonial-era full scale invasion to the United States. You should be more afraid of nuclear, electronic, or information-based warfare. Or even closer to home, how utterly fragile and laughably bad our infrastructure is. Queue up that one service worker saying that a couple of guys in a van could basically shut down a city overnight with nothing more than spare parts, generic home tools, and bolt cutters. I would be far more afraid of the economy suddenly tanking overnight and how we handle that, more than Best Korea's little pissing match in the kiddy pool.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50471616]While any nation invading the continental US would definitely have a hard, if not impossible time, I think some of you in this thread are severely overestimating the power of the 'armed citizenry'. Owning a gun does not give yourself the ability to be a soldier. Sure, you can cite Afghanistan as a good case where an armed populous held out an army but keep in mind three things: 1; The Taliban were in control of the country for ten years, giving them full access to military grade weapons while they were pushed into the mountains and 2; look at the death toll of American soldiers vs Afghan insurgents and you'll find that majority of these "armed American citizens" will lose their life before taking any one of a professional enemy soldier. 3; The American invasion was not the country's first time fighting as in insurgency, much of the Taliban and Afghan fighters had 10 years of experience prior in the 80s fighting the USSR while only a few gun-owning vets in the US are capable of maintaining fire on enemy positions while being under fire (of which will no doubt be the first called back to the actual military). Besides that, not every American owns a gun contrary to popular belief. Fewer have access to a plethora of guns. And even fewer of that have the ability to successfully fight a trained, professional army under fire.[/QUOTE] It doesn't have to be open warfare. Underestimating pissed off locals is a dreadful mistake for any army to make and our pissed off locals would be a significantly greater threat than any insurgent force in the middle east. I fully agree that a land invasion of the US would never happen, but the whole pissed off locals thing is one reason out of many - in particular it makes a draft worthless because by the time one was needed a civilian insurgency would be far more effective. As Doom14 stated the armed citizenry would be a much larger problem after the fact.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471644]our pissed off locals would be a significantly greater threat than any insurgent force in the middle east.[/QUOTE] Our "pissed off locals" also don't have easy access to automatic weapons, anti-material weapons, explosives, or anti-vehicle weapons; either. Tell me how great your neighborhood would do against even a Cold War era tank. You're also underestimating the massive size difference between "the middle east" and the entire United States. Do you know where your local government buildings are? What about your military bases? The invaders would - and they would completely skip any civilians along the way to just roll right over those centers. As I said earlier, on the comically unlikely perchance that there is a full-scale invasion, they're not going to give a rats' ass about civilian population centers. Or if they, for whatever dumb reason do, will likely use bombs and artillery anyways - they're simply not going to waste the resources "cleaning the streets" if every home has some angry guy with a gun in it. But yeah, as you said - it's a key "after the fact" sort of thing. An armed resistance could hypothetically last for quite awhile in the US. And to throw my hat out there, I agree that a modern-day draft is kind of a waste of time and resources. If something dramatic enough to invoke it actually did happen, people would hop at the chance to help (and those that wouldn't would be wasting your time as well.)
