Will the US reintroduce the draft?

[Art]

US will 'have to face' military draft dilemma: senator
Washington | June 12
AFP - The United States will "have to face" a painful dilemma on restoring the military draft as rising casualties result in persistent shortfalls in US Army recruitment, a top US senator warned.

Joseph Biden, the top Democrat of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made the prediction after new data released by the Pentagon showed the US Army failing to meet its recruitment targets for four straight months

Ten-Hut!
The Army's Bungling Recruitment
Don Edwards | June 12
WaPo - Nearly every day, anywhere from one to several U.S. soldiers or Marines die in Iraq, and even more are wounded. The news doesn't always make the front pages anymore, but the casualty rate has apparently registered deeply in the consciousness of young Americans and their families. The result is a dangerous decline in new enlistments that is depleting U.S. military resources and weakening our capacity to face additional conflicts or threats from abroad.

Now, the Army's latest desperate attempt to gain recruits is a shortened, 15-month enlistment policy. A 15-month enlistment means that soldiers will receive only basic and advanced individual training, but none of the team and unit training our premier soldiers traditionally receive. These recruits will be shipped off to war after only five months of training, deployed to units in combat where they know no one. These inexperienced soldiers will be at an enormous disadvantage and the casualties among them will be bound to reflect that disadvantage

After Lowering Goal, Army Falls Short on May Recruits
Eric Schmitt | Washington | June 8
NYT - Even after reducing its recruiting target for May, the Army missed it by about 25 percent, Army officials said on Tuesday. The shortfall would have been even bigger had the Army stuck to its original goal for the month.

What are people's opinion on the reintroduction of the draft? Is it likely to happen? Will you support it if it does?

 

[klusener]

If someone gave me 75,583 dollars everytime someone asked this question, I would be 680,247 dollars richer.

 

[1123581321]

i would not oppose a draft, but i don't think that it will come to that. if we find the need to attack North Korea/Iran/Syria and the like, then that may become needed.

fibonacci

 

[FredGarvin]

Personally I think there are too many people in charge that remember what it was like in Viet Nam in dealing with draftees. The superiority of an all volunteer force is pretty obvious. I would think they would be very reluctant to institute a draft simply because it would have to go back to the mix of professional soldiers mixing with draftees. It was not a harmonious mix.

It would take a monumentous world event for me to support another draft.

 

[Pengwuino]

Biden is a moron, or well, he's a democrat. Hes just trying to bring out more fear-mongering tactics to get people to fall for the idea that there is going to be a draft. You put that out in the media and you'll get all sorts of people making... well, threads like this. Theres no factual evidence to support a serious look at a draft.

 

[loseyourname]

The only way a draft will be instituted without popular revolt is if the US is invaded. It'll be difficult to get past the navy to do that.

 

[Pengwuino]

Hey that's a good idea. Let's tell the navy to get off their butts and go fight in iraq ;)

 

[russ_watters]

What are people's opinion on the reintroduction of the draft? Is it likely to happen? Will you support it if it does?

There is no reasonable chance of a draft happening in my lifetime (I'm 29). This issue was brought up a lot last year by the Democrat's for the purpose of turning public opinion against the war in order to get Democrats elected. It would appear Biden still thinks he can get some more mileage out of the issue...

Hey that's a good idea. Let's tell the navy to get off their butts and go fight in iraq ;)

Ahem, while the Navy (with the exception of the Marine Corps, a branch of the Navy, and Navy corpsmen serving with the Marine Corps) suffers virtually no casualties, the Navy does a significant fraction of the work.

 

[Pengwuino]

Quiet you! we'll replace all the naval men with robots! :D lol

 

[ray b]

The only way a draft will be instituted without popular revolt is if the US is invaded. It'll be difficult to get past the navy to do that.

I am unaware of any naval opperations on the Reo Grand
and very aware of a continued invadesion across that and other borders
and judging by the local landings in south Fla the navy/cousties/ins is getting less then 1/2
of the attemped crossers

just wait intill BuSh2 trys to invade N K or Iran

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't think he was tlaking about illegal aliens..

 

[Rev Prez]

What are people's opinion on the reintroduction of the draft? Is it likely to happen? Will you support it if it does?

