PDA

View Full Version : Abolish the Selective Service



Chief_KO
08-23-2013, 10:51 PM
Is it time (or past time) to abolish the Selective Service (draft registration).
1. We've been an all voluteer force since 1973 (hey, that's 40 years!)
2. Annual budget (FY13): $24M
3. Only requires males to register (failure to register prevents males from federal student aid programs (loans & grants)
4. Since females will soon be eligible to be in most (all) combat positions, should they not also have to register?
5. With the repeal of DADT, is homosexuality still a way to not be drafted?

I honestly see no reason why SS needs to continue on like it is, especially at that cost!

Thoughts????

Chief_KO
08-23-2013, 11:00 PM
All males 18 -25 must register (or will not be eligible for financial aid, and I think a few more things). I just wonder if homosexuality would be like college deferrment or conscientious objector status, something that would result in a high draft number (like during the Vietnam days).

Chief_KO
08-23-2013, 11:05 PM
regarding females and the draft (From the SS web page)

"Women Aren't Required to Register
Here's why:
THE LAW
Selective Service law as it's written now refers specifically to "male persons" in stating who must register and who would be drafted. For women to be required to register with Selective Service, Congress would have to amend the law.

THE SUPREME COURT
The constitutionality of excluding women was tested in the courts. A Supreme Court decision in 1981, Rostker v. Goldberg, held that registering only men did not violate the due process clause of the Constitution.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
At President Clinton's request, the Department of Defense reviewed this issue in 1994. DoD noted that America's prior drafts were used to supply adequate numbers of Army ground combat troops. Because women are excluded by policy from front line combat positions, excluding them from the draft process remains justifiable in DoD's view. Although no conclusions were reached, DoD recognized that policies regarding women need to be reviewed periodically because the role of women in the military continues to expand.

The Selective Service System, if given the mission and additional funding, is capable of registering and drafting women with its existing infrastructure."

Chief_KO
08-23-2013, 11:08 PM
regarding classifications (categories) again from the ss web site:

"Classifications
Men are not classified now. Classification is the process of determining who is available for military service and who is deferred or exempted. Classifications are based on each individual registrant's circumstances and beliefs. A classification program would go into effect when Congress and the President decide to resume a draft. Then, men who are qualified for induction would have the opportunity to file a claim for exemptions, deferments, and postponements from military service. Here is a list of some, though not all, classifications and what they mean:

1-A - available immediately for military service.
1-O Conscientious Objector- conscientiously opposed to both types (combatant and non-combatant) of military training and service - fulfills his service obligation as a civilian alternative service worker.
1-A-O Conscientious Objector - conscientiously opposed to training and military service requiring the use of arms - fulfills his service obligation in a noncombatant position within the military.
2-D Ministerial Students - deferred from military service.
3-A Hardship Deferment - deferred from military service because service would cause hardship upon his family.
4-C Alien or Dual National - sometimes exempt from military service.
4-D Ministers of Religion - exempted from military service.
Student Postponements - a college student may have his induction postponed until he finishes the current semester or, if a senior, the end of the academic year. A high school student may have his induction postponed until he graduates or until he reaches age 20. Appealing a Classification - A man may appeal his classification to a Selective Service Appeal Board."

Chief_KO
08-23-2013, 11:09 PM
So to answer a couple of my points, the SS could include females if funding is increased and homosexuality is not a classification that would defer someone from being drafted into military service.

USMC0341
08-23-2013, 11:16 PM
I think they should abolish it, I don't forsee needing it in the future unless there are severe cuts and reductions to pay in the future which would lead to undermanned units.

imnohero
08-23-2013, 11:29 PM
Thinking about Sel. Ser. from a national defense/strategic mindset, I don't think it should be abolished. Because we haven't had a draft doesn't mean we won't need one at some point in the future. What would cause the nation to use a draft? I don't know. My point is, looking at it from a "worst case scenario" mindset, we MIGHT need it.

At the individual level, the above raises the question of whether the cost is balanced by the actual risk or need? I mean, what is the risk of there being a world war, or CONUS being invaded or something at that level that might cause a draft to happen? Again, I don't know, but knowing some about history, politics and the causes of previous wars...I can't picture those types of things happening. The global conditions/politics/economics/events that starts WW1 and WW2 no longer exist. Even the Pentagon doesn't seem recently concerned with this sort of massive land war that would require tens of millions of troops. I'm sure there is a scenario or plan in a file cabinet somewhere, or a war gaming think tank thinking about it. But is it a real and immediate concern? My gut says no.

If the cost is $24 million per year...that's pretty cheap "insurance" against the catastrophic.

---
The question of whether the program needs to be changed is somewhat of a different question than whether we need it at all.