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471644]It doesn't have to be open warfare. Underestimating pissed off locals is a dreadful mistake for any army to make and our pissed off locals would be a significantly greater threat than any insurgent force in the middle east. I fully agree that a land invasion of the US would never happen, but the whole pissed off locals thing is one reason out of many - in particular it makes a draft worthless because by the time one was needed a civilian insurgency would be far more effective. As Doom14 stated the armed citizenry would be a much larger problem after the fact, but the potential losses incurred by the invading force against the people they're trying to dominate would make any foreign power reconsider an invasion.[/QUOTE] For one, majority of guns in the US are registered with the government. All an invading force would need to do is acquire that list and go to their houses to confiscate them. Being "pissed off" does not give you a tactical advantage, a familiarity of how to assault an enemy force, or actual courage when the targets for once in your life starts shooting back. Nations aren't invading the US because they fear an armed citizenry, that is an absurd, ultra-nationalist pride bullshit idea. Nations arent invading the US because they have no desire to, simple as that. This thread is full of armchair generals talking about the great power of armchair soldiers.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50471058]Boohoo you have to sign your name down in case of an apocalyptic world ending war.[/QUOTE] I don't know man, a lot of wars were pretty apocalyptic and world ending for a lot of people that were forced to fight or were collateral damage of said war. (see, all of the people effected by agent orange and leftover landmines/unexploded munitions during and after the Vietnam war, and tons of other wars actually) Conscription is wrong, and with how interconnected the world is today, any kind of full scale war (see WWI, WW2) would be an incredibly ludicrous and pointless way to fight because of how much unnecessary damage and death there would be.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50471695]For one, majority of guns in the US are registered with the government. All an invading force would need to do is acquire that list and go to their houses to confiscate them. Being "pissed off" does not give you a tactical advantage, a familiarity of how to assault an enemy force, or actual courage when the targets for once in your life starts shooting back. Nations aren't invading the US because they fear an armed citizenry, that is an absurd, ultra-nationalist pride bullshit idea. Nations arent invading the US because they have no desire to, simple as that. This thread is full of armchair generals talking about the great power of armchair soldiers.[/QUOTE] The majority of guns in the US are [B]not[/B] "registered with the government". I'm not saying armed citizens are the only reason we haven't been invaded but it's certainly a factor that an invader and in particular an occupier would be forced to consider. Ultimately it's not worth the trouble so it will never happen. Someone wanting to invade the US would have to first defeat one of the largest militaries in the world, then control millions of rowdy citizens across an entire continent who aren't likely to take well to a foreign occupation. It's one link in a long chain of reasons why an invasion is a bad idea, but in the context of this thread, armed citizenry makes a draft in case of invasion redundant. We're looking at this issue through a really narrow scope, but I don't at all mean to imply that armed citizenry is the sole reason we haven't been/cannot be/won't be invaded. All I'm saying is that it's why a draft isn't needed.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471279]Here's my reasoning. For starters a soldier is wearing a uniform and even if he isn't, then his name and other identifying details are on a list of combatants [I]somewhere[/I] which can rather easily fall into "enemy hands". This means in the event of a successful occupation he's likely to be rounded up and stuck in a holding camp (or shot, depending on who's doing the occupying). Yes he's been trained and equipped on a professional level but that took a long time and he relies on military supply lines which can be disrupted, military chain of command which can falter, and military tactics which can be thwarted. There are currently 2.1 million members of the armed forces across all branches, counting reservists. A civilian knows his hometown. Many civilians own multiple firearms, many of which are equal to or better than military issued weapons (especially considering since they're on the defense, they aren't necessarily lugging those weapons around). He relies on civilian "supply lines", which cannot be disrupted nearly as easily since anyone can do it. There is no chain of command unless he's part of a militia. His name isn't on a list of combatants anywhere. Civilians do not have a footprint as combatants and cannot be singled out of groups of other civilians. There are ~317 million civilians in the US. If even [B]1%[/B] of those took up arms and involved themselves in an active local resistance, that would be [B]3,170,000[/B] extra combatants who aren't wearing uniforms and look like everyone else. I think it would be more than 1%, but we'll stick to that because even that incredibly conservative estimate works for this argument. Considering the civilian resistance would easily outnumber our own armed forces, they'd dwarf even a sizeable invasion force, so even if the military was in such dire straits as to need to institute a draft, it'd still be pointless. Assuming the government was toppled and the military was dismantled, those 3,170,000 extra combatants blend right in to the conquered population. Their [B]360 million[/B] privately owned firearms are next to impossible to fully be rid of - that's 113.5 guns per civilian combatant - and will remain in circulation on the black market for as long as it takes the insurgent resistance to fully rid the country of the occupying force. This is why the draft is [U]redundant[/U] in even the most unlikely and most eminently threatening scenario. For the record, if a more realistic [B]20%[/B] of civilians took up arms against an invading force, that would be [B]63,400,000[/B] un-uniformed, untraceable combatants with 5.6 guns for each of them. The draft is useless.