It will not happen. The only cache of political support for American conscription comes from left-leaning circles where the predominant concern is one of equity. The data is compelling even at a first order analysis, the American fighting force is more mobile, more lethal, better protected, and enjoys greater reach at a quarter of its last conscription-era size. Consequently, personnel base outlays amount to about a quarter of the entire defense budget--the single largest line item for a fighting force with only about 1 million men and women. That means an extra division of fighting strength will run you an extra $10 billion a year just for the manpower.

Rev Prez

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

The only way that a draft would be re-instated anytime soon in the US, would be in the event of war with China, a situation that many experts now see as inevitable:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind65.html

 

[Art]

The only way that a draft would be re-instated anytime soon in the US, would be in the event of war with China, a situation that many experts now see as inevitable:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind65.html

Which is why the US is currently cosying up to Asian countries. The plan being I presume to keep any war with China confined to the Asian continent.

 

[Rev Prez]

The only way that a draft would be re-instated anytime soon in the US, would be in the event of war with China, a situation that many experts now see as inevitable:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind65.html

1) Lew Rockwell is no expert. Neither is William Lind.

2) There is no discernable strategic objective in a war against China that would necessitate meeting the PLA--fully mobilized and assembled--in battle on the mainland.

Rev Prez

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

1) Lew Rockwell is no expert. Neither is William Lind.

No, but he discussed the musings of experts in that writeup, I considered it a good review (especially since he is particularly hard on Bush, so I'm sure that he would have some fans on this forum). I happen to agree with his conclusions too.

2) There is no discernable strategic objective in a war against China that would necessitate meeting the PLA--fully mobilized and assembled--in battle on the mainland.

I do not necessarily agree with this.

If the unfortunate situation was all-out war with China, there is a chance that a stalemate would not be achieved, and Beijing would become a target to force a peace. I could also forsee limited strikes in key areas against their mainland, as the Japanese had done.

It is hard to know for sure when we are not military planners, other than the arm-chair kind

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Which is why the US is currently cosying up to Asian countries. The plan being I presume to keep any war with China confined to the Asian continent.

It would seem that way. The issue is now being raised where Japan wants a seat on the UNSC.

 

[Rev Prez]

No, but he discussed the musings of experts in that writeup...

Expert. One. And a guy he's arguing against. And trust me on this, Robert Kaplan is not a favorite amongst these people here.

I considered it a good review (especially since he is particularly hard on Bush, so I'm sure that he would have some fans on this forum). I happen to agree with his conclusions too.

His conclusions aren't conclusions at all. They're based on a very silly analogy to a common criticism of Lehman's Maritime Strategy--namely that Backfires armed with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles could hunt down and prevent a NATO carrier offensive against Soviet SSBN bases around the Kola. Of course, the Soviets had it easier since the proposal involved maneuvering carrier strike groups through narrow passages of water and within Moscow's coastal, EM and satellite field of vision. The solution was simple; send up SSNs with Tomahawks. What Lind proposes would require the Chinese to find a carrier group with a weapon that is destructive over at most 400 square miles in millions of square miles of ocean; the Reds have to buy their satellite intelligence from the French.

I do not necessarily agree with this.

If the unfortunate situation was all-out war with China, there is a chance that a stalemate would not be achieved, and Beijing would become a target to force a peace.

There is no chance of a stalemate happening in any sphere of conflict that the US and Chinese may engage in. The US has no strategic objective on the mainland that requires an airland force to accomplish, and this Beijing idea of yours is just crazy.

I could also forsee limited strikes in key areas against their mainland, as the Japanese had done.

The Japanese engaged in full effort to conquer the mainland. Exactly what the hell do you think American interests in China are?

It is hard to know for sure when we are not military planners...

No, it's really easy to know for sure. It's easy even for security studies undergraduates.

Rev Prez

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'll have to go with Rev Prez on the idea of a conflict with China. It would be insane. The worst that I think might happen would be a new Cold War type scenario. WE have no interest in attacking them at home and I agree with RP that it would be absolutely insane to even attempt such an endevour lest we blow their whole country sky high first, and that in and of itself would be insane.

On the OP I'd have to say that a draft does not seem likely. All hell would break loose.

 

[Smurf]

I have yet to hear any convincing argument that war with china is "inevitable" and find that laughable, let alone that it rise to to total war that will require any activity on mainland china at all. Neither of you are going to go over the pacific to each other's continent to fight each other. That's just silly.

