7 ms·

The United States made a huge mistake in moving to an all-volunteer army in the 1970s. My life is my own to live. It's not your right to dispose of it. The dra

by javert 15y ago

The United States made a huge mistake in moving to an all-volunteer army in the 1970s. My life is my own to live. It's not your right to dispose of it. The draft is a massive violation of individual rights. If a nation cannot get enough paid volunteers to fight a war, that war is simply not worth fighting. In my view, mandatory conscription is one of those first-class evils that we need to dismiss as a society---like genocide, slavery, and denying women the right to vote. My father was drafted to Vietnam, and although he survived the war, I think it damaged him badly and in turn damaged me. So please consider whether you really want to advocate the draft.

angersock 15y ago
While I do agree with you in some regards, there is a very real policy impact involved in having a professional all-volunteer army. When you have to draft chunks of your population in order to conduct warfare, public opinion is very much against you if your cause is not 'just'. "If a nation cannot get enough paid volunteers to fight a war, that war is simply not worth fighting." The flaw here is that there are always going to be people available to fight for a chance at gold. Additionally, and even more troubling for the United States, we are increasingly reliant on machines to do this work for us--there is increasingly no meaningful connection between the citizenry and the hawkish body politic. If we do not have drafts, nor the possibility of drafts, then we find ourselves in a position where either: 1. We do not fight, for war is not worth fighting. 2. We continue to fight, and find ways of reducing the human requirement even further than it is already. (2) is much more likely, given the history of man and the way our tech is evolving. At best, this implies that one day we'll have robots blowing up other robots, all made by autonomous factories--this is merely a farcical misallocation of resources. At anything less than best, this implies that we'll have robots blowing up lots of civilians or other troops. It doesn't matter whether the lives lost are ours or not, it matters only that things are worse off. I'd suggest that the United States solely use draftees, and that we pursue national policies that don't require us to deploy widely to hostile areas.
- javert 15y ago
  It is good design to solve problems directly, rather than to solve them indirectly by introducting a different problem. So let's solve the problem of the US entering unjust wars directly, rather than by introducing a new problem (the draft). How to solve it directly? The recent unjust US wars do reflect cultural problems: a belief among politicians and the populace that it is worthwile to sacrifice thousands of American lives and trillions of American dollars to occupy and rebuild other countries. The way to solve the problem is to combat that notion on an intellectual level. To speak out about it. Some other solution (like requiring a draft) is just duct tape. The ideas of society at large can improve over time. Just look at the history of women and minorities to see that. This is one of those areas where cultural activisim can lead to an improvement. I am very optimistic that my generation (I'm in my 20s) will not engage in wars like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam once we become the generation that directly makes those kinds of decisions. In fact, my fear is that my generation will be unwilling to take preemptive offensive action when it is necessary (e.g. to prevent untrusted parties from acquiring nuclear or biological weapons).
  - angersock 15y ago
    I don't think that there is anything terribly indirect about linking (explicitly) the blood of common Americans with hawkish politicians. An intellectual argument is irrelevant in the face of the masses--by definition, half of them are of below-average intelligence, yeah? So, we should pursue policies that make it concrete--even to the slowest citizen or smartest zealot--that there will be immediate, personal sacrifice for any military action they support. I would also question the analogy to women and minority rights--neither has particular import here, and only muddy the waters. War is an issue that has faced all states, regardless of race and gender; it is somewhat misleading to treat it as something that may be "overcome" like a silly cultural preference of the West. "In fact, my fear is that my generation will be unwilling to take preemptive offensive action when it is necessary (e.g. to prevent untrusted parties from acquiring nuclear or biological weapons)." This is also a place where I think we differ in viewpoint. Why is it so that Pakistan can have the atomic bomb, but not Iran? Why Israel and not Iraq? I do not live in fear of my fellow man because he is armed--I only am worried if he is actively hostile. If your state does not pursue hostilities, what does it matter what they have in their stockpiles? I believe that the bigger threat to my (apparently, our) generation is to continue to live in fear of terrorism, war, weapons, and each other--so many problems would go away if people would just accept that some day their ticket comes up, and do the best that they can in the meantime.
tlb 15y ago
The point is that the public wouldn't support unnecessary wars if they or their children would be drafted to fight.
- javert 15y ago
  US drafts work from the bottom up. Because as you go higher up (e.g. people in college, then blue collars, then white collars, then leadership...) those people are increasingly indispensable to the war effort. In Vietnam, they made universities give them lists of the students that were doing badly to draft first, once they ran out of people not going to college. And if I had children, I would definitely consider relocating them abroad as an option, depending on whether they personally agreed with the war and other factors. In short, as you go up that hierarchy, people are increasingly politically active, yet are increasingly isolated from the draft. So, if you wanted this solution to work (and I contend it's a very poor solution to the problem anyway), there are some serious obstacles.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    Back in the day, there was a serious social stigma to being a "draft dodger".
    - jahmed 15y ago
      Back in the day there used to be serious social stigma to colored people using the same drinking fountains as white people. Nationalism is just as bad as racism. People are people. Black and white are just the same as people from Country A and Country B. I dont want to go fight people whos only problem is me trying to kill them.
      - philwelch 15y ago
        I think the better comparison is tax evasion; you're cheating the system to get out of paying your fair share.
        15y ago

by javert 15y ago

angersock 15y ago

While I do agree with you in some regards, there is a very real policy impact involved in having a professional all-volunteer army. When you have to draft chunks of your population in order to conduct warfare, public opinion is very much against you if your cause is not 'just'. "If a nation cannot get enough paid volunteers to fight a war, that war is simply not worth fighting." The flaw here is that there are always going to be people available to fight for a chance at gold. Additionally, and even more troubling for the United States, we are increasingly reliant on machines to do this work for us--there is increasingly no meaningful connection between the citizenry and the hawkish body politic. If we do not have drafts, nor the possibility of drafts, then we find ourselves in a position where either: 1. We do not fight, for war is not worth fighting. 2. We continue to fight, and find ways of reducing the human requirement even further than it is already. (2) is much more likely, given the history of man and the way our tech is evolving. At best, this implies that one day we'll have robots blowing up other robots, all made by autonomous factories--this is merely a farcical misallocation of resources. At anything less than best, this implies that we'll have robots blowing up lots of civilians or other troops. It doesn't matter whether the lives lost are ours or not, it matters only that things are worse off. I'd suggest that the United States solely use draftees, and that we pursue national policies that don't require us to deploy widely to hostile areas.

javert 15y ago
It is good design to solve problems directly, rather than to solve them indirectly by introducting a different problem. So let's solve the problem of the US entering unjust wars directly, rather than by introducing a new problem (the draft). How to solve it directly? The recent unjust US wars do reflect cultural problems: a belief among politicians and the populace that it is worthwile to sacrifice thousands of American lives and trillions of American dollars to occupy and rebuild other countries. The way to solve the problem is to combat that notion on an intellectual level. To speak out about it. Some other solution (like requiring a draft) is just duct tape. The ideas of society at large can improve over time. Just look at the history of women and minorities to see that. This is one of those areas where cultural activisim can lead to an improvement. I am very optimistic that my generation (I'm in my 20s) will not engage in wars like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam once we become the generation that directly makes those kinds of decisions. In fact, my fear is that my generation will be unwilling to take preemptive offensive action when it is necessary (e.g. to prevent untrusted parties from acquiring nