Registering women for a draft

[daveb]

Now, it might be impractical, for several reasons, to send grandma to the battlefield. All right. But then, to make the injustice go away, EVERYBODY should participate in a draft, those that are fit should go to the battlefield, and those that aren't, for any particular reason, practically fit to do so, should be EXECUTED OR DISMEMBERED IN EQUAL PROPORTIONS as those that suffer those sorts on the battlefield. In that way, the burden is carried equally by all members of society (and those members might then - as moonbear suggested - think twice before deciding that that sacrifice is indeed the one that is required).

You've been reading Jonathan Swift lately, haven't you?

 

[vanesch]

You've been reading Jonathan Swift lately, haven't you?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[BobG]

Being qualified to be drafted and being qualified for infantry combat aren't the same thing. A person doesn't have to be qualified for 100% of military jobs - they just have to be qualified to fill some jobs. The jobs women can and can't fill tend to be based more which jobs women aren't physically able to perform than the dangerousness of the job - but there are jobs that many men wouldn't be physically able to fill, as well (some jobs take some incredible strength, while some jobs aren't well suited to particularly tall individuals, while some people can't fill some jobs due to color blindness, etc.).

Assuming the percentages would be similar to Viet Nam (not a very reliable assumption, I admit), you would expect a little over 50% of those "drafted" to actually enter the military, and a little over a third those draftees entering the military (a little over a sixth overall?) to actually see combat.

One reason it would probably be wrong to assume the percentages would stay the same is that the draftees that did see combat had a higher chance of dying than the volunteer "lifers". Training, experience, and motivation make a difference - even more so today with a greater reliance on technology (one reason a draft would be more unpopular with the military than the public). I would imagine that draftees would be more likely to wind up in jobs that didn't have a quite so critical affect on other people's lives.

There's good reasons to not have a draft at all, but not a very good reason to discriminate between which sex is drafted.

Viet Nam stats from the VFW: Viet Nam - Statistical Profile (I would probably be more impressed if their reference wasn't their own magazine, but ...)
Draft stats from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/13/the.draft/

 

[loseyourname]

Aren't people that are drafted already screened for their physical and psychological condition? Wouldn't this ensure that only those fit for military service of some sort are actually drafted and employed?

It seems we can make an analogy to another huge institution that draws from a large pool of candidates to select those best fit for the rigors it offers: higher education. Saying that the military should only draft men, because on statistical average, they are more fit for combat duty, is like saying that a college should admit only asians, because statistically they do better in college than any other group considered a race by the US Census Bureau. Why should not the draft board simply do what colleges do? Screen each candidate individually, and select only those who are fit, which will require rejecting both males and females that have insufficient upper body strength or anything else that you may believe will inhibit their ability to perform the job assigned to them.

Personally, I agree with Bob's post above: draftees in general are terrible fighters, lacking training and expertise, that don't want to be there and don't serve any purpose other than that of a human shield, preferably one that manages to take out a few enemies or help hold a position for some while before meeting his end (if placed in a combat role, anyway). Surely both sexes can serve this mediocre and compromising function equally well.

If Evo can't handle her cramping for four days out of every month, fine, exempt her. That's no reason for exempting every American with a similar anatomy whether or not they have the same problem. Hell, men are 20 times more likely than women to be color blind, a condition that got my father rejected when he tried to enlist in the Army. Surely that doesn't mean we should now reject all men.

 

[russ_watters]

Aren't people that are drafted already screened for their physical and psychological condition? Wouldn't this ensure that only those fit for military service of some sort are actually drafted and employed?

It's been a while, but I don't recall there being a questionaire in my SS registration form.

Saying that the military should only draft men, because on statistical average, they are more fit for combat duty, is like saying that a college should admit only asians, because statistically they do better in college than any other group considered a race by the US Census Bureau. Why should not the draft board simply do what colleges do? Screen each candidate individually, and select only those who are fit, which will require rejecting both males and females that have insufficient upper body strength or anything else that you may believe will inhibit their ability to perform the job assigned to them.

I tend to agree.

Personally, I agree with Bob's post above: draftees in general are terrible fighters, lacking training and expertise, that don't want to be there and don't serve any purpose other than that of a human shield, preferably one that manages to take out a few enemies or help hold a position for some while before meeting his end (if placed in a combat role, anyway). Surely both sexes can serve this mediocre and compromising function equally well.

I wouldn't go that far, but definitely the usefulness of a draftee depends on the job.

Don't forget, guys, that infantry is not the only job and someone who is physically unsuitable for infantry may still be suitable for administrative work, for example.

 

[honestrosewater]

If people don't believe me, here it is straight from the horse's mouth:

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

Here is a brief overview of what would occur if the United States returned to a draft:

1. CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT AUTHORIZE A DRAFT
A crisis occurs which requires more troops than the volunteer military can supply. Congress passes and the President signs legislation which starts a draft.