Mr. Happy
08-24-2013, 03:11 AM
Thinking about Sel. Ser. from a national defense/strategic mindset, I don't think it should be abolished. Because we haven't had a draft doesn't mean we won't need one at some point in the future. What would cause the nation to use a draft? I don't know. My point is, looking at it from a "worst case scenario" mindset, we MIGHT need it.

At the individual level, the above raises the question of whether the cost is balanced by the actual risk or need? I mean, what is the risk of there being a world war, or CONUS being invaded or something at that level that might cause a draft to happen? Again, I don't know, but knowing some about history, politics and the causes of previous wars...I can't picture those types of things happening. The global conditions/politics/economics/events that starts WW1 and WW2 no longer exist. Even the Pentagon doesn't seem recently concerned with this sort of massive land war that would require tens of millions of troops. I'm sure there is a scenario or plan in a file cabinet somewhere, or a war gaming think tank thinking about it. But is it a real and immediate concern? My gut says no.

If the cost is $24 million per year...that's pretty cheap "insurance" against the catastrophic.

---
The question of whether the program needs to be changed is somewhat of a different question than whether we need it at all.

In our nation's early history, we got by fine without a Selective Service. They merely went into towns and mustered up conscripts in those days. Particularly during the Civil War. I have no doubt "Big Brother" could go out and round up conscripts if the need arose; he knows where you live. I would hope true Americans would step up too like they did during WWII if we were facing a grave national threat. 24 million dollars is 24 million dollars. I think this idea would have been a perfect suggestion for those White House idea campaigns they've had lately. Even if they had a draft, 80% of them would probably be ineligible for various reasons or run to Mexico; or be perfectly happy speaking Chinese.

imnohero
08-24-2013, 03:17 AM
Because forced conscription is better? No thanks.

Mr. Happy
08-24-2013, 03:20 AM
Because forced conscription is better? No thanks.

Isn't a draft basically forced conscription? Go to Vietnam or go to jail?

garhkal
08-24-2013, 03:20 AM
Is it time (or past time) to abolish the Selective Service (draft registration).
1. We've been an all voluteer force since 1973 (hey, that's 40 years!)
2. Annual budget (FY13): $24M
3. Only requires males to register (failure to register prevents males from federal student aid programs (loans & grants)
4. Since females will soon be eligible to be in most (all) combat positions, should they not also have to register?
5. With the repeal of DADT, is homosexuality still a way to not be drafted?

I honestly see no reason why SS needs to continue on like it is, especially at that cost!

Thoughts????

Well said, but if they DO keep it going they SHOULD require females to sign up.

AJBIGJ
08-24-2013, 03:29 AM
Think about this in abstract, what level of opposition, i.e. a peer or near-peer force, would be required to the extent where our volunteer services were no longer sufficient (where a draft would round out the remainder)...

We live in a Nuclear Age, we've existed here for quite some time now.

Couple this with the paradigm, if the United States encountered an opponent which would require this significant a force, would the conflict not escalate to the level where numbers of troops by itself would be essentially irrelevant?

To me this is a very sobering question, I'm not sure if I would like the answer...

Gonzo432
08-24-2013, 03:44 AM
I really can't imagine a draft taking place today or anytime in the future. Don't we have enough trouble with the volunteers? It's been 40 years as Chief KO pointed out. There was 23 years (for the US anyway) between WWI and WWII. Less than 5 years later we were in Korea, 12 years later ground forces landed in Vietnam.

Before the 18-25 year-olds in this country get called up in a draft, EVERY and I do mean EVERY retiree under the age of 60 will be back on active duty because it's been an all-vol military for 40 years and too many generations of this country that have never had to worry about freedom have landed us where we are now.

Now don't get me wrong, the day comes that they call a 48 year old, blue ID carrying, PAFSC 3S391 2AFSC 2S071 back on AD things are going REAL BAD. I mean we've had a nuclear blast on this continent and there ain't time to turn the occupy Wall-Street crowd into the next greatest generation, REAL BAD. Unfortunately it'll take something REAL BAD to turn around what has happened to the USAF, and the rest of the military.

Chief_KO
08-24-2013, 03:53 AM
Interesting that registration was stopped in 1975 and was restarted by President Carter in 1980 in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
My heartache is the cost: $24M a year...to maintain a database of names and run some tabletop exercises??? and the fact that it is still male only. With all the equal rights/glass ceiling crowd forcing the services to open up all (with a few exceptions) duties their was nary a whisper of selective service requirement for females. If equality is wanted then equality should be equal IMO.