[/QUOTE] Untrained civilians would have a hard time beating trained soldiers. Look how ISIS fighters fight and you'll get an idea of how it might work. Also, guns aren't evenly spread around the US. North of the Mason Dixon line, the enemy would have an easy time since there aren't that many guns in the North compared to the south.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471279]Here's my reasoning. For starters a soldier is wearing a uniform and even if he isn't, then his name and other identifying details are on a list of combatants [I]somewhere[/I] which can rather easily fall into "enemy hands". This means in the event of a successful occupation he's likely to be rounded up and stuck in a holding camp (or shot, depending on who's doing the occupying). Yes he's been trained and equipped on a professional level but that took a long time and he relies on military supply lines which can be disrupted, military chain of command which can falter, and military tactics which can be thwarted. There are currently 2.1 million members of the armed forces across all branches, counting reservists. A civilian knows his hometown. Many civilians own multiple firearms, many of which are equal to or better than military issued weapons (especially considering since they're on the defense, they aren't necessarily lugging those weapons around). He relies on civilian "supply lines", which cannot be disrupted nearly as easily since anyone can do it. There is no chain of command unless he's part of a militia. His name isn't on a list of combatants anywhere. Civilians do not have a footprint as combatants and cannot be singled out of groups of other civilians. There are ~317 million civilians in the US. If even [B]1%[/B] of those took up arms and involved themselves in an active local resistance, that would be [B]3,170,000[/B] extra combatants who aren't wearing uniforms and look like everyone else. I think it would be more than 1%, but we'll stick to that because even that incredibly conservative estimate works for this argument. Considering the civilian resistance would easily outnumber our own armed forces, they'd dwarf even a sizeable invasion force, so even if the military was in such dire straits as to need to institute a draft, it'd still be pointless. Assuming the government was toppled and the military was dismantled, those 3,170,000 extra combatants blend right in to the conquered population. Their [B]360 million[/B] privately owned firearms are next to impossible to fully be rid of - that's 113.5 guns per civilian combatant - and will remain in circulation on the black market for as long as it takes the insurgent resistance to fully rid the country of the occupying force. This is why the draft is [U]redundant[/U] in even the most unlikely and most eminently threatening scenario. For the record, if a more realistic [B]20%[/B] of civilians took up arms against an invading force, that would be [B]63,400,000[/B] un-uniformed, untraceable combatants with 5.6 guns for each of them. The draft is useless.[/QUOTE] You and anyone else can go on and on about this all day and night, but you do realize that an invading force, if successful, would never even have to be on the ground to fight in the first place. Most of the biggest cities in the US are on the coast, or just a little ways inland. If an invading force successfully got in, if they have any kind of air power, they could bomb the shit out of numerous cities, each with their own millions of civilians, guns, and homes and businesses. What civilians have ready access to anti-air or any kind of protection from air power? Especially if it's something military related that hasn't already been targeted and/or destroyed by an invading force.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471728]The majority of guns in the US are [B]not[/B] "registered with the government". I'm not saying armed citizens are the only reason we haven't been invaded but it's certainly a factor that an invader and in particular an occupier would be forced to consider. Ultimately it's not worth the trouble so it will never happen. Someone wanting to invade the US would have to first defeat one of the largest militaries in the world, then control millions of rowdy citizens across an entire continent who aren't likely to take well to a foreign occupation. It's one link in a long chain of reasons why an invasion is a bad idea, but in the context of this thread, armed citizenry makes a draft in case of invasion redundant. We're looking at this issue through a really narrow scope, but I don't at all mean to imply that armed citizenry is the sole reason we haven't been/cannot be/won't be invaded. All I'm saying is that it's why a draft isn't needed.[/QUOTE] You would think in writing this post that if a military has invaded the continental US, then the US military has been defeated or in the process of. An armed citizenry, as much as your patriotism-bleeding heart beliefs in, will not change the course of that. [editline]7th June 2016[/editline] Do you know what it's like to have a bullet fly over your head? To take the life of another man, regardless of nationality, enemy or not? Can you say you - or majority of everyone else - will be able to hold a line down when their buddy next to them that they've known for years gets their head blown off before your eyes? That, if defeated, you'll be forced to leave his body sprawled on the ground in his own blood? Trained soldiers have difficulty coming to terms with that. Armed citizens, who have the chance to flee at any moment they wish, will have an even more difficult time.
