Israel and USA and conscription

[commanding]

I would like to see some discussion, on why Americans (I am one) think conscription (drafting) is a no go now, when it works so well for Israel. It is my understanding that in Israel everyone, male and female are conscripted into the military at age 18 or so, and serve active duty for a certain time and are reserve (one month training each year) up into their 40s. I realize Israel's existance, and proximity to enemies has a lot to do with this. However, I have a great respect for Israel, and their military...and considering the US had the draft up until about 1972-3, and now is "all volunteer" and there seems to be a mindset in the US military that the all volunteer is so much better and they don't want the draft. However I hear that the US military is stretched thin as can be.
I would like to hear mostly from US folks, both military, ex military etc. BTW I was one that was drafted back in 1971 and the people I was in with (draftees) were excellant soldiers, IMO. Israel military also encouraged to respond.

[tyovan]

Israel needs conscription because its population is so small.
The US has a much larger population, so even by relying on volunteers, we still have a large military force.

[commanding]

Israel needs conscription because its population is so small.
The US has a much larger population, so even by relying on volunteers, we still have a large military force.


Agreed. But is it not true that the US military is "stretched thin" with deployments to Afghan. & Iraq, with many soldiers serving multiple deployments, especially the reserves and guard? Wouldn't a larger full time military relieve the strain on soldiers from multiple deployments? Also perhaps mandatory conscription?? Why is mandatory conscription "wrong" for the US??

[Ordie]

Why is mandatory conscription "wrong" for the US??

Vietnam War

Note: You're about an average of 40 minutes from major Israeli population centers to the nearest border. You need to have an entire society that can pick up arms amd go.

Concription also serves as a cement that binds mulit-ethnic, multi-lingual, and complex Israeli society.

MY opinion: The US should have a national service requirement (civil/military) that could bind US society and give career direction.

[Ordie]

Israel has a very homogenous society

Have you ever been to Israel?

Its anything but homogenous.

[California Joe]

Hell, I had to register with Selective Service in the 80's even...

I'm with Ordie on the national service idea. I don't know how many 18 year olds are even fit for military service these days. They'd probably freak the f*ck out if they couldn't be on facey space for a couple of days let alone boot camp. (He said, while hypocritically screwing around on the interwebs...)

Personally speaking, we as parents always whine that our kids have it too easy, we spoil them rotten, we never want to see any harm come to them, never want to see them drafted, and then wonder why they're so self absorbed.

[commanding]

Vietnam War

Note: You're about an average of 40 minutes from major Israeli population centers to the nearest border. You need to have an entire society that can pick up arms amd go.

Concription also serves as a cement that binds mulit-ethnic, multi-lingual, and complex Israeli society.

MY opinion: The US should have a national service requirement (civil/military) that could bind US society and give career direction.

I agree that the draft in the Vietnam war, left a "bad taste" in the mouth of the public in the US...only because it was percieved as being 'unjust", and in fact it was somewhat due to student deferments, etc. However, I completely agree, that the US would benefit from a mandatory conscription (not sure if it should be civil/military but lean that way) which would BIND the populous, which is also multi ethnic, multi-religious, etc. I fear, that America has become too soft. Look at World War II...the vast numbers of volunteers who joined after Pearl Harbor, and the ability of the public to accept huge loss of human life in battle in the South Pacific...compared to the hand wringing today over loosing 200 soldiers in a month. America had 6,000 casualties taking Guadalcanal in WWII.

Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing this, nor am I trying to make a statement...rather at the age of 62 I am still trying to puzzle out what is best for our country. Age doesn't always bring wisdom.

[commanding]

Hell, I had to register with Selective Service in the 80's even...

I'm with Ordie on the national service idea. I don't know how many 18 year olds are even fit for military service these days. They'd probably freak the f*ck out if they couldn't be on facey space for a couple of days let alone boot camp. (He said, while hypocritically screwing around on the interwebs...)

Personally speaking, we as parents always whine that our kids have it too easy, we spoil them rotten, we never want to see any harm come to them, never want to see them drafted, and then wonder why they're so self absorbed.

CJ, I agree. the saying goes that the MILITARY is at war, the rest of America is at the MALL. I get really sick to my stomach, seeing how spoiled, and unconcerned most Americans, especially the 18 to 30 crowd is, and they are not only unconcerned about the fighting and dying in Afghanistan, but they are ignorant of the sacrifices being made on their behalf. I really get sick/upset about it. I think most of that group 18-30 could be made into soldiers, no matter how spoiled they are, given the proven ability of the military to mold soldiers from jello.

[commanding]

Also, important to me, is why has America changed so much since 1939, when WWII started, men and women both were chomping at the bit to join the military. My own father in law, had to get his mom's permission to join the navy he was so young. Some sailors and soldiers lied and joined when they were maybe 15 or 16, as they were so eager to get in the fray. Now...that is so far from what we are...why??

[commanding]

Mandatory conscription - and not draft lottery as it was in the US, is comparable only to a time to be served in the pen without any crimes committed. Israel has a very homogenous society - even if there's three religions and many nations - towards the importance of defence. The mandatory conscription in Israel also a means to prepare its citizens to be able to defend themselves (see Krav Maga, for example)

So you are saying that mandatory conscription, either in the US, Israel, or wherever, is comparable to time in prison? Don't you think that every citizen should give back to his country a chunk of time (besides taxes throughout life)? I think a chunk of time (draft) is not too much to ask a citizen to give to his/her country. What is 2 or 3 years compared to a lifespan of 80 or so? Also I believe military service instills in a person not only maturity, but also a deep feeling of appreciation for his country and fellow man.

[commanding]

There is an old saying, attributed to Stalin that "Quanity has a quality all its own." I think to some extent this is true for soldiers. A million men and women in uniform, has a quality, that must be reckoned with. If those million men are provided with quality weapons, food, and gear, then the force is a standing deterrent to foreign military aggression.

The best example I can think of to demonstrate the Quanity quote, is the US Sherman tank of WWII, versus the heavier superior German tanks it faced. The worst example was the Iraqi army versus the coalition armies.

[MichaelF]

What, pray tell, are we supposed to do with the >2,000,000 personnel reaching military age annually?

Just feeding and clothing (never mind giving them pocket money) that many additional personnel/annum would double the budget requirements of every Service.

[Kaplanr]

Also, important to me, is why has America changed so much since 1939, when WWII started, men and women both were chomping at the bit to join the military. My own father in law, had to get his mom's permission to join the navy he was so young. Some sailors and soldiers lied and joined when they were maybe 15 or 16, as they were so eager to get in the fray. Now...that is so far from what we are...why??

I'm not so sure I agree that all those things you thik changed really have; and that's not to elevate today's or yesterday's generation (Xers and Yers) more than they should be, or to denigrate the "Greatest Generation" in any respect. My perspective is as someone who served in the IDF, lived in Israel for 10 years, had two brothers who waived their deferments and were drafted during Vietnam (didn't get over though) and a father (and uncles) who served in WWII.

The reality is comparing any 2 eras is difficult, and comparing the late 30s and WWII to any other in the last 100 years is (IMHO) almost impossible. From an American perspective, only the period preceding the Civil War has the weight of the pre-war (WWII) and wartime period. Having said that, I don't think the patriotic enthusiasm post 9/11 is significantly different than the post Pearl Harbor level and the resultant upswing in volunteers for the Army, Navy and Marine Corps. Between 1940 (institution of the Selective Service Act, and 1945, about 10 million men were inducted or conscripted, against 16 million who served. Patriotism aside, the manpower needs of the Army (incl. the USAAF) and USMC couldn't rely on voluntary service; they required conscription.

Going back to 1940 and earlier, Lindbergh wasn't a wing-nut, until he started idealizing the Nazis a little. The Selective Service bill passed in 1940 was only good for 12 months and its renewal in August 1941 passed the house by 1 vote. In addition, the idea of the population being willing to take heavy casualties isn't so clear. Photos of US casualties didn't start appearing in any numbers until 1943 and later, and the casualty numbers from Tarawa were held back for months. If we'd had then the immediacy of communications we have tdoay, I'm not so sure we'd have made it past Tarawa or New Guinea.