2. THE LOTTERY
A lottery based on birthdays determines the order in which registered men are called up by Selective Service. The first to be called, in a sequence determined by the lottery, will be men whose 20th birthday falls during that year, followed, if needed, by those aged 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25. 18-year-olds and those turning 19 would probably not be drafted.

3. ALL PARTS OF SELECTIVE SERVICE ARE ACTIVATED
The Agency activates and orders its State Directors and Reserve Forces Officers to report for duty. See also Agency Structure.

4. PHYSICAL, MENTAL, AND MORAL EVALUATION OF REGISTRANTS
Registrants with low lottery numbers are ordered to report for a physical, mental, and moral evaluation at a Military Entrance Processing Station to determine whether they are fit for military service. Once he is notified of the results of the evaluation, a registrant will be given 10 days to file a claim for exemption, postponement, or deferment. See also Classifications.

5. LOCAL AND APPEAL BOARDS ACTIVATED AND INDUCTION NOTICES SENT
Local and Appeal Boards will process registrant claims. Those who pass the military evaluation will receive induction orders. An inductee will have 10 days to report to a local Military Entrance Processing Station for induction.

6. FIRST DRAFTEES ARE INDUCTED
According to current plans, Selective Service must deliver the first inductees to the military within 193 days from the onset of a crisis.

- http://www.sss.gov/seq.htm [emphasis added]

Again, the list that the SS maintains is just a list of potential draftees. I would hope the government wasn't so incompetent as to spend much time and money screening people for a nonexistent draft.

 

[Bystander]

Aren't people that are drafted already screened for their physical and psychological condition? Wouldn't this ensure that only those fit for military service of some sort are actually drafted and employed?(snip)

The Vietnam Era steps:

1) register with local board;

2) cross fingers and pray, get student deferment, or married with children;

3) local board gets instructions to furnish x bodies for physical;

4) "short straw;"

5) report for physical in tutu, drunk, stoned, limp-wristed, with pencil still inserted through eardrum, or minus fingers or toes;

6) be classified 1A to 4F depending on evaluation of mental and physical examinations, acting ability, and degree of self-mutilation;

7) go back home and wait for nasty letter to report for induction --- lots of luck finding a job in the interim;

8) listen to stories about KC sending over 50% to the Marines;

9)

a) enlist in another branch in effort to gain some control over fate;
b) gamble that local board is not required to furnish your body for induction.​

Personally, I agree with Bob's post above: draftees in general are terrible fighters, lacking training and expertise, that don't want to be there and don't serve any purpose other than that of a human shield, preferably one that manages to take out a few enemies or help hold a position for some while before meeting his end (if placed in a combat role, anyway). (snip)

Gonna have to take exceptions to this:

1) "training and expertise" - same as the volunteers;

2) "don't want to be there" - no one but a psychopath wants to spend time in a war zone;

3) "human shield" - U. S. tactical doctrine has never included "half a league..." (Balaclava) and "Alamo" or "Greasy Grass" or "Thermopylae" human wave or suicide tactics;

4) "terrible fighters" - saved this for last --- don't say this out loud in the wrong bar --- you'll learn a whole new meaning for the phrase.​

Regarding Bob G's Nam statistics:

1) see Shelby Stanton's Order of Battle, for a breakdown by rank, and keep in mind that E-6 and up, and O-4 and up are generally "career" types;

2) during the Nam era, the draft was furnishing manpower to large garrisons in Korea and Europe;

3) at the time of my all expense paid tropical vacation, the in service ranking of desirability of station among the "lifers" was Nam, Korea, Europe, stateside;

4) the ranking of desirability among draftees and single enlistment types was Nam, Korea, Europe, and stateside;

5) "lifers" got precedence in choice of duty over us peons;

6) items 3 & 4 could only be observed (overheard) at stateside postings (I'm sick of all this godda**ed bullsh*t! I'm going back.) or in SEA when draftees and single enlistments were approaching DEROS (I'm extending. I can't take 6 months (or a year) of stateside bullsh*t.)​

You can train until you're blue in the face and still be useless. The four months people got for the Nam was a little light, but it took 2-3 mos. for anyone to get up to speed, be they 20 year lifer or sad sack draftee. Then, there'd be 6-8 mos. of very competent performance. Getting short? Back to watching out for number one, and making mistakes.

 

[Cyrus]

Again, the list that the SS maintains is just a list of potential draftees. I would hope the government wasn't so incompetent as to spend much time and money screening people for a nonexistent draft.

.....the government did not screen me when I signed up honestrosewater. They do that only after you are selected from the lottery.