Tell me how being drafted in an invasion scenario would change that same group's performance in combat. There are enough civilians in the US who can contend with violence that they would give an invader that's already dulled its blade against our military a run for its money. As for destroying everything - sure, but that doesn't make sense. If you flatten the country you're invading, there's nothing left to annex, and that's called a Pyrrhic victory - a massive waste of time. Yes, you can "win" that way, but you have nothing to show for it in the end. Not really a valid strategy. That's what makes civilian resistance during an occupation a threat. Once again you're trying really hard not to acknowledge the real point and it's that a draft wouldn't do any better in this ridiculously unlikely scenario.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50471762][B]You would think in writing this post that if a military has invaded the continental US, then the US military has been defeated or in the process of. An armed citizenry, as much as your patriotism-bleeding heart beliefs in, will not change the course of that.[/B] [editline]7th June 2016[/editline] Do you know what it's like to have a bullet fly over your head? To take the life of another man, regardless of nationality, enemy or not? Can you say you - or majority of everyone else - will be able to hold a line down when their buddy next to them that they've known for years gets their head blown off before your eyes? That, if defeated, you'll be forced to leave his body sprawled on the ground in his own blood? Trained soldiers have difficulty coming to terms with that. Armed citizens, who have the chance to flee at any moment they wish, will have an even more difficult time.[/QUOTE] Also, the bolded. Seriously. One of the [i]only[/i] time combatants from a belligerent opposing military force set foot on US soil, in the USA, was the Japanese during WW2, in the Aleutian islands. They didn't get very far.
My point is that after chewing through the most powerful military in the world (not likely), whatever's left of an invader would then have to control a heavily armed and incredibly mad civilian population that has dug its heels in. A draft in this case wouldn't change anything and might even make the situation even worse. I don't know why you are avoiding the matter at hand, choosing instead to focus on a scenario that I've already stated repeatedly isn't likely. The unlikeliness of it is exactly why we don't need a draft.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471831]Tell me how being drafted in an invasion scenario would change that same group's performance in combat.[/quote] I'm not advocating for the draft, nor have I in any part of this thread. I'm advocating that it's absurd and stupid to assume an "armed citizenry" can be effective against an invading force on the continental US. [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471831]There are enough civilians in the US who can contend with violence that they would give an invader that's already dulled its blade against our military a run for its money.[/quote] Citation, please [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471831]As for destroying everything - sure, but that doesn't make sense. If you flatten the country you're invading, there's nothing left to annex, and that's called a Pyrrhic victory - a massive waste of time. Yes, you can "win" that way, but you have nothing to show for it in the end. Not really a valid strategy. That's what makes civilian resistance during an occupation a threat.[/quote] What a small mind you have to assume every war is about annexing territory. That's why Germany, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Afghanistan and Iraq are all US states now, right? [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471831]Once again you're trying really hard not to acknowledge the real point and it's that a draft wouldn't do any better in this ridiculously unlikely scenario.[/QUOTE] Again, I'm not advocating for a draft nor have I in this thread. Being against the absurd idea that an American armed citizenry would be best does not equate to supporting a draft in its replacement. [editline]7th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=TAU!;50471845]Also, the bolded. Seriously. One of the [i]only[/i] time combatants from a belligerent opposing military force set foot on US soil, in the USA, was the Japanese during WW2, in the Aleutian islands. They didn't get very far.[/QUOTE] That may have been the last time, but [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812]not the only time[/url]