So much for the background. I agree with what Joe said that a combination of National/military service wopuld be beneficial, and is what's in place in Germany and Switzerland, not to mention Israel for the military side of things. Truth be told though, even the Israeli model is very flawed. While Ordie is correct, Israel is not homogenous, the sector(s) who go through conscription are to a great degree. It's the exemptions that weaken the process - Ultra Orthodox and Arabs (excluding Druze and Circassians.) The exempt are then also excluded or often times excluded from benefits and patronage that result from army service. As a social unifier, there is no underestimating the IDF's importance in an immigrant society.

The same was also true of the US experiences in WWI and WWII; it's when the southerners and northerners saw the other wasn't a lost cause, and that the Irish, Jews and Catholics werern't the going to be the death of the republic. It took until Korea for African Americans to derive the benefits (if one can say as such) of the forced melting pot that conscription promotes. The fallacy of the Vietnam period is that the lottery is inherently unfair, and the availability of deferments compounds that unfairness.

[vryhpyammoadded]

I’m all for a national service requirement and totally against random conscription; everyone capable of service must serve for some minimum period with volunteers in for the long run.

I’ve always been active in my neighborhoods knowing and supporting friends and families in need with one of my favorite activities being guiding whatever kids lacking a plan getting into the military instead of wasting their early adult years rudderless without a clue. Even the few that went with the Guard have come back ready with a plan and the energy to get something done with their life. Basic and AIT simply does them more good than their entire public education, family, community and the **** tube when it comes to growing up and getting a direction.

[commanding]

What, pray tell, are we supposed to do with the >2,000,000 personnel reaching military age annually?

Just feeding and clothing (never mind giving them pocket money) that many additional personnel/annum would double the budget requirements of every Service.

I don't pretend to know all the answers. I am just disturbed by the lack of caring/ commitment/ duty to country mindset/ of military age people in the USA today. Maybe it is just an active draft that ignores deferments, and selects those that the SS boards deems suited?? I don't know.

[commanding]

I’m all for a national service requirement and totally against random conscription...


I guess i am dense..this doesn't seem to make sense to me. seems like two conflicting statements. How do you get to national service without random conscription?

[Ordie]

I’m all for a national service requirement and totally against random conscription; everyone capable of service must serve for some minimum period with volunteers in for the long run.

I’ve always been active in my neighborhoods knowing and supporting friends and families in need with one of my favorite activities being guiding whatever kids lacking a plan getting into the military instead of wasting their early adult years rudderless without a clue. Even the few that went with the Guard have come back ready with a plan and the energy to get something done with their life. Basic and AIT simply does them more good than their entire public education, family, community and the **** tube when it comes to growing up and getting a direction.

X2

I would not be bad to take young people from the South and send them to Alaska or vice versa. It gives an opportunity for Americans to see how other Americans lives.

[commanding]

Having said that, I don't think the patriotic enthusiasm post 9/11 is significantly different than the post Pearl Harbor level and the resultant upswing in volunteers for the Army, Navy and Marine Corps. .

I pretty much agree with everything you say, especially the unifying of the social strata via the conscription. the only thing I disagree with you said is that I do think there is less patriotic enthusiasm in the US between 9-11 and now, than there was in WWII, especially in the civilian population. The nation is not on a "war footing" now. Also the focus of the civilian US pop. seems to be on everything except the war in Afghanistan now. I don't see rationing of food and gas, nor auto plants being converted to make tanks, workers making Liberty ships on the west coast, civil defense wardens on every block, Liberty bonds, etc.

obviously there would not be a need for that many tanks or liberty ships...it is the focus of the society I am pointing out.

[Hollis]

Agreed on some kind of National Service for all citizens. OH Yes, with benefits. (like education benefits on successful completion of their service)

[Wahnsinn]

I don't pretend to know all the answers. I am just disturbed by the lack of caring/ commitment/ duty to country mindset/ of military age people in the USA today. Maybe it is just an active draft that ignores deferments, and selects those that the SS boards deems suited?? I don't know.

You would probably be suprised at how much the youth of today care for their respective country, whether you see it in the ways you expect or not.


I guess i am dense..this doesn't seem to make sense to me. seems like two conflicting statements. How do you get to national service without random conscription?

You conscript everyone who reaches a certain age.

National service like the German system might help society but I fail to see how giving all men in the US military training really benefits anyone.

[SoftLion]

I guess i am dense..this doesn't seem to make sense to me. seems like two conflicting statements. How do you get to national service without random conscription?

National service = everyone serves, vs. randomized conscription (ie draft) where those conscripted are based on some sort of lottery system or otherwise. And I agree with his sentiments against random conscription - why scapegoat some and force others? Highly unlikely either of those systems will be put in place here anytime soon, however.

[TallGuy]

Well, maybe conscription like in the Nordic countries would be OK. You serve for a year and have to volunteer for overseas duty(if needed)..

[Kaplanr]

I pretty much agree with everything you say, especially the unifying of the social strata via the conscription. the only thing I disagree with you said is that I do think there is less patriotic enthusiasm in the US between 9-11 and now, than there was in WWII, especially in the civilian population. The nation is not on a "war footing" now. Also the focus of the civilian US pop. seems to be on everything except the war in Afghanistan now. I don't see rationing of food and gas, nor auto plants being converted to make tanks, workers making Liberty ships on the west coast, civil defense wardens on every block, Liberty bonds, etc.

obviously there would not be a need for that many tanks or liberty ships...it is the focus of the society I am pointing out.

Absolutely; there is a tremendous disconnect between the military role and the homefront. It was true in Gulf War I too. I think part of it is an unintended consequence of the volunteer army; the military is "them", not "us". As for the post 9/11 period, it's been almost 10 years - that's 1/2 a generation ago.

I think the other issue that mitigates against it here in the US, is that it would be seen as a coercive intrusion for no good reason (no immediate threat) by big government. All the social reasons we talked about certainly wouldn't fly. Aside from that, there are those who say the lower-wage labor market would suffer as would the college/university based economies.

[commanding]

Absolutely; there is a tremendous disconnect between the military role and the homefront. It was true in Gulf War I too. I think part of it is an unintended consequence of the volunteer army; the military is "them", not "us". As for the post 9/11 period, it's been almost 10 years - that's 1/2 a generation ago.

I think the other issue that mitigates against it here in the US, is that it would be seen as a coercive intrusion for no good reason (no immediate threat) by big government. All the social reasons we talked about certainly wouldn't fly. Aside from that, there are those who say the lower-wage labor market would suffer as would the college/university based economies.

I agree. what worries me also is that there could be a need for massive military manpower, in the event of of a devastating terrorist attack (to guard borders, transit hubs, drinking water etc), and we would be caught with our proverbial pants down. (I know there is a selective service in place)
As for the 1/2 generation since 9-11.....studying the mindset of guerilla warfare and terrorist threat, their (the enemy)realization that time works for them, and they are willing to go slow/ wait....(see Ho Chi Minh etc) ....and do the flea biting the elephant trick. I worry that we are not mentally prepared for a drawnout shooting conflict.

[commanding]

National service = everyone serves, vs. randomized conscription (ie draft) where those conscripted are based on some sort of lottery system or otherwise. And I agree with his sentiments against random conscription - why scapegoat some and force others? Highly unlikely either of those systems will be put in place here anytime soon, however.
Well "national service" = everyone serves has both good and bad points, as one poster said how do we pay for that w/ 4 million kids turning 18, but on the other hand, removing 4 million from the civilian workforce would make more jobs available in the civilian arena.
I really think the US did it wrong back during the vietnam era, they drafted men for two years but if you joined you went for 4 years active duty. They should say we will draft you for 4 years, or you can join for 2 or three, thus encourageing people to join? Is that a bad idea? grasping at straws here..

[Dragonscript]

I would also like to see a National service, but voluntary. Make it so that if you do National Service then you can vote, go to a 4 years state college for free and some other benefits. If they don't do National service, then they can't vote and have to pay for college out of pocket, or student loans.

