• News
member 5645

SB 89 and HR 163 are pushing for the draft and expected to come into play, if they are passed, in January 2005. I'm personally against a drafted military, only because I believe it much weaker than a volunteer service.However, if it comes, I'll be signing up Jan '05

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:S.89: [Broken]
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R.163: [Broken]

SEC. 10. REGISTRATION OF FEMALES UNDER THE MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.

(a) REGISTRATION REQUIRED- Section 3(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 453(a)) is amended--

(1) by striking male' both places it appears;

(2) by inserting or herself' after himself'; and

(3) by striking he' and inserting the person'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 16(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 466(a)) is amended by striking men' and inserting `persons'.

Last edited by a moderator:

Related General Discussion News on Phys.org
jcsd
Gold Member
Do you really think the bill will pass? I've been told that it's unlikely to especially in an election year.

member 5645
jcsd said:
Do you really think the bill will pass? I've been told that it's unlikely to especially in an election year.
There's a reason it being pushed so late in the year.
I think there's a fair number of people pushing for it, and I'd give the odds 50/50 from the different things I've read.

I'm not wholly opposed to a draft at all - if it were even handed to people (no congressman sons getting out of it). Some mandatory civil duty would do a LOT of good. I'm mixed I guess.

russ_watters
Mentor
It is being pushed strictly for political reasons - it'll make people think there might be a draft soon (see the other thread on the subject). The US has had an all volunteer military for a good 30 years and its likely to stay that way for the forseeable future. The only legislation needed is maybe the abolishment of the selective service system. Its just a waste of money.

Njorl
What I have heard is more likely is the calling up of the IRR. If I have it right, anyone who has ever been in the uniformed military is in the IRR. There is no time limit. While most older guys would be in no danger, if you have the skills they want, they'll probably take you.
Njorl

Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Njorl said:
What I have heard is more likely is the calling up of the IRR. If I have it right, anyone who has ever been in the uniformed military is in the IRR. There is no time limit. While most older guys would be in no danger, if you have the skills they want, they'll probably take you.
Njorl
my fiance was in the IRR, but received his discharge papers a year ago. i believe once you are discharged, you are off the hook.

americans shouldn't be so shocked about a draft being reinstated. many countries around the world require both men and women to be in military for a couple of years. although it sounds harsh, it might be what a lot of americans need-a little boot camp.

member 5645
Kerrie said:
my fiance was in the IRR, but received his discharge papers a year ago. i believe once you are discharged, you are off the hook.

americans shouldn't be so shocked about a draft being reinstated. many countries around the world require both men and women to be in military for a couple of years. although it sounds harsh, it might be what a lot of americans need-a little boot camp.

I LOVE the idea of a mandatory draft for every citizen for 2 years after high school. 18-20 == time to your country.

Evo
Mentor
There is a mandatory draft in Italy, but you can decide between military service or public service. My friend opted for public service and spent his time working at a school for the blind. You have to begin your service by your 26th birthday.

member 5645
Evo said:
There is a mandatory draft in Italy, but you can decide between military service or public service. My friend opted for public service and spent his time working at a school for the blind. You have to begin your service by your 26th birthday.
I love it!
Our draft allows for the same thing, albeit, it's a tougher sell for objector status here instead of a straight open choice.

Robert Zaleski
If I remember correctly, it works like this:

All soldiers have a statutory 8-year service obligation, which begins when they enter the service. (Active duty and Reservist)

Lifers (20 years in service) can retire with an annuity. These individuals are then transferred to the inactive reserves, until they reach their 30th year of service. While in the inactive reserves they can be recalled.

Evo
Mentor
phatmonky said:
I love it!
Our draft allows for the same thing, albeit, it's a tougher sell for objector status here instead of a straight open choice.
I believe you have to file as an objector there also, but it's not a big deal like it is in the US.

russ_watters
Mentor
Robert Zaleski said:
If I remember correctly, it works like this:

All soldiers have a statutory 8-year service obligation, which begins when they enter the service. (Active duty and Reservist)

Lifers (20 years in service) can retire with an annuity. These individuals are then transferred to the inactive reserves, until they reach their 30th year of service. While in the inactive reserves they can be recalled.
That is correct. The 8 year time limit starts the day you enlist (so someone who is discharged after 8 years does not enter the inactive reserve).

Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
russ_watters said:
That is correct. The 8 year time limit starts the day you enlist (so someone who is discharged after 8 years does not enter the inactive reserve).
and boy am i glad my fiance served his 8 years already...

seriously though, i think women should be included in the draft just as much as men nowadays. no, they may not have strengths like men to do certain tasks, but there are so many other jobs in a war they can do. if women want equal pay, equal rights, etc, then they should definitely have equal responsibilities.