All I'm saying is we do not need a draft because the only time when it could justifiably be invoked a civilian insurgency would be more effective than a draft. Whether you think they could win or not is irrelevant to this discussion.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471858]My point is that after chewing through the most powerful military in the world (not likely), whatever's left of an invader would then have to control a heavily armed and incredibly mad civilian population that has dug its heels in. [/quote] Can I get a citation for being "angry and mad" gives you military expertise? You keep talking about the "pissed off people" will win the day. [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471858]A draft in this case wouldn't change anything and might even make the situation even worse.[/quote] Your lack of reading capabilities are showing, I've said twice already I'm not advocating for a draft. [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471858] I don't know why you are avoiding the matter at hand, choosing instead to focus on a scenario that I've already stated repeatedly isn't likely. The unlikeliness of it is exactly why we don't need a draft.[/QUOTE] And you're [I]not[/I] focusing on a scenario that wouldn't happen? :what:
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50471894]Can I get a citation for being "angry and mad" gives you military expertise? You keep talking about the "pissed off people" will win the day. Your lack of reading capabilities are showing, I've said twice already I'm not advocating for a draft. And you're [I]not[/I] focusing on a scenario that wouldn't happen? :what:[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471887]All I'm saying is we do not need a draft because the only time when it could justifiably be invoked a civilian insurgency would be more effective than a draft. Whether you think they could win or not is irrelevant to this discussion.[/QUOTE] I can't state this any more clearly. Take it or leave it. If you want to keep latching on to an unlikely hypothetical for the sake of having something to argue about that's on you.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50471863] That may have been the last time, but [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812]not the only time[/url][/QUOTE] That's specifically why I said "[B]one of[/B] the only times". Also, if any kind of war got to the point where the US was getting invaded, then it may as well be the end of the world as we know it, due to whatever massive conflicts would have led to that point. If that was the case, then who's to say enemy invaders would give a damn about citizens? They could just bomb us all to hell and shoot anyone left over.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471887]All I'm saying is we do not need a draft because the only time when it could justifiably be invoked a civilian insurgency would be more effective than a draft. Whether you think they could win or not is irrelevant to this discussion.[/QUOTE] All I'm saying is that a civilian insurgency would NOT be more effective. And to make that clear, I am NOT saying that a draft would be, or should stay in place. Just that your alternative to it is stupid, absurd, and blinded by patriotism. [editline]7th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=TAU!;50471905]That's specifically why I said "[B]one of[/B] the only times". [/QUOTE] I misread, my mistake [editline]7th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471900]I can't state this any more clearly. Take it or leave it. If you want to keep latching on to an unlikely hypothetical for the sake of having something to argue about that's on you.[/QUOTE] Your reasoning for taking away the draft is because a civilian insurgency would be better. In what scenario other than the continental US being invaded does a civilian insurgency happen? It's the logical conclusion to what you're advocating.
It doesn't matter if you think it'd be effective or not. A civilian resistance would be larger than any fighting force a draft could muster. That simple fact makes the draft redundant. Therefore, we do not need the draft. I was arguing with someone who was saying we needed the draft in case of an emergency scenario like that. You are trying to respond to that argument with an entirely different issue. I didn't pose it to get into an argument over whether or not it'd be effective, only that it'd be as or more useful than drafting a smaller group of the same demographic into an army that's already somehow lost. My personal opinion is that that group would be a significant threat either during a hypothetical invasion or during a hypothetical occupation, but that's not really relevant and isn't the point, yet for the sake of having an argument you decided to latch on to that.
The draft is an outdated concept that needs to go. Nobody should be forced to fight, kill, and die against their will.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50471945]The draft is an outdated concept that needs to go. Nobody should be forced to fight, kill, and die against their will.[/QUOTE] nobody should be annihilated by nuclear weapons either but we have them because we may need them
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.