National Service means you serve for at least two years in a government approved program, like the military, forestry, civil service and such.

[deagle]

its hard to say with conscription. some of them feel like a part of a country and can raise pride, unless they're treated like cannon fodder and without respect, which will brew discontent and hatred. even a draft could foster greater pride or resentment depending on how mission statement is worded.

[hatchet_harry]

imo, conscription is the model of choice for armies with solely defensive tasks. defend the home turf against external aggressors, that's what they're best at.

vietnam war showed, that offensive wars far away from home tend not to run to smoothly with conscripts. that's where professional armies come in. no questions asked whether you're fighting for a just cause or not, you all volunteered and you knew the deal.

i also have this theory, that you can't keep a professional army in the barracks. they want to apply what they were trained for.

i'm from switzerland, we have compulsory service and hold it in high regard. the israeli system is often looked up to as what our army possibly could be, given the threat, funds and mostly will.

a conscript army has it's strengths, you have people of all trades serving. you need a guard house, you let the carpenter loose, after that comes the electrician and you even have light in there. stupid example but you get the point. also: there are no, or less, basket cases in the army. "didn't finish high school? got fired? **** it, i'll go for army" is not a career option here.

as for national service: that was always one of my favourite subjects to wind up feminists, by demanding a mandatory service for women and men p-). but what would that be without replacing paid jobs?

[JKD]

A national service plan with a non-military option could be a good thing. I think it might be better to make it voluntary though. Give participants money for college, similar to the GI Bill.

It could instill discipline, life experience, physical fitness, and work ethic in a lot of kids who might not be interested in, or suited for, joining the military.

[GiladS]

i'm from switzerland, we have compulsory service and hold it in high regard. the israeli system is often looked up to as what our army possibly could be, given the threat, funds and mostly will.


If I'm not mistaken the IDF was established based on the Swiss military model.

[DaGreatRV]

If I may chip in as non-American. :roll:

I am registered as draft eligeble, I have a vocational degree in electrical engineering, so ods are high that I would be drafted if **** hits the fan.
(Draft was suspended in 1996, not abolished.)

To be honest if I had to serve when turning 18 I would not have lasted, I was/am kind of slow to mature. But now I'm 22yo and I feel a whole lot stronger mentally.
So I would like to propose a system where you have to serve a certain amount of time at your time of choosing. Ofcourse there have to be limits, but a range between 18 and 27 would be reasonable. People should not have to interrupt their education and most people will finish up their education between 18 and 27.

Those unfit for military service should be offered a form of non-military service, like elderly care, etc... Besides I think most people would end up in a form of non-military service anyway, way to many people reach military service age per annum.

Oh yeah, both men and women should be drafted, only drafting men is discriminatory towards men.

[baboon6]

If the US is going to carry on fighting expeditionary wars, wars of national interest rather than wars of national survival, then conscription is a complete waste of time. And as someone posted above, where would the money come from to clothe, equip, train and house these conscripts?

[Player]

If I'm not mistaken the IDF was established based on the Swiss military model.

Forgive my ignorance but wasn't it the British model?

[Wahnsinn]

If they don't do National service, then they can't vote and have to pay for college out of pocket, or student loans.


I'm sorry but you cannot take away somebodies right to vote because they haven't done national service. You should have that right anyway.

[Kaplanr]

Forgive my ignorance but wasn't it the British model?

Nope, it was the Swiss model, especially the reserve component.

[Player]

Nope, it was the Swiss model, especially the reserve component.

I see, thanks.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

First of all, I think it's a political issue, not one of necessity. It's what either country will tolerate politically. I think that conscription works in Israel and not in the US because Israel's military "mission" if you like, is confined to defense. It's eminently justifiable to every citizen.

America's military, on the other hand, is asked to perform far more politically motivated and strategic missions (i.e. protecting our interests abroad). Sometimes those interests are politically treacherous - protecting oil, or pax Americana etc. As such, our soldiers could be said to be far less necessary, and the expense of their lives far more questionable. It's therefore politically necessary under our democracy that they have volunteered for this life, and not be seen as being forced into it by whoever is at the helm at the moment.

Also, I think it serves as a necessary mitigating factor/safety valve during our wars. As bad as troop losses are, we're able to bear them...one reason being that each and every one knows the danger and accepts it. Our wars would be quite different if we were forced into serving - there'd be no pussyfooting around building goodwill and all this crap while we took serious losses. In very short time we'd wind up stomping regions flat in order to minimize our losses, and worrying about the political ramifications later. Just my .02

[GB_FXST]

I'm sorry but you cannot take away somebodies right to vote because they haven't done national service. You should have that right anyway.

I believe that in the US, a “serve to vote” type proposal, or law, would raise a whole host of constitutional issues, starting with the first amendment.

[hatchet_harry]

If I'm not mistaken the IDF was established based on the Swiss military model.and has obviously evolved since :) seriously, i wasn't aware of that.


If they don't do National service, then they can't votehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMTz9nIUkGc
"service guarantees citizenship."


...my thoughts exactly.

one point i forgot about, though it's not an issue for americans (at least at the moment). you cannot really use a conscript army against your own people. people tend not to shoot on their own kin. so if anyone of you is ever going to be a dictator, conscript is not the way to go.

[Panchito12]

Israel has no room for error thus a need for a HUGE standing army vis-a-vis their population.

We have a HUGE professional, long-term force. In a serious conflict the pros act as the stop gap force until the draftees can come into line, then they lead the same draftees.

[GiladS]

Also one must take into consideration the implications a conscript military has on the economy.

Here in Israel people in their late teens or/and late twenties can't begin their academic education like their peers in other countries, unless it's via an IDF program.

Also the use of our reserve forces during conflict has to be limited. A victory or a favorable outcome must be fast as denying our economy such a huge and vital workforce would bring collapse.

[Dragonscript]

I'm sorry but you cannot take away somebodies right to vote because they haven't done national service. You should have that right anyway.

The government can, and does, take that right away. If you commit a felony crime, you can't vote anymore.

The government does not need to make National Service difficult, working at an animal shelter would work under my idea. It wouldn't be difficult, teachers, police, firefighters, military and such would already be included.

If you don't give someone something positive, other than money, for doing it, then you have to force people to do it. What would be a better system? Where you are forced to do something for the government or go to jail/fined; or volunteer to do something you want to do and get a reward?

[IraGlacialis]

I am just disturbed by the lack of caring/ commitment/ duty to country mindset/ of military age people in the USA today. Maybe it is just an active draft that ignores deferments, and selects those that the SS boards deems suited?? I don't know.
I could argue that if conscription gets put in place, there is a good chance that affluent parents of the really spoiled kids (not saying that affluence=spoiled, but I am arguing about the combo of the two) will be able to pull some strings to let their precious little ones dodge the draft; no system is fully immune to that.
This will likely cause some stir with those who aren't so fortunate to have connections.
On a flip side, I guess, that would mean that kids can no longer afford to be apathetic to what is going on.

And, sorry for opening another can of worms, but if conscription gets put in place, I am suspecting that DADT will have to be taken out or at least looked over really intently.

That being said, for younger Americans, I support mandatory civil service. Such as making programs such as Boy/Girl Scouts part of the school curriculum. Once they get older, they can choose for themselves the path they want to go; mandatory service at an older age will probably be met with more resistance as late teens/young adults are less pliable than children.

Military conscription, besides being obviously controversial, is fairly impractical for such a large nation that is in no immediate danger of being invaded or destabilized by unruly factions.

[ingsoc75]

Imagine what the university systems would be like without 18-20 year old student body. I wonder if the the federal government would repeal the National Minimum Drinking Act of 1984.

[Zarak]

75% of the males I knew in High School enlisted after they graduated and this was just a few years ago, in a fairly well off area. I think the image that 18-30 year olds today are spoiled pussies is somewhat overblown, although there are definitely more than enough of them.

Also, Selective Service still exists, but I'd be ****ed if I had to find my card.