As for the draft. No one in cabinet wants it, no one out of cabinet wants it. It's just some democrat trying to lower support for Bush.

 

[Art]

The Japanese engaged in full effort to conquer the mainland. Exactly what the hell do you think American interests in China are?
Rev Prez

Taiwan...

 

[russ_watters]

Taiwan...

While China could concievably send half a billion people walking across each others bodies in the strait of Taiwan to get there, realistically, the Navy could easily handle a conventional invasion attempt by China. There'd be no need for the US to invade mainland China.

 

[Art]

While China could concievably send half a billion people walking across each others bodies in the strait of Taiwan to get there, realistically, the Navy could easily handle a conventional invasion attempt by China. There'd be no need for the US to invade mainland China.

The question was what are America's interests in China and the answer I supplied is Taiwan.
That said if the situation flared up again as it did in 1996 and China did attack Taiwan and America intervened IMO it could escalate exponentially very quickly. From what we see of China it seems they interfere very little outside their own borders but equally go ballistic if they believe others are interfering in their domestic affairs.

 

[Rev Prez]

...I agree with RP that it would be absolutely insane to even attempt such an endevour lest we blow their whole country sky high first, and that in and of itself would be insane.

I didn't say it is insanity to launch an airland offensive on the mainland. I said that there was no reason to do so...ever. Whether the US can take China in a stand up fight on their own soil is another question entirely.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

The question was what are America's interests in China and the answer I supplied is Taiwan.

The question was prefaced by a point regarding Japan's reasons for invading the mainland.

That said if the situation flared up again as it did in 1996 and China did attack Taiwan and America intervened IMO it could escalate exponentially very quickly. From what we see of China it seems they interfere very little outside their own borders but equally go ballistic if they believe others are interfering in their domestic affairs.

And tell us, Art. What did you "see of China" in 1996?

Rev Prez

 

[Art]

And tell us, Art. What did you "see of China" in 1996?

Rev Prez

China's threatening posturing achieved this;

An important outcome was the new balance struck between China and the US. A new Sino-US compact was reached whereby the Clinton Administration reaffirmed its commitment to one China, including no US support for Taiwan's bid to join the United Nations, while Beijing reaffirmed Jiang Zemin's proposal, which, whilst not renouncing the use of force, nonetheless opts for gradual peaceful reunification.

 

[Nicool005]

I doubt the draft will be reintroduced. If it is reintroduced, I would not support it mainly for two reasons. 1) Because I believe that military service is a good and honorable thing, but it should be voluntary. 2) Because President Bush said it would not be reintroduced before he was elected this November after some people grew nervous about the possibility of it being reintroduced, and I would be really ticked off if that was a lie.

 

[pattylou]

Last interview I heard on this, with a high-up dude in the military, is that of course there will be no draft. He laid out some excellent reasons why politicians on both sides bring up the draft - and it has nothing to do with ... the draft.

If I could remember the reasoning...

But you asked for opinions - and mine is it won't happen.

What *is* happening is that standards are being lowered for foreigners to become citizens - if they sign on to military service. Also, in at least one court case (probably more) of drug possession, the defndant was given the option of serving time in jail, or in the military. And packages are being beefed up, and the No Child Left Behind act has a a clause that gives the military automatic access to our children's personal information. Schools need to "opt out" of this - the default is that the military is granted the information in the NCLB act.

-Patty

 

[Art]

On a lighter note here is a draft registration form.
http://www.draftregistration.us/

 

[pattylou]

That's a riot.

Did you follow the links? I particularly like the "Peace is for pus*ies" T shirt.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

The solution was simple; send up SSNs with Tomahawks. What Lind proposes would require the Chinese to find a carrier group with a weapon that is destructive over at most 400 square miles in millions of square miles of ocean; the Reds have to buy their satellite intelligence from the French.

I highly doubt that the Chinese would have any difficultly getting satellite imaging, give me a break.

There is no chance of a stalemate happening in any sphere of conflict that the US and Chinese may engage in.

Again, what basis do you have for this statement? While the US is militarily superior, that may change - it would be a close match, especially given that we would have to pick up and go over there.

The situation would be very much like the invasion of Japan that never happened - due to nukes. Yet we were willing to do it without them if need be, so this scenario is not "impossible" as you say.