 

[sanchecl]

After a quick review of this thread, I see a lot of opinions being expressed. I also don't see many that have actually served in the armed forces. Just an observation I found interesting!

 

[Dawguard]

After a quick review of this thread, I see a lot of opinions being expressed. I also don't see many that have actually served in the armed forces. Just an observation I found interesting!

Excellent, I had noticed that too. Most people are arguing from rules and ideals, not from experience.

 

[Hurkyl]

Not inferior, just not as capable to fight in war as men.

In other words, they're inferior (for combat). I guess I should have clarified.

What rational do you want? Do you want me to argue from sheer words and ideas instead of reality?

I want you to argue with reason. I.E. put forth a logical argument. I don't care if you base the argument on principles or practical experience -- as long as there is (an attempt at) an unbroken chain of (logical) steps that lead to "It is just to exclude women from the draft".

Specifically, I would like you to stay away from appeal to common sense and appeal to emotion.


The other problem is that you don't seem to have tried to argue "It is just to exclude women from the draft" at all -- you're merely arguing that women are generally less able to fight in combat.

I tried to draw up an analogy to demonstrate the vast difference between:
(1) Demonstrating that a demographics performs statistically badly at something as compared to other demographics.
(2) Arguing that it's just to exclude said demographic from that something.

Don't put words in my mouth, and don't draw conclusions from what I said that aren't even related. You can't pull a cheap trick like this just to make me look like a racist.

But you seem to have missed the point. Try reading what I wrote again, but with the above in mind.

Now, before this turns into a virtual shouting match, I just want an explanation why you think women can be capable of being drafted.

Why? So you can feel better about your position by attacking someone elses? I'm not sure if I have an opinion yet either way on this topic, and I certainly don't have an opinion that I'm willing to defend, so I'll have to decline your request.

You needn't say alledgedly, you know as well as I that it is true.

Sure I need to say alledgedly. I've decided that evaluating the truth of the statement was irrelevant to the discussion, so I opted not to. Thus, I label the claim as being "alledged", because I wish neither to conform nor deny it.

(It's interesting that you claim to know what I know...)

Excellent, I had noticed that too. Most people are arguing from rules and ideals, not from experience.

This whole thread is about rules and ideals -- it's about notions of "justice", "fairness", "equality", and "legality". Maybe experience in the armed forces would be helpful to such an argument (or maybe it will simply bias you) -- but either way, in order to talk about these notions, you have to talk about the principles upon which they're based.

 

[russ_watters]

Excellent, I had noticed that too. Most people are arguing from rules and ideals, not from experience.

Don't make that assumption - just because people don't mention it, doesn't mean they didn't serve. Several people in this thread have - including me.

 

[Dawguard]

First off, I'd like to apologize for any offense or problems I might have caused. I overly reacted to the idea, immediatly aghast at it. I still stick to my position, but you're right, I have indeed been arguing from irrational bases.
I'll have to give this more thought and come back with a proper argument for my position. Thank you for pointing this out, and for putting up with me.

 

[sanchecl]

Don't make that assumption - just because people don't mention it, doesn't mean they didn't serve. Several people in this thread have - including me.

It was not meant as an assumption, simply an observation. Perhaps a better word might be perception. Earlier posts demonstrate that the person making the post served while others lack any indication of prior service.

The perspective of those that have served (or are doing so currently) is valuable because it adds some balance to what may otherwise be simply an academic discussion. The real world is very different that the textbooks!

 

[loseyourname]

It was not meant as an assumption, simply an observation. Perhaps a better word might be perception. Earlier posts demonstrate that the person making the post served while others lack any indication of prior service.

The perspective of those that have served (or are doing so currently) is valuable because it adds some balance to what may otherwise be simply an academic discussion. The real world is very different that the textbooks!

Perhaps, but there isn't a single person alive that has had experience serving alongside female draftees, to see that they've performed any more poorly than their male counterparts. Anyone arguing that they either are, or are not, capable simply by virtue of their sex, is engaging in an academic argument. Even if we limit the discussion to female capability in actual combat, it's academic, as no one has ever observed a female soldier in combat.

 

[vanesch]

I
The perspective of those that have served (or are doing so currently) is valuable because it adds some balance to what may otherwise be simply an academic discussion. The real world is very different that the textbooks!

What is so different between textbooks and the real world, that the right to live of those sent to the battle front is seriously baffled, while that right for those who are not sent, isn't ?
Is the battle front, after all, not so deadly in reality than it is in textbooks ?
Are you less dead when you are killed with experience, than when you are killed without ?

I'm not talking about the practical issue of whether it is an efficient idea to send girls on the battle front: I'm discussing why women's or elder's or children's right to life should be respected, while the right to live for a young healthy male shouldn't.