[LineDoggie]

For one thing is mindset. In Israel I would say the young people understand that they must serve to defend their families and country. Here Our Young people are more interested in whether or not Miley Cyrus was pole dancing at the awards show.

[GiladS]

Imagine what the university systems would be like without 18-20 year old student body. I wonder if the the federal government would repeal the National Minimum Drinking Act of 1984.

I know this is OT but still...

I'll never understand how in the United States when a person reaches the age of 18 he can join the armed forces, with the chance of getting maimed or killed... yet he can't go to a bar and buy an f***ing beer for example. :cantbeli:

[OrangeWolf]

For one thing is mindset. In Israel I would say the young people understand that they must serve to defend their families and country. Here Our Young people are more interested in whether or not Miley Cyrus was pole dancing at the awards show.

Well, that goes for a great deal of Israelis I met too. I even met one dude who evaded the draft, I hated his guts for many reasons, by the way (Hadash lunatic). Then again plenty of people who just accept it and make the best of it but might complain about the travel times from base to home. And many people who are totally comitted to the IDF. And some who see it as religious duty. It's very diverse, but there's unfortunately a part of Israeli youth who care more about the pole dancing then to serve the country.

[LineDoggie]

However, I completely agree, that the US would benefit from a mandatory conscription (not sure if it should be civil/military but lean that way) which would BIND the populous, which is also multi ethnic, multi-religious, etc. I fear, that America has become too soft. Look at World War II...the vast numbers of volunteers who joined after Pearl Harbor, and the ability of the public to accept huge loss of human life in battle in the South Pacific...compared to the hand wringing today over loosing 200 soldiers in a month. America had 6,000 casualties taking Guadalcanal in WWII.

Soft, Self Absorbed, and unlike the generation of WWII Didnt grow up on Years of conspiracy theories, evil Government, bashing whichever party was in Power and we didnt get to know every detail about the CiC. Many of those serving never knew FDR was crippled, the press knew and never wrote about it.
Can you imagine todays media giving a Pres. that break today?

In addition if we again suffered the casualties we took on June 6th 1944 alone, the press would be full court screaming for Blood of the Joint Chiefs and President.

As well Hollywood and Popular media put forth the idea that the Draft was only for poor Whites and Blacks with little prospects and that you will serve with back shooting drug addicts and Baby Killers. That if your rich or a College Kid you can side step it. Your a kid growing up and bombarded with that, go figure that you want nothing to do with serving.

[LineDoggie]

I know this is OT but still...

I'll never understand how in the United States when a person reaches the age of 18 he can join the armed forces, with the chance of getting maimed or killed... yet he can't go to a bar and buy an f***ing beer for example. :cantbeli:
The law changed. When I went in in 1981 legal drinking age was 18 in NY and the states I was stationed in, & on Base. I firmly believe if we give one the right and responsibility to Serve, to Vote, we should as well give them the right to drink.

[GiladS]

Well, that goes for a great deal of Israelis I met too. I even met one dude who evaded the draft, I hated his guts for many reasons, by the way (Hadash lunatic). Then again plenty of people who just accept it and make the best of it but might complain about the travel times from base to home. And many people who are totally comitted to the IDF. And some who see it as religious duty. It's very diverse, but there's unfortunately a part of Israeli youth who care more about the pole dancing then to serve the country.

Quite true... it is not the same as when my dad served in the Paratroops during the 60s or even when my brothers served a decade ago in Lebanon.

However as I have seen first hand and as the numbers show, the great majority of Israelis willingly go (and at times even fight to go) to combat units.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1248277924261

[commanding]

75% of the males I knew in High School enlisted after they graduated and this was just a few years ago, in a fairly well off area. I think the image that 18-30 year olds today are spoiled pussies is somewhat overblown, although there are definitely more than enough of them.

Also, Selective Service still exists, but I'd be ****ed if I had to find my card.

75% of the males you knew in HS enlisted after graduation? My gawd, where do you live?

[Zarak]

75% of the males you knew in HS enlisted after graduation? My gawd, where do you live?

I grew up in the suburbs near Denver. The kids that drove their momma's Mercedes to school didn't enlist, of course, but the vast majority of the kids from middle-income families did. Lockheed Martin is a major employer in the area so perhaps that, combined with the presence of a large number of military installations in Colorado, may have played a part.

[PeterRJG]

I would also like to see a National service, but voluntary. Make it so that if you do National Service then you can vote, go to a 4 years state college for free and some other benefits. If they don't do National service, then they can't vote and have to pay for college out of pocket, or student loans.

National Service means you serve for at least two years in a government approved program, like the military, forestry, civil service and such.

What you're saying sounds pretty much like what citizenship in Starship Troopers gives.

Just saying.

[MichaelF]

The primary arguments against Universal Conscription (as opposed to the Draft) in the United States are logistical.

Too many new inductees per year, every year.

Too much turnover to supply an Expeditionary Warfare-oriented force with trained and experienced Soldiers (Sailors, Marines, Airmen). Unless we had a minimum TOS of 36 months (like Israel).

Too costly.

What do we arm them with? Unless we are generating two dozen or so foot or truck-mounted Light Infantry Divisions, there is not enough in the way of organic transport or IFVs to go around.

Where would we garrison them? Train them? Maneuver them? Most of the old Forts that contained the Army of the United States (the official name of the Conscript Army) are gone or reduced in size and capacity.

How do we keep the 10% (who now number in the hundreds of thousands) in line? Draconian enforcement of the UCMJ? The return of Charlie's Chicken Farm? Doubt it's a seller, with Congress.

Barring the United States gearing up for a major Planetary conflict (in which case everything is on the table), I don't see it. It would require way too much of a manual adjustment to the civilian society, which is notoriously unresponsive to such.

[Yoni-R]

CJ, I agree. the saying goes that the MILITARY is at war, the rest of America is at the MALL. I get really sick to my stomach, seeing how spoiled, and unconcerned most Americans, especially the 18 to 30 crowd is, and they are not only unconcerned about the fighting and dying in Afghanistan, but they are ignorant of the sacrifices being made on their behalf. I really get sick/upset about it. I think most of that group 18-30 could be made into soldiers, no matter how spoiled they are, given the proven ability of the military to mold soldiers from jello.

the military allows the rest of america to be at the mall, without worrying about a bus blowing up, a suicide bomber detonating in a school or ground forces invading. but i do get what you are saying about the youth not caring.

im for a mandatory national service, people can choose between either going to the military for x years or cleaning the streets/helping disadvantaged communities for x years. something like that.
this caters for the anti-war, pacifist group and they one who are too fat and lazy to do a bit of jogging, which i believe there are more than enough.

[AZZenny]

Interesting that about a year ago on a different forum, I brought up the idea of mandatory national service/military service for 2 years, with certain educational benefits/opportunities at the other end. The political divide in the response was really strange. Nearly all the left-of-center folks were strongly for it, and most of the right-of-center were fiercely against it -- as an unacceptable restriction on free citizens, etc. etc. The concept of being responsible to and for your country and your fellow citizens was pretty much laughed down. Now, admittedly, in AZ those folks seem to have a rather libertarian bent, but I've since asked a lot of people once I get a feel for their politics, and it has held up pretty well: more liberal people support mandatory service than not, and on the right, it runs slightly the other way -- except for parents of late-adolescents, who regardless of politics, generally are all for it.

[Angelino]

I signed up for the Selective Service immediately after I got my green card. It was a legal requirement at that time for males older than 18 (probably still is) and I willingly did it about 2 days after landing here (figured I owed America something :))

As a matter of fact, when you interview for your US citizenship, they ask you if you have registered or not and ask for your registration card and number. My one-time boss told me that he hadn't registered for selective service after he got his green card, so when he applied for citizenship and went to the interview, they denied it on those grounds and he had to sign up for selective service and then go back through the whole citizenship process a second time around (which took a good year or so). So before I applied for my citizenship, I made darned sure I knew where my draft card was (searched the whole apartment for it and finally found it. I even got a duplicate copy ordered, just in case I misplaced it again) and 8 months later, when it came time for my interview, I walked into the room carrying it.

