I had to register for the selective services as well but women shouldn’t because they’re weaker than men.
It was really WWII and right after when most Americans of voting age felt like Soccerguy315 did regarding registering for and complying with the draft precisely because WWII was one war most Americans supported and genuinely felt was a war in defense of national and personal security interests.
Before WWII, that wasn’t necessarily the case and if you went back to the Civil War era, most Americans including those who volunteered to fight on both sides felt a mandated national draft was a gross encroachment by the national government upon individual liberties guaranteed by their respective constitutions and in the Confederate case…went against the idea of State’s Rights.
One prominent example of this was how when Brigadier General Henry L. Benning had just volunteered and accepted as a freshly commissioned Confederate Army Colonel, he was nearly court-martialed for openly challenging and denouncing the Confederate national draft as a “violation of State’s Rights”. Only the intervention of influential fellow officers who knew of his personal patriotic pro-Secessionist character prevented his military career from ending at its very outset.
Another manifestation of this was the horrendously high desertion rates on both sides during the Civil War and the high numbers of draft-aged men on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line who opted to evade the entire war by heading west after the national drafts were implemented by the Confederacy and the Union.
Not IME. When HS senior year came around back in the mid-'90s, all 18 year olds were expected to fill out a selective service registration form available at one’s local post office and mail it in.
Though I was 17 when I did it during my freshman year of college, I went to my local post office to fill out the selective service form and mailed it in as instructed.
I agree… I think the fight about whether or not there should be a draft in any instance should be had. It should be debated ferociously.
But I think once the decision is made, if it is made, and the country, via its elected leaders, makes the decision that this is what we have to do, then people have to step up.
I am hopeful there is never the need to institute the draft.
I think the most likely scenario for a draft in the near future would be if North Korea goes too far. If North Korea kills 30,000 Americans on the peninsula, the U.S. will have to respond, and respond quickly. That response may require additional bodies. I don’t think it’s likely that North Korea would do that, but I think it is the most likely situation that could require a draft.
While that sentiment is all well and good, that sentiment wasn’t widely shared or practiced in the '60s…and by that I mean both the 1860’s and the 1960’s…
In the 1860’s, even some state governors tried condoned large-scale draft dodging such as Georgia governor Joseph E. Brown who among other things condoned the registration of as many draft-aged men as civil service workers critical to the needs of the war effort and thus, covered under one of the national draft law’s exemptions.
The DPRK conventional military is likely of such poor quality that it would likely lose quickly in any real war if it does not go nuclear. In either the non-nuclear or nuclear scenarios, it is hard to see that the current 263 day time line to provide basic-trained draftees to fight such a war would make any difference before the war is over.
The current SSS is likely just a waste of money. If we do want to be able to call up conscript military recruits quickly, we need something much more robust (and presumably expensive) than the current SSS.
Just to add to the confusion, it looks like the SSS registration requirement applies to one’s birth gender (in the case of transgender persons).
While this thinking is commonplace among some, it fails to take into account the following:
Whereas the South Korean Army in the beginning of the Korean War was very weak and collapsed quickly in face of NK’s surprise attacks which caused many US GIs from that era to be dismissive of the South Korean Armed forces, that has not been the case since the 1960’s when South Korean troops had far greater successes in fighting the Viet Cong/NVA than many US military units. And the current South Korean Army is now one of the most modern and best equipped in the world while retaining a worldwide reputation for being one of the toughest militaries in terms of training and daily soldiering*.
Another factor is the US military is far better equipped and trained for the possibility of a surprise NK attack as opposed to their 1950 counterparts who were equipped with WWII era weapons like the bazooka which proved to be ineffective against NK T-34 tanks and transport/logistics technology is such the US can send in reinforcements much more rapidly than was the case in 1950.
Whereas NK’s armed forces was well-equipped with relatively modern weapons…especially regarding tanks and aircraft(MiG-15 anyone?) in 1950, the current state of NK’s conventional military isn’t comparable. Currently, the vast majority of their conventional weapons and military equipment dates from the late '50s/early '60s. The level of maintenance in relation to the great demands of training and regular military exercises/propaganda videos is such that there’s been a series of military aircraft crashes within the last several years due to inadequate maintenance on extremely aged hardware.
- A reason why many South Korean draftees are eager to be KATUSA soldiers. Most figure spending one's mandatory service time in a US military unit is much more manageable in terms of training rigor and discipline than what they'd experience in a regular South Korean military unit.
I agree it is not likely.
But I do think it is the most likely situation in the current geopolitical climate that may require it. An all out Russian push into Europe may be another one, but I think that his a lot less likely than the North Korea situation.
since this is College Confidential, and males must register to be eligible for federal aid, is it not only fair and just that females do the same to be eligible for aid?
That’s assuming Russia has similar military and economic wherewithal to what the Soviet Union had at its peak. A major stretch considering Russian is struggling to maintain its encroachment on Ukraine and Crimea while supporting Assad with military aid* as illustrated by the strains on its military and economic infrastructure.
Doesn’t help the Russian economy was already in trouble before the price of oil…its main source of income dropped to ~$24/barrel.
- A critical mass of their air power being used in Syria and Ukraine are mostly products of the late Cold War era as the post-Soviet Russian economy wasn't able to support basic maintenance during the '90s and early '00s and with the Russian economy tanking...it is already having to cut back on planned critical upgrades.
So, bringing this thread back on topic to current questions about the draft, it seems that the military is scaling back and some wanting to enlist are being declined. If a draft is needed, perhaps it’s reasonable to include men and women. But IMO, it’s not needed at present…
No one is saying a draft is needed. The point is that if we are to have a selective service requirement, both men and women should be required to register.
Well, at least we are back to talking about the draft, as is the topic of this thread, and not about Russia, North Korea, the Revolution, civil war or WWII. That said, comparing to CURRENT examples, the Israeli draft includes all of those over 18, with some exemptions. If the draft is necessary to continue in the US, it should, IMO, include men and women.
Ok-- just playing devil’s advocate. IF the draft registration was equal, and if it was activated, would it be difficult to make quick changes in the arrangements of barracks, produce a sufficient # of uniforms to fit women, etc? Currently, the military is about 15% female http://labs.time.com/story/women-in-military/ so some adjustments will need to be made. Probably not a big challenge, but worth pondering.
The Israeli draft does not attempt equality between men and women.
Equality in terms of what? The roles they serve in the military? The time they serve? Yes, there seem to be differences. Would be interested to hear more. Both men and women serve in the Israeli army, so both sexes are registered and serve. More are serving in combat roles, though , like here, it’s not equal. But women and men both serve the requisite time.
"would it be difficult to make quick changes in the arrangements of barracks, produce a sufficient # of uniforms to fit women, etc? "
I would think they would be able to make the changes in a reasonable amount of time.
Various exemptions were taken by 27.7% of men in 2007. For women only, exemption can be granted for being religious; 35% of women claimed that. http://www.haaretz.com/news/idf-nearly-28-of-israeli-males-avoided-conscription-in-2007-1.232645
Since the demographic groups eligible for exemptions (highly religious Jewish people who tend to go into study of religion, Arab people) seem to be growing faster than the general Israeli population, it is likely that the exemption percentage is larger now.
What is the percentage of exemptions claimed in the US? How many fail to register at all?
And I thought the topic was registration thru selective service; registration is required not only for federal college benefits, such as federal loans, but also federal employment (including college internships). The draft has been on the shelf since 1973, and I would think its discussion is a political topic which would be verboten on cc.