The Japanese engaged in full effort to conquer the mainland. Exactly what the hell do you think American interests in China are?

I don't know what you mean by the second sentence.

The Japanese never conquered all of China, only key areas of strategic and industrial importance.

No, it's really easy to know for sure. It's easy even for security studies undergraduates.

If you say so Reverend. I'm glad that you have it all figured out, 'cuz hundreds of PhDs in D.C. work on this stuff, and I guarantee you that somewhere in those 'playbooks' of theirs is a situation involving warfare on the Chinese mainland. I, on the other hand, am just a lowly scientist and am not qualified to make natsec decisions - these debates are just for fun really, I would never be quite as convinced of such things as you seem to be.

I don't think it would be done "just for kicks" but i could foresee the situation arising. We went into Korea (where we were mostly fighting Chinese soldiers), that was almost the same thing as going into China (and it would have been if McArthur had his way).

 

[The Smoking Man]

I have yet to hear any convincing argument that war with china is "inevitable" and find that laughable, let alone that it rise to to total war that will require any activity on mainland china at all. Neither of you are going to go over the pacific to each other's continent to fight each other. That's just silly.

As for the draft. No one in cabinet wants it, no one out of cabinet wants it. It's just some democrat trying to lower support for Bush.

LOL.

What are you going to bomb?

Manufacturing?

Logitech, Sony, Mitac, Motorola, Phillips, Emmerson, FMC, Ford, Volkswagon, BMW, Toyota, Seimens, ... you get the idea?

The rest of the manufacturing would put Walmart out of business.

So ... ae you going to bomb the people?

I thought you would be required to 'liberate' the people who are under a despotic government.

The government? ... there are 79 million members of the 'Party' ... You have to be a member to take on a government Job ... Like Postman.

Who IS your target here?

And don't forget, if you win ... You get to clean up the mess like in Iraq.

The population of Iraq is held in two cities here: Shanghai and Beijing.

Can you even afford to win?

 

[Rev Prez]

I highly doubt that the Chinese would have any difficultly getting satellite imaging, give me a break.

I suggest you actually read up a bit. [1][2].

Again, what basis do you have for this statement? While the US is militarily superior, that may change - it would be a close match, especially given that we would have to pick up and go over there.

Beijing has barely 200 aircraft that can reach the relevant AOR, and most of those are aging J-8s fighters. Her airmen train at most 110 hours a year, far short of the 180 hours minimum Western air forces can achieve. She has no strategic sealift, no strategic airlift, no strategic bombing capability, and a Navy that consists of few new destroyers, old frigates, and mostly older third-generation diesel submarines. In short, most of what the PLA can toss into a fight was around in 1954 and 1958, when the Taiwanese by themselves managed to rack up a 7 to 1 kill ratio in the air. So what can the Chinese do? They can make good on their claim of Matsu and Quemoy and that's about it.

The situation would be very much like the invasion of Japan that never happened - due to nukes.

No it wouldn't, because there is no reason to invade the mainland. The aim is to protect Taiwan. What the hell's in China worth fighting an airland war with the PLA?

Yet we were willing to do it without them if need be, so this scenario is not "impossible" as you say.

It's "impossible" because there's no reason whatsoever to do it.

I don't know what you mean by the second sentence.

I mean just what I said. What are the interests in mainland China that would necessite invading the mainland?

The Japanese never conquered all of China...

Get this through your head...it doesn't matter. The Japanese aimed to conquer China. Why the hell else would you put forces their in the first place?

...only key areas of strategic and industrial importance.

To their interests in conquering and holding Manchuria--a part of China! This really isn't that hard.

If you say so Reverend.

Once again, I'm no Reverend.

I'm glad that you have it all figured out...

I didn't figure it out. Your scenario is so off the wall it should take no one more than two minutes to show how absurd it is.

...'cuz hundreds of PhDs in D.C. work on this stuff and I guarantee you that somewhere in those 'playbooks' of theirs is a situation involving warfare on the Chinese mainland.

Of course there is. There is discussion in the open literature as well. That's why I told the other poster that I wasn't saying that it is impossible to invade the mainland, I was saying it's impossible to conceive of a plausible reason or a scenario leading to that end.

I, on the other hand, am just a lowly scientist and am not qualified to make natsec decisions...