[iloxos]

Adding conscripts to the army as it is? Does really USA needs 2-3 million conscripts??? Isn't the professional army strong enough to fight AK-47 armed "terrorists"? Who will pay for an army of 3-4 million people just to see them loosing their time standing guard in central USA?
If anyone thought of a total replacement of the professional force did he thought that a good soldier needs 2-3 years only to get out of the army the next day and forgetting most of the stuff in 3-4 years? Even if a conscript comes back for retraining the filling is lost and the new technology makes his a total stranger. Did anyone think that a conscript need new weaponry that is easier to use and maintain?


I did my 2 years loosing precious time of my life + the time I was unemployed + the time I needed to refresh my memory after being away from my profession. Total wasted time = nearly 3 years. 3 Years that I could work getting extra money and knowledge.
Now I am called once every two-four years supposedly re-learning new weapons… How the hell one can leap from 2 years only in an M60 to a two week monkey course every second-forth year to a new Leo2A6 and is expected to cover casualties??? Can this unit fight a professional force?

Conscription in 21st century for all western modern armies is a joke. The only countries that keep it is the ones hunted by or hunting ghosts.

[GiladS]

I'll play the "Devil's advocate" here...


Adding conscripts to the army as it is? Does really USA needs 2-3 million conscripts??? Isn't the professional army strong enough to fight AK-47 armed "terrorists"? Who will pay for an army of 3-4 million people just to see them loosing their time standing guard in central USA?
And how can you be so sure that AK-47 armed terrorists will be the most significant challenge the U.S will have to face in the upcoming 10 years (for example)?

We can't forget North Korea and Iran (some would probably add China and Russia) that already pose a threat to U.S interests and possible regime change in Pakistan and Egypt that could very well cahnge the global map of threats.

Having a large reserve of trained military could come in handy when there is civil unrest or at times of a national disaster.


If anyone thought of a total replacement of the professional force did he thought that a good soldier needs 2-3 years only to get out of the army the next day and forgetting most of the stuff in 3-4 years? Even if a conscript comes back for retraining the filling is lost and the new technology makes his a total stranger.

That's why here in Israel every reservist has to return to his military framework for at least one month on a yearly basis. During this time he either conducts training or training followed by operational activities.

Also, though I doubt this is intentional, IDF reservists are the last in line to get new technology and usually use what they had during their service.


Did anyone think that a conscript need new weaponry that is easier to use and maintain?

Sorry but I lost you there mate.


Now I am called once every two-four years supposedly re-learning new weapons… How the hell one can leap from 2 years only in an M60 to a two week monkey course every second-forth year to a new Leo2A6 and is expected to cover casualties??? Can this unit fight a professional force?

That's a failed policy on behalf of your country's MoD/military.

Training has to be on a yearly basis and for much more than one week.

[commanding]

The primary arguments against Universal Conscription (as opposed to the Draft) in the United States are logistical.

Too many new inductees per year, every year.

Too much turnover to supply an Expeditionary Warfare-oriented force with trained and experienced Soldiers (Sailors, Marines, Airmen). Unless we had a minimum TOS of 36 months (like Israel).

Too costly.

What do we arm them with? Unless we are generating two dozen or so foot or truck-mounted Light Infantry Divisions, there is not enough in the way of organic transport or IFVs to go around.

Where would we garrison them? Train them? Maneuver them? Most of the old Forts that contained the Army of the United States (the official name of the Conscript Army) are gone or reduced in size and capacity.

How do we keep the 10% (who now number in the hundreds of thousands) in line? Draconian enforcement of the UCMJ? The return of Charlie's Chicken Farm? Doubt it's a seller, with Congress.

Barring the United States gearing up for a major Planetary conflict (in which case everything is on the table), I don't see it. It would require way too much of a manual adjustment to the civilian society, which is notoriously unresponsive to such.

I agree that many/most of the old forts, which by the way were perfectly "good"...the Feds have close. Fort Ord, California was a huge perfectly good fort which the Feds closed. So if a universal conscription was put into place...it might be necessary to make some new forts and housing. The Feds should NEVER have closed and abandoned those big forts like Ord. Still there are some huge forts left, Ft. Hood is one.
Perhaps there needs to be some kind of modified draft put into place.
"The draft" and "universal service" both bring people into the military, that otherwise would not join voluntarily, and many of them adapt and become good soldiers, and many are highly trained, bright people.

[iloxos]

And how can you be so sure that AK-47 armed terrorists will be the most significant challenge the U.S will have to face in the upcoming 10 years (for example)?
We can't forget North Korea and Iran (some would probably add China and Russia) that already pose a threat to U.S interests and possible regime change in Pakistan and Egypt that could very well cahnge the global map of threats.


do you really believe my friend that North Korea or Iran will attack US? With what??? With nukes?? Nuke them back. You don't need 2 mill reserves for that.


Having a large reserve of trained military could come in handy when there is civil unrest or at times of a national disaster.


Make more fire brigade and civil defence units. Marines and apaches can't put out a fire.

Civil arrest??? Give half the money spent to Afghanistan to US citizens and you ll have no problems at all.



That's why here in Israel every reservist has to return to his military framework for at least one month on a yearly basis. During this time he either conducts training or training followed by operational activities.


Israel is not USA and Israel looses productivity 1 month a year for all its economy.



Also, though I doubt this is intentional, IDF reservists are the last in line to get new technology and usually use what they had during their service.

that’s the only country in the world to do so. do you thing a 35 year old reserve sergeant can fight the same with a professional?


Sorry but I lost you there mate.

I meant that reserves need lower grade material to use since new technology cant be easily absorbed. Also simple equipment cant brake and need less maintenance.
Check the soviet unions weaponry.


That's a failed policy on behalf of your country's MoD/military. Training has to be on a yearly basis and for much more than one week.

Can’t afford it. We are 11 million people with an army large as GB…

Not mentioning that we need the work days to work and not fire with our G3s

[GiladS]

do you really believe my friend that North Korea or Iran will attack US? With what??? With nukes?? Nuke them back. You don't need 2 mill reserves for that.


Not attack the U.S directly, but U.S interests in the Persian Gulf/Korean Peninsula.

Conventional conflict with these countries isn't impossible... maybe improbable.


Make more fire brigade and civil defence units. Marines and apaches can't put out a fire.

You are aware that conscription wouldn't be exclusive to the Marines and that fires aren't the only possible disasters? For example the USCG played a key role during Hurricane Katrina.


Civil arrest??? Give half the money spent to Afghanistan to US citizens and you ll have no problems at all.

I think you are oversimplifying things...


Israel is not USA and Israel looses productivity 1 month a year for all its economy.


That would be true if Israel drafted all of it's workforce at the same time during periods of calm simply for training.

It doesn't work that way.

Though I have acknowledged and specified the economic shortcomings of a conscript military and reserve force.



that’s the only country in the world to do so. do you thing a 35 year old reserve sergeant can fight the same with a professional?


Why not? As long as the state makes sure that a discharged soldier preserves his comabt readiness on a yearly basis. Also the IDF doesn't wage war based on individuals but based on the synergy between reserve and regular forces.



I meant that reserves need lower grade material to use since new technology cant be easily absorbed. Also simple equipment cant brake and need less maintenance.


Well I believe this is less true with infantry but more relevant to military branches using heavier and more sophisticated weaponry (Armored Corps for example).

As I mentioned our reserves will usually use what they used during their regular service and whatever new tech is integrated, a lot more time and resources will be spent to assimilate it within these forces.



Check the soviet unions weaponry.


We have a lot of experiance in this field and have even adopted Soviet made weapons.



Can’t afford it. We are 11 million people with an army large as GB…

Not mentioning that we need the work days to work and not fire with our G3s


Then in your case it would be better to have a smaller and well maintained proffesional military rather than a big yet neglected conscript military.

[MichaelF]

alas, i need to point out one more aspect: a good number of extra NCOs/WOs/Officers are needed to staff newly created divisions.

