3 ms·
Does this argument back-test successfully? Has the US suffered fewer war-fatalities in the era(s) where it had a draft (including the Civil War, WW1, WW2, & Vi
by gojomo 7y ago
Does this argument back-test successfully?
Has the US suffered fewer war-fatalities in the era(s) where it had a draft (including the Civil War, WW1, WW2, & Vietnam), or in the era where it has an all-volunteer force (since 1973)?
- soniman 7y agoProbably not but a lot has changed.
- pmiller2 7y agoThat’s almost impossible to compare due to advances in both weapons and protective equipment.
- gojomo 7y agoAnd yet, we have to try to make such comparisons to make such sweeping judgements as "a draft makes war less likely". The quality of weapons and armor (and training and medical care!) also isn't independent of the draft/volunteer dimension. A all-volunteer-force may find it necessary to invest more in each, because fewer people will volunteer to be part of a military force that tries to win with raw & disposable strength-of-numbers. So maybe the all-volunteer-force "raises the cost of war" even more, considering financial costs & second-order effects, and thus best deters war? It's possible, which is why such claims need to be evaluated against history, not just asserted.