I'm not so sure you are a scientist. Security studies is primarily a science; and one to which a number of people from very diverse scientific and technical backgrounds contribute. A good chunk of MIT's SSP are physicists, electrical engineers, operations researchers, etc. by training.

I would never be quite as convinced of such things as you seem to be.

I would never be so cavalier about making stupid claims.

I don't think it would be done "just for kicks" but i could foresee the situation arising.

Then perhaps you've read too many comic books, or you may have an immature imagination, or--given this last bit you posted--you may have a deficient talent for analogy.

We went into Korea (where we were mostly fighting Chinese soldiers), that was almost the same thing as going into China (and it would have been if McArthur had his way).

The objective in Korea was never to invade China. MacArthur's objective wasn't to invade China either. He planned to drive them north of the Yalu river and destroy the main force away from Pyongyang. And fighting and holding a mountainous isthmus geographically and politically distinct from China is not the same thing as going to China.

Rev Prez

 

[Smurf]

Beijing has barely 200 aircraft that can reach the relevant AOR, and most of those are aging J-8s fighters. Her airmen train at most 110 hours a year, far short of the 180 hours minimum Western air forces can achieve. She has no strategic sealift, no strategic airlift, no strategic bombing capability, and a Navy that consists of few new destroyers, old frigates, and mostly older third-generation diesel submarines. In short, most of what the PLA can toss into a fight was around in 1954 and 1958, when the Taiwanese by themselves managed to rack up a 7 to 1 kill ratio in the air. So what can the Chinese do? They can make good on their claim of Matsu and Quemoy and that's about it.

I think the main fear is in chain's SSM and SAM capabilities, is it not?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

I suggest you actually read up a bit.

Thank you for the interesting links. I'm not going to sit here and read a massive document on naval tactics though, and it's not pertinent anyway. I really don't see the point in discussing barrel sizes or missile range or any of that crap since we are not qualified to know what any of that means. That's my point on your "armchair naval commander" approach here seeming childish to me.

Consider these statistics (source if the World Factbook): The US military expeditures per $GDP is at 3.3%, whereas China's is currently at 4.3% that is that China's military expenditure per $GDP is currently 30% greater than that of the US.

And that is a GDP that the US is contributing to by importing goods, I might add! very smart!

Apparently Rumsfeld does not share you optimistic appraisal of the situation:

http://www.infowars.com/articles/world/china_military_moves_worry_lawmakers.htm

I mean just what I said. What are the interests in mainland China that would necessite invading the mainland?

Get this through your head...it doesn't matter. The Japanese aimed to conquer China. Why the hell else would you put forces their in the first place?

Look here Reverend: if we were ever attacked by China militarily (especially in a confrontation with Taiwan) then we would kick their ass all the way back through their own turf to set an example against making a direct military challenge to the US. I will refer you back to WWII and the use of nuclear weapons on Japan - which was preceded by a planned land invasion of Japan to stop the aggressor - as a case in point. The war with Japan did not end with naval battles, they involved hard fighting on land, a landwar that was planned on being taken to their own capital.

In my opinion, given past precedents set by the US, this would not end at Taiwan (if the Chinese are infact stupid enough to attack Taiwan).

Economically, we are not just going to repel an attack against Taiwan and then say "ok guys, see you later" and leave. We are going to have to get something out of it, like concessions or reparations paid and this would only come with the threat of force (if not actually the force itself) against the Chinese mainland. If they feel safe and secure they will feel the tendency for increasing aggression without reparation or fear.

Besides, the surest path over the Pacific toward the US, is through space, an area that China is making great strides in.

I'm not so sure you are a scientist.

And I do not care what you believe. I think that you are a reverend though, since you preach alot.

The objective in Korea was never to invade China. MacArthur's objective wasn't to invade China either. He planned to drive them north of the Yalu river and destroy the main force away from Pyongyang. And fighting and holding a mountainous isthmus geographically and politically distinct from China is not the same thing as going to China.

You are wrong again:

From wikipedia:

MacArthur sought an extension of the conflict into China, but President Truman refused his request. Later declassified documents indicate that MacArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons on Chinese territory, some sources suggesting as many as 50. A nuclear strike may have drawn the Soviet Union into the war and perhaps launched a Third World War. Truman feared a nuclear exchange and needless Chinese deaths. After heated arguments between the two men, Truman relieved MacArthur of his duty on April 11, 1951.