The going theory is similar to what we did in the period immediately prior to our entry into WWII:

Break up current BCTs, and use their professional Soldiers as cadre to lead the incoming conscripts. Probably activate a lot of Reserve and Guard personnel, as well. Every BCT becomes a Division (cloning itself into 3 additional BCTs) equivalent.

In a Mobilization (gearing up for a War), we run a dragnet through the ROTC battalions, all 3rd and 4th Year Cadets are Commissioned (and sent to their Basic Officer Courses). This effectively quadruples our supply of 2LTs. Combined with a recall of IRR and Retired Officers and NCOs, we have enough skilled personnel to Staff an Army very much larger than we have today.

Given the low ebb of our arsenal stockpiles (tanks, IFVs, etc), I'm betting any additional divisions (over the current level) would be Army of Excellence-era Light Infantry Divisions. ~10,000 personnel, limited heavy equipment.

[Wahnsinn]

The government can, and does, take that right away. If you commit a felony crime, you can't vote anymore.


But that is a rather different issue, a crime has a punishment that you must take if you decide to commit the crime. A criminal has disregarded the law in his country so should have no part in electing somebody to make the laws to which he cannot abide by.

I think young people these days aren't so bothered about voting as the older generation as the sacrafice that was made to ensure they can vote is somewhat forgotten. This wouldn't help at all.

[California Joe]

Before everyone gets too bogged down in the "military" details of "national service", which Michael has already eloquently pointed out would be a logistics nightmare and largely untennable...

I'd like to return to the idea of national service, any service, as a means of stimulating a sense of pride and national unity in the youth of a very diverse country. Educational benefits at the end of it would certainly be a plus.

The high school my kids attend have what they call a "Capstone Project" that every Senior must complete to graduate. They have to plan and execute a project that will enhance the community. It works very well, and I think the kids benefit a great deal from it.

[Dragonscript]

What you're saying sounds pretty much like what citizenship in Starship Troopers gives.

Just saying.

I guess it is very similar, but civilian service would also be included, not just military. In my mind it would be civilian focused instead of military focused.




But that is a rather different issue, a crime has a punishment that you must take if you decide to commit the crime. A criminal has disregarded the law in his country so should have no part in electing somebody to make the laws to which he cannot abide by.

I think young people these days aren't so bothered about voting as the older generation as the sacrafice that was made to ensure they can vote is somewhat forgotten. This wouldn't help at all.


It may have a different cause but has the same effect in the end. We, in which i mean society, does not have to take the vote away from felons, but we choose to do so anyway.

You can make this a simple process. Make it a ten year plan; for the next ten years everybody gets the right to vote for "free", and grandfather everybody over 18 in also. During those ten years create the infrastructure and programs that would be eligible. Each person needs to do two years of National Service but make it so teenagers can break it up into summer programs, like community cleanup programs. Make it so if someone tries hard enough they can still vote by the age of 18 and get a free college ride; if not it can become something everybody does before they go off to college.

[Wahnsinn]

It may have a different cause but has the same effect in the end. We, in which i mean society, does not have to take the vote away from felons, but we choose to do so anyway.


But a criminal has done something to deserve having his right to vote taken away. A teenager unwilling to do some service for their community shouldn't have that right taken away like a criminal would, for they have commited no crime.

[SBL]

But a criminal has done something to deserve having his right to vote taken away. A teenager unwilling to do some service for their community shouldn't have that right taken away like a criminal would, for they have commited no crime.
Yeah, but teenagers are idiots.

[Wahnsinn]

Yeah, but teenagers are idiots.

Some teenagers are idiots.

[SBL]

Some teenagers are idiots.
All of them.

[Wahnsinn]

All of them.

If you say so. I'd say 20-25 year olds are worse.

[SBL]

If you say so. I'd say 20-25 year olds are worse.
Shut up, idiot.

[commanding]

Before everyone gets too bogged down in the "military" details of "national service", which Michael has already eloquently pointed out would be a logistics nightmare and largely untennable...

I'd like to return to the idea of national service, any service, as a means of stimulating a sense of pride and national unity in the youth of a very diverse country. Educational benefits at the end of it would certainly be a plus.

.
I agree with CJ...providing the service would be something that instilled responsibility, pride, and a military like discipline (meaning learning how to take orders, give orders, etc) in the "recruits". Hopefully it would also include physical training and team work training. It wouldn't have to be military necessarily.
However, we have just about 1.5 million active duty, and 900 thous. reserves in the military now right? If we doubled that..in theory we could cut deployment spacing times in half, right? (not the deployment time but time between deployments) Just pondering...

[Universal_Soldier]

If you say so. I'd say 20-25 year olds are worse.
roflroflroflrofl


Shut up, idiot.
roflroflroflrofl

[iloxos]

Not attack the U.S directly, but U.S interests in the Persian Gulf/Korean Peninsula.Conventional conflict with these countries isn't impossible... maybe improbable.

Doesn't the mighty USARMY has the force to crush them allready??? USA has the forces to hit both Persian Golf, middle east(israel too) AND N.Korea to win and enough to occupy for a short time. USA has 2,300,000 people in uniform trained and equiped more than Waffen SS at its best.

If long periods of occupation are needed do you thing a conscript is needed? Remember Vietnam?



You are aware that conscription wouldn't be exclusive to the Marines and that fires aren't the only possible disasters? For example the USCG played a key role during Hurricane Katrina.

Coast Guard is not military forces. They are civil defence all around the world.
Things with missiles, gun tubes or soldiers are not trained to save but to kill.

Do USA needs reserves for hurricanes? Train more medics.


I think you are oversimplifying things...

things are always simple my friend.
why people in USA or in other places in the world do such things? Either because they are poor or they feel not-equal. Money buys food, education and offers jobs for all.
Money spend in the uselless war in iraq could make a huge difference in USA.



That would be true if Israel drafted all of it's workforce at the same time during periods of calm simply for training. It doesn't work that way.
Though I have acknowledged and specified the economic shortcomings of a conscript military and reserve force.



Even not in the same month still every month 20,000 or more are missing from factories.

Reserve training kills productivity. I know too the shortcomings and i am telling you calling reserves is a costly ineffective procedure for both the army and society.



Why not? As long as the state makes sure that a discharged soldier preserves his comabt readiness on a yearly basis. Also the IDF doesn't wage war based on individuals but based on the synergy between reserve and regular forces.
Come on…. Is a doctor working in ER the same effective as a doctor that quit and works as a engineer but does ER duties for a month a year??? Would YOU trust that doctor?
Israel uses a combined system that works because it fights conscripts. If Israel had opposite 200,000 usarmy soldiers I don’t think it could stand a chance.

People around the word saw that the reserved forces called in Lebanon against professional well trained troops had huge problems. They won only because the opposite side had to few and no air support.
Israel has build a war fame simply because it hasn’t germany, france, gb as its neighbours.



Well I believe this is less true with infantry but more relevant to military branches using heavier and more sophisticated weaponry (Armored Corps for example).
As I mentioned our reserves will usually use what they used during their regular service and whatever new tech is integrated, a lot more time and resources will be spent to assimilate it within these forces.

That happens only in Israel with its huge spending in defence and the 3 year national service. Elsewhere a conscript is just impossible to learn anything modern – consider also if he HATES the military – in a one year or less service.



We have a lot of experiance in this field and have even adopted Soviet made weapons.

Beasause it is simple. Could conscripts train, fight, maintain a Leclerc and called after 5-6 years to fight with it???


Then in your case it would be better to have a smaller and well maintained proffesional military rather than a big yet neglected conscript military.

We are trying my friend but it is not easy to find money to train 30,000 professionals that he have and our needs are for at least 150,000.
As always military lives from the treasury department. No money no honey.


Have a nice day

[Yoni-R]

Doesn't the mighty USARMY has the force to crush them allready??? USA has the forces to hit both Persian Golf, middle east(israel too) AND N.Korea to win and enough to occupy for a short time. USA has 2,300,000 people in uniform trained and equiped more than Waffen SS at its best.


are you on crack? what the f*** are you talking about?