AJBIGJ
08-24-2013, 04:06 AM
Interesting that registration was stopped in 1975 and was restarted by President Carter in 1980 in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
My heartache is the cost: $24M a year...to maintain a database of names and run some tabletop exercises??? and the fact that it is still male only. With all the equal rights/glass ceiling crowd forcing the services to open up all (with a few exceptions) duties their was nary a whisper of selective service requirement for females. If equality is wanted then equality should be equal IMO.

I hate to say it, but the lack of interest in opening it up to females is not exactly unusual. The Age of Chivalry isn't gone in the strictest sense, it has taken a form where the gentlemen concede to the ever-more aggressive whims of the outspoken "ladies", and of course these same ladies hardly object to this level of surrender, because, in essence, it benefits them, and after the many years of "inequality", they have come to the conclusion that they are also entitled to it.

Mr. Happy
08-24-2013, 04:09 AM
Maybe some women want all that combat and equality stuff, but I would prefer my girls not get drafted to go off and fight some damn war. Every swinging d&*k in America better be heading out first before they touch my daughters to go fight a war.

imnohero
08-24-2013, 04:29 AM
Maybe some women want all that combat and equality stuff, but I would prefer my girls not get drafted to go off and fight some damn war. Every swinging d&*k in America better be heading out first before they touch my daughters to go fight a war.

This is why women will never be part of selective service. Well, not Mr. Happy specifically. But his post represents a very strong societal "feeling." Dad's don't want their daughters going off to fight "some damn war." And I can't fault them one bit.

Call it old fashioned, call it biology, call it whatever you want...society, writ large, doesn't like the idea of women being forced into combat. I don't disagree with them. Bad enough we force men to do it.

imported_chipotleboy
08-24-2013, 02:11 PM
I hate to say it, but the lack of interest in opening it up to females is not exactly unusual. The Age of Chivalry isn't gone in the strictest sense, it has taken a form where the gentlemen concede to the ever-more aggressive whims of the outspoken "ladies", and of course these same ladies hardly object to this level of surrender, because, in essence, it benefits them, and after the many years of "inequality", they have come to the conclusion that they are also entitled to it.

The DACOWITS crowd is only interested in opening up combat jobs the put women on the fast track for promotions, e.g., figher pilots, ground combat officers, special forces, etc, so they can advance their social & political agenda. If we started talking about widespread conscription of women to be enlisted infantry, no way are any of their Seven Sisters alumna gonna be carrying a rifle in a paddy.

garhkal
08-24-2013, 07:36 PM
I hate to say it, but the lack of interest in opening it up to females is not exactly unusual. The Age of Chivalry isn't gone in the strictest sense, it has taken a form where the gentlemen concede to the ever-more aggressive whims of the outspoken "ladies", and of course these same ladies hardly object to this level of surrender, because, in essence, it benefits them, and after the many years of "inequality", they have come to the conclusion that they are also entitled to it.

Exactly. Many feminists feel to be 'equal' they should have a leg up on guys in some areas.. This is one of them.



Maybe some women want all that combat and equality stuff, but I would prefer my girls not get drafted to go off and fight some damn war. Every swinging d&*k in America better be heading out first before they touch my daughters to go fight a war.
This is why women will never be part of selective service. Well, not Mr. Happy specifically. But his post represents a very strong societal "feeling." Dad's don't want their daughters going off to fight "some damn war." And I can't fault them one bit.

Call it old fashioned, call it biology, call it whatever you want...society, writ large, doesn't like the idea of women being forced into combat. I don't disagree with them. Bad enough we force men to do it.

So sending sons off to die is ok, but not daughters. Attitudes like that is one of the reasons i feel our society feels its ok for discrimination to exist when its AGAINST males.

imnohero
08-24-2013, 11:07 PM
No, people don't like sending their sons off to die either. They just accept it. For the same sort of traditional, emotional, reasons: nationalism, patriotism ... like that.

John Drake
08-25-2013, 12:11 AM
Think about this in abstract, what level of opposition, i.e. a peer or near-peer force, would be required to the extent where our volunteer services were no longer sufficient (where a draft would round out the remainder)...

We live in a Nuclear Age, we've existed here for quite some time now.

Couple this with the paradigm, if the United States encountered an opponent which would require this significant a force, would the conflict not escalate to the level where numbers of troops by itself would be essentially irrelevant?

To me this is a very sobering question, I'm not sure if I would like the answer...

It depends on what attitude you hold toward government. In Orwell's 1984 for example - all the nations have nuclear weapons... they all voluntarily do not use them. Its a long war - an endless war of attrition with the deliberate purpose of keeping their respective populations in fear, and consuming excess resources (Basically what Milton Friedman would later advocate, and would be put into Practice by Bush, and continued by Obama). For this premise to work, we have to assume that even though the people running these governments are Tier-1 douchebags... they're still rational thinkers, and work together with their enemies to make the overall system work.