Kerrie said:
seriously though, i think women should be included in the draft just as much as men nowadays. no, they may not have strengths like men to do certain tasks, but there are so many other jobs in a war they can do. if women want equal pay, equal rights, etc, then they should definitely have equal responsibilities.
Just look at their accomplishments in WWII as WAACS, WOWs, WASPs, and WAVES. Working in factories producing munitions, flying supply C-47 transport planes, drove military trucks, maintained tanks (the ones who were mechanically inclined), and ship construction.

I dont think they have done frontline service though, they left that to the male soldiers.

loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
A mandatory draft is a blatant violation of human rights. Civic duty is one thing, but no one should be forced to fight, especially in a war that they feel is unjust.

Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
loseyourname said:
A mandatory draft is a blatant violation of human rights.
so is war...

I'm Canadian so it wouldn't affect me as much. I do disagree with the draft proposal though. Contributing to the economy as a fully functioning citizen is a public service enough. I'd put the chance of the draft happening at 20%.

The draft seems like a foolish thing to reinstate. If it was put into effect the anarchy that would erupt would be interesting from a darkened perspective though.

What are the political stances on the draft from Bush and Kerry?

chroot
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
So let me get this straight, phatmonkey... a person should be required to fight for his/her country at age of 18, eh? People don't choose which countries they are born in; I was an American citizen at age 18, whether I liked it or not. There was no way for me to change that citizenship prior to my 18th birthday even if I had wanted to, since minors can't even sign their own paperwork.

So I'd be trapped by a government I didn't choose and forced to fight in a war I didn't agree with, perhaps losing my life in the process. This is your concept of a government doing "a lot of good" for its citizens?

That's frankly really disturbing.

- Warren

I didn't even think about that chroot. That makes the draft proposal seem even more ludacris.

For those wondering about more information you might want to check out the CNN website. The general military stance on the issue is unfavorable and the pentagon disagree's with the fact the Ranger seems to think the majority isn't probably representated. In short, the proposal doesn't look like it's going to happen.

loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Kerrie said:
so is war...
And? Do you justify one injustice by creating another?

Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
"And? Do you justify one injustice by creating another?"

certainly having a mandated draft truly sucks, especially with the controversial war we began. but, if in the instance a country invaded us, i think the draft would be certainly necessary. in this specific instance of the Gulf war, i believe a mandatory draft is wrong.

loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
It's either wrong or it's right, Kerrie. You might say that if a foreign power invaded us, it would be necessary to perform this action that is wrong, but the action itself is still wrong. This is the conundrum with war; there really is no such thing as a moral high ground. It may the right of a nation to defend itself, but is it the right of a nation to force its citizens to fight without their consent? Does not an individual have the right not to defend himself should he so choose? You may say that we freely choose to live here and so are giving implicit consent, but this is not the case. I did not choose to be born in the United States, and should I be drafted and then decide to leave the nation, I would still be committing an illegal act. Furthermore, given that my ancestors lived on this continent 15,000 years before those of president Bush and just about every member of Congress, I question who has more of a right to be here.

Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
You might say that if a foreign power invaded us, it would be necessary to perform this action that is wrong, but the action itself is still wrong.
i agree, however, regardless of what you and i think, war still happens. this is reality of the evils of humankind.

It may the right of a nation to defend itself, but is it the right of a nation to force its citizens to fight without their consent?
unfortunately our nation does not see the rights of the individual but seeks to protects itself (the nation) from being taken over by other nations. no, it is not right, however again, the reality is if the nation seeks to protect itself by whatever means.

Furthermore, given that my ancestors lived on this continent 15,000 years before those of president Bush and just about every member of Congress, I question who has more of a right to be here.
another good point (are you native american?), it's truly unfortunate our country doesn't recognize the real americans more then they do. while i do agree with everything you are saying, our government seems to have a mind of it's own in deciding what is best for us rather then the people. personally, i believe if a draft for this particular war was reinstated, there would be serious outrage. one of those situations where it has to get worse before it gets better. many americans would then turn on the government. it seems evident to me that mass public opinion does have an influence of our government.

i should clarify that my opinions stem from if america was invaded, a draft would more necessary, and possibly not as scorned because the patriotism of americans would outshine this scorn. if your home was invaded by criminals, would you fight or fly?

loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
If all you're saying is that governments really do institute military drafts, then obviously I have no argument with you. It seems we both agree that they are wrong to do so.

I am part Native American.

phatmonky said:
I LOVE the idea of a mandatory draft for every citizen for 2 years after high school. 18-20 == time to your country.
By what right can a state decide over an individuals life? One could think that if they have a good case for war, a draft would not be necessary, because there would be enough volunteers for it.

Besides, it is a military fact that drafted troops perform very poorly, resulting in many innecessary casualties. So in the long rong, instating a draft when it is not absolutely needed is a negative thing for the efficiency of the armed forces.