[iloxos]

Well, the US of A is trying hard to hit the Persian Golf. So far only Tiger Woods proceeded. Waffen SS was a WWII thing, no? Well, You overlap some 60 years within a sentence. Not bad, not bad. Problem is that global security issues are not about crushing states.

I ve compared Waffen SS of 1944 with USarmy of 2009 telling that the second is far more professional, equipped and capable as an armed force.

The best thing is not even to have wars and melt all weaponry around the globe. Armies are ment to crush countries or else they are not needed.



Occupation not needed. Some democracy for starvated and terrorized people is needed. Don't think You could actually REMEMBER Vietnam, though.

I am against all kinds of aggression I thing you have misunderstood me.


We are discussing here the need of a large USA conscript force that in my opinion is needed only in long time occupations of countries.



Oh, really? USCG is a national security organ, even if You thought they are baywatch babes with big red-white yachts.

National security organ similar to police.


Oh, really? Even heard of peace keeping ops?

And for peace keeping ops USArmy needs another 2 million people? Is WWIII going to start?


Oh, really? Even heard of military engineering units?

Whats the point in training military units with the millions of engineers and companies around the globe?
Does USA need so badly army trained constructors???




Oh, really? For You, my friend, while the School's out for summer.


Sorry can’t see the joke here.



You've got You're right for Your own opinion. Even if its completely unnecessary.

Can’t I have an opinion? If unnecessary why the f*** does this forum exists?
Fascism in the internet in a new phenomena


Well, You know the system thoroughtfully. All armies train engineers to be combat medics, and in turn all doctors will lay railroads in wartime.

It was just an exaple to saw that a reserve and partially trained doctor is a waste of money when it has to do with your life.
Same thing exists in taking a life away.Amateurs are for showing off for political reasons.


But what if Israel herself has 400.000 combat elephants equipped with multiple-rocket-launching-systems? I dont think 200.000 usarmy soldiers stand a chance then. But if they have 600.000 usarmy specialforces crocodiles... So, if there were 2.000.000 lebanese reserved Longbow Apache gunships, then Germany and the United Kingdom would be lost. You are to the point.

Are you a comedian or something?



You had Your time washing dishes at the barracks.

As everybody else.



Expert analysts shown that WE need at least 150.322 as per now.No honey, no money

I am not american.

[iloxos]

are you on crack? what the f*** are you talking about?

I mean that 2,300,000 troops that USA has are more than enough to fight all war possible without the need for a 2 million strong reserve conscript force.

[iloxos]

To put simply: You don't know neither a thing about global security issues, nor about the methodology of an armed forces.


Since you have a great experience in global security matters where a conscript army is needed?
Because from my first post i clearly say that USA doesn't need a reserve conscript force.
It took USA 10 years and a huge budget to stop conscripting in the 80s


PS i am a lieutenant of the reserves and i know what my unit's abilities against a professional force are with conscripts or reservists.

[iloxos]

@korvinag
Do you thing that if any of these countries had enough money they could still use concripts? In the only western states that still use conscripts Greece and israel have no artenative and turkey uses them as a bond to its various nations. The rest europeans use national service but for a few months only just to learn basic rifling.

Whats the point for USA to have a second conscript force along its already huge professional?

[Dragonscript]

@korvinag

Whats the point for USA to have a second conscript force along its already huge professional?

Define "huge". ~1% of the US population is in the military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_troops

I know it is wikipedia, but if you make the comparison based on % of population then the US military is about the same size as Poland's and overall is 6th largest in the world. If you only count money spend then the US is the largest in the world.

The reason most people are arguing for conscription is not for military reason but social ones.

[baboon6]

Define "huge". ~1% of the US population is in the military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_troops

I know it is wikipedia, but if you make the comparison based on % of population then the US military is about the same size as Poland's and overall is 6th largest in the world. If you only count money spend then the US is the largest in the world.

The reason most people are arguing for conscription is not for military reason but social ones.

Well, is the sixth largest military not rather large? In fact maybe "huge?" Conscription for social reasons is to my mind very silly. The efficiency and effectiveness of the armed forces should come first. If no valid military reason exists for conscription, then it should not exist. The US has only ever introduced conscription at times when no other method of increasing the size of the military rapidly existed; a total of about 35 years in its over 230 years of history as a country. Because of the small size of its population and the security problems it has always faced, Israel needs to conscript as many people as possible. The US doesn't. If it were to introduce universal military service which would be the only fair way of doing it, the US military would be rendered undeployable for at least several years.

[Wahnsinn]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg/800px-Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg.png

Red colour denote conscript armies. Welcome to world issues;)


The German army has national service but as far as I'm aware, the only people out in the likes of Afghanistan are professional soldiers. Not really a conscript army. Maybe I'm wrong, I should probably know these things, I'm of German descent. p-)

[sepia]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg/800px-Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg.png

Red colour denote conscript armies. Welcome to world issues;)







and You HATED being a conscript? And they managed to promote You as a Lt.?Which blue,green,orange,grey colour is mean? :-(

[Dragonscript]

Well, is the sixth largest military not rather large? In fact maybe "huge?" Conscription for social reasons is to my mind very silly. The efficiency and effectiveness of the armed forces should come first. If no valid military reason exists for conscription, then it should not exist. The US has only ever introduced conscription at times when no other method of increasing the size of the military rapidly existed; a total of about 35 years in its over 230 years of history as a country. Because of the small size of its population and the security problems it has always faced, Israel needs to conscript as many people as possible. The US doesn't. If it were to introduce universal military service which would be the only fair way of doing it, the US military would be rendered undeployable for at least several years.

Sixth largest army for the third largest, by population, nation on the planet. As a percentage of the population, the US has the 62th "largest" military. By the same metric, France has a "larger" military than the US. Most people are not talking about Universal Military service, but National Service which would include civilian jobs.

Also, the US only has had the draft for 35 years? Really. Where did you get that number from?

[Supplanter]

Which blue,green,orange,grey colour is mean? :-(
:)
Green=No armed forces, Blue=No conscription, Orange=Plan to abolish conscription within 3 years, Red=Conscription, Grey=No information.

[MichaelF]

As I indicated above, almost any "non-WWIII" (defined as a lengthy period of massive mobilization to prepare for a global conflict) Conscription program would result in the addition of a large number (more than 20, less than 60) of Light Infantry divisions (1986 Army of Excellence type) to the current BCT OOB.

Why Light Infantry divisions? Well:

First: There is no massive aquisitions spree (such as preceded WWI and WWII) to provide these new divisions with heavy equipment. If it isn't being manufactured on M-day, they don't get it.
So M777s, HMMWVs, trucks, AT weapons (AT-4 and Javelin), small arms and crew-served weapons....but no tanks or IFVs (long lead times for new vehicle runs, plus they are 'spensive). You might see off-the-shelf civilian systems aquired and "adapted" by the depots, though.

Second: Light Infantry training is cheap.

Third: You can leverage high-tech systems (like UAVs) to enhance their lethality at a small price.

Fourth: Light Infantry divisions are highly strategically portable.

Fifth: Light Infantry brigades and below lack organic systems (transport, etc). Hence, the Division is the smallest fully-operable independant unit.

Sixth: They can act as "blockers" on the battlefield, denying areas (mountains, jungles, forests, urban areas) to the enemy and allowing the BCTs to maneuver freely (basically a force multiplier).

Seventh: As austere forces, they require few of the technical specialists that a Conscript force rarely provides (IOW, your specialists are going to be professionals, so you want them to support the tech- and maneuver-intensive BCTs, leaving fewer to support the Conscript forces).

My $0.02

[sepia]

:)
Green=No armed forces, Blue=No conscription, Orange=Plan to abolish conscription within 3 years, Red=Conscription, Grey=No information.Thanks you to answer. woot :hug:

[Kippari]

As I indicated above, almost any "non-WWIII" (defined as a lengthy period of massive mobilization to prepare for a global conflict) Conscription program would result in the addition of a large number (more than 20, less than 60) of Light Infantry divisions (1986 Army of Excellence type) to the current BCT OOB.

Why Light Infantry divisions? Well:

First: There is no massive aquisitions spree (such as preceded WWI and WWII) to provide these new divisions with heavy equipment. If it isn't being manufactured on M-day, they don't get it.
So M777s, HMMWVs, trucks, AT weapons (AT-4 and Javelin), small arms and crew-served weapons....but no tanks or IFVs (long lead times for new vehicle runs, plus they are 'spensive). You might see off-the-shelf civilian systems aquired and "adapted" by the depots, though.

Second: Light Infantry training is cheap.

Third: You can leverage high-tech systems (like UAVs) to enhance their lethality at a small price.

Fourth: Light Infantry divisions are highly strategically portable.

Fifth: Light Infantry brigades and below lack organic systems (transport, etc). Hence, the Division is the smallest fully-operable independant unit.

Sixth: They can act as "blockers" on the battlefield, denying areas (mountains, jungles, forests, urban areas) to the enemy and allowing the BCTs to maneuver freely (basically a force multiplier).

Seventh: As austere forces, they require few of the technical specialists that a Conscript force rarely provides (IOW, your specialists are going to be professionals, so you want them to support the tech- and maneuver-intensive BCTs, leaving fewer to support the Conscript forces).

My $0.02

That puts very well the definition if the FDF. Except for the part that our first all-arms unit is the Bde. Light infantry is excellent for defensive purposes. It can manuever in strategic depths without huge amounts roads and highways. It can also move trough difficult environments with relative ease.

For example we have full conscription here in Finland. We stand no chance conducting offensive warfare as the whole doctrine and eguipment is defensive. But we have excellent defensive strategy. Standing field army in times of war is around 300.000 soldiers of different arms. 61000 of these form the operational force (corps) which will conduct operations both defensive and offensive at the focal points of war. The rest around 250.000 troops are light infantry formations of different sizes. These form the elastic defensive lines. That's why we have heavy emphasis on artillery (over 700 tubes) which can effect the enemy at both operative and tactical depths. With ranger patrols at the enemy depth the enemy starts to deplete it's forces long before they reach the actual defense-lines.
These light infantry don't need very special training to be as effective as professional soldiers when no large troop movement is needed. Also, the conscript army has the option to place civilian engineers, doctors, IT-specialists to serve in their fields of profession and bring their innovative thinking with them.

U.S. is not about to be symmetrically attacked by anyone, so there's absolutely no need for conscription. We have only potential enemy and thus no real need for active reserves. Israel on the other hand needs the active reserves for against terrorists and hostile neighbors so they need to maintain high readiness at all times. Conscription may have positive social effects but on the other hand it brings a strain on the economy. As of now, consription does not go well with the current USMF doctrine of fighting terrorist organizations and proxy wars in the far sides of globe.

My 0.02 €

[baboon6]

Sixth largest army for the third largest, by population, nation on the planet. As a percentage of the population, the US has the 62th "largest" military. By the same metric, France has a "larger" military than the US. Most people are not talking about Universal Military service, but National Service which would include civilian jobs.

Also, the US only has had the draft for 35 years? Really. Where did you get that number from?

I meant 35 years in total; actually it's probably a few more than that; but the draft only existed in the last two or three years of the Civil War, 1917-18 and 1940-73.

[dedbunniez]

CJ, I agree. the saying goes that the MILITARY is at war, the rest of America is at the MALL. I get really sick to my stomach, seeing how spoiled, and unconcerned most Americans, especially the 18 to 30 crowd is, and they are not only unconcerned about the fighting and dying in Afghanistan, but they are ignorant of the sacrifices being made on their behalf. I really get sick/upset about it. I think most of that group 18-30 could be made into soldiers, no matter how spoiled they are, given the proven ability of the military to mold soldiers from jello.

Not sure if anyone has touched on this yet, but the fact that you are lumping 18-30 year olds together as "ignorant of the sacrifices being made on their behalf." I am very concerned on what is going on in both wars. And I am currently working on supporting the war fighter effort. Also, out of my friends in high school I was one of the only ones that did not join the military.

I fail to see the difference between the "older" generations and mine. To look back and reminisce that the previous breed of Americans were more patriotic than the current is fallacy. Different times, different needs of the country. IIRC the last election was partially won due to the overwhelming response of young americans to a cause they believed in. As a whole our 18-30 year olds are helping form health care plans through grass roots efforts.

Think of this your grandfather joined up when he was young because our country got attacked. Would he have joined if we had not been attacked first?

And while some of the 18-30 year olds are douchebags who need their asses kicked. As a whole my generation is not more self absorbed than any other generation. Most of us have close friends who have gone off to war, and come back changed in one way or another.

So to say that my generation does ignorant of the sacrifices being made is crap. My generation is sacrificing, not yours.

[okiebugg]

Conscription for the sake of the military is a bit too narrow for the USA IMO. Many of us remember the terror of standing in the yellow boot prints, but as days, weeks went by and we developed discipline and learned to live an orderly life, we became more comfortable.

Reason I said that, is I believe in conscription. Not necessarily for the Military, but also Medical, Education, and many other key places where "Helpers" could offer their services and learn about living the real life in the same moments. That along with a disclaimer that if someone 'wants out', it wouldn't ruin their lives like a less than honorable would.

Should be administered equally for rich and poor, with some variants of College as a divergant course in areas where educated bodies are needed, ie. doctors-family doctors, engineers in public service

[Tejano]

I wouldn't go if I got conscripted. I'm native american anyway. :D

If the country was attacked, then YES.

But if it's a war like iraq or afghanistan, then no.

[okiebugg]

I wouldn't go if I got conscripted. I'm native american anyway. :D

If the country was attacked, then YES.

But if it's a war like iraq or afghanistan, then no.


I'm native American, and I would go if conscripted. conscription by its definition isn't a want to go thing. It is a requirement

What you're saying is that it isn't important to you to help your country because you are a minority K?

[timetraveller]

This was mentioned before on here if my memory serves me correctly mainly about the possibilities of National service being brought back in the UK ..
Because those in Goverment wasted time coming out with Asbo's and other pointless laws when simple solution was easy re instigate national service .
And if National service was still around when i left school who's to say where would i be now ..

[commanding]

Not sure if anyone has touched on this yet, but the fact that you are lumping 18-30 year olds together as "ignorant of the sacrifices being made on their behalf." I am very concerned on what is going on in both wars. And I am currently working on supporting the war fighter effort. Also, out of my friends in high school I was one of the only ones that did not join the military.

I fail to see the difference between the "older" generations and mine. To look back and reminisce that the previous breed of Americans were more patriotic than the current is fallacy. Different times, different needs of the country. IIRC the last election was partially won due to the overwhelming response of young americans to a cause they believed in. As a whole our 18-30 year olds are helping form health care plans through grass roots efforts.

Think of this your grandfather joined up when he was young because our country got attacked. Would he have joined if we had not been attacked first?

And while some of the 18-30 year olds are douchebags who need their asses kicked. As a whole my generation is not more self absorbed than any other generation. Most of us have close friends who have gone off to war, and come back changed in one way or another.

So to say that my generation does ignorant of the sacrifices being made is crap. My generation is sacrificing, not yours.
I apologize if you were offended, as I was going only by the contacts i have had with 18-30 year olds.....I would guess that of the ones I have been in contact with, maybe 80 to 90% were unconcerned about the military, the sacrifices that are being made in their name, etc. Maybe the ones I know are the exception. I do have one niece who is just out of high school who joined the air force, and my son in law is a Navy veteran, plus one of my daughters friend is an army veteran about 34 years of age. I also know one fellow who is in the Naval reserves in the Seabees. Other than that, most of the under 35 group of folks I know, do not have a clue about the military, what it involves, or comprehend that 30 thousand US troops are in Afghan. fighting on their behalf. Thus my statements, which may have been too harsh.
By the way, I have two grandsons who are 12, and will register for the draft in 6 years, and the projection I heard for afghan. is ten years from now we will still be there.
Also, my grandfather was drafted into WWI.