I'm not sure that would happen in real life... I suspect that if we tried this system, our leadership would be unable to show that level of restraint. Heck, if it weren't for JFK, our top generals probably would have launched the nukes during the Cuban Missile Crisis... or even when the French started to lose in IndoChina.

Dis_Grunt_Led
08-25-2013, 12:22 AM
Just get rid of it. Waste of time, money, effort, etc. Hasn't really served any purpose for decades and have I mentioned... huge waste of $$. Even if there was some instance in the future where a draft would be desired, it would never happen. Too much freedom. People simply wouldn't comply and nobody would/could force compliance. Look at how many "volunteers" ignored their contracts/oaths/commitments over the last dozen or so years. No need/point in arguing whether females should be included - just get rid of it.

RobotChicken
08-25-2013, 01:15 AM
Just get rid of it. Waste of time, money, effort, etc. Hasn't really served any purpose for decades and have I mentioned... huge waste of $$. Even if there was some instance in the future where a draft would be desired, it would never happen. Too much freedom. People simply wouldn't comply and nobody would/could force compliance. Look at how many "volunteers" ignored their contracts/oaths/commitments over the last dozen or so years. No need/point in arguing whether females should be included - just get rid of it.

:spy"Gunpowder became the great 'equalizer' in war replacing upper body strenght required for bows/spears etc. Now a male or female can push a button and nuke 100 million troops quicker then applying nail polish; so just draft em all."

FuelShopTech
08-25-2013, 02:37 AM
I say get rid of it all together.

And, for the record, if the draft stays, I'm fine with women getting drafted.

garhkal
08-25-2013, 04:40 AM
No, people don't like sending their sons off to die either. They just accept it. For the same sort of traditional, emotional, reasons: nationalism, patriotism ... like that.

So it's basically societal sexism.

imnohero
08-25-2013, 02:05 PM
So it's basically societal sexism.

Yes.

Pullinteeth
08-26-2013, 08:22 PM
regarding females and the draft (From the SS web page)

"Women Aren't Required to Register
Here's why:
THE LAW
Selective Service law as it's written now refers specifically to "male persons" in stating who must register and who would be drafted. For women to be required to register with Selective Service, Congress would have to amend the law.

THE SUPREME COURT
The constitutionality of excluding women was tested in the courts. A Supreme Court decision in 1981, Rostker v. Goldberg, held that registering only men did not violate the due process clause of the Constitution.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
At President Clinton's request, the Department of Defense reviewed this issue in 1994. DoD noted that America's prior drafts were used to supply adequate numbers of Army ground combat troops. Because women are excluded by policy from front line combat positions, excluding them from the draft process remains justifiable in DoD's view. Although no conclusions were reached, DoD recognized that policies regarding women need to be reviewed periodically because the role of women in the military continues to expand.

The Selective Service System, if given the mission and additional funding, is capable of registering and drafting women with its existing infrastructure."

When the Supreme Court made that ruling, the decision was based upon the fact that women were excluded from combat positions....

garhkal
08-26-2013, 10:00 PM
Which since they now are not, should make the reasoning for not having them need to register a moot point.

AJBIGJ
08-26-2013, 10:10 PM
It depends on what attitude you hold toward government. In Orwell's 1984 for example - all the nations have nuclear weapons... they all voluntarily do not use them. Its a long war - an endless war of attrition with the deliberate purpose of keeping their respective populations in fear, and consuming excess resources (Basically what Milton Friedman would later advocate, and would be put into Practice by Bush, and continued by Obama). For this premise to work, we have to assume that even though the people running these governments are Tier-1 douchebags... they're still rational thinkers, and work together with their enemies to make the overall system work.

I'm not sure that would happen in real life... I suspect that if we tried this system, our leadership would be unable to show that level of restraint. Heck, if it weren't for JFK, our top generals probably would have launched the nukes during the Cuban Missile Crisis... or even when the French started to lose in IndoChina.

You have a point there, my personal trust in government is not exactly at its greatest, I would say if anything this would be where I tend to fail to a personal bias the most. I'm definitely not a huge advocate of the MAD nuclear philosophy, but it's fairly difficult to even consider an alternative in this era, at least while this planet remains a requirement for humankind to sustain a living. I think it fair to say governments have earned their reputation, if for no other reason than the simple truism that power corrupts. I for one never like to consider the scenario when the existing pool of voluntary manpower is considered to be insufficient to deal with the level of the threat that we face. I can't imagine a single scenario where a conflict would get that far and not include some or all of the other options of military force available. Pretty standard modus operandi for warfare and intelligence gathering is that if you have an asset available that can get the job done effectively, it gets used, all moral and ethical concerns being mostly secondary if they hinder the former. This recent trend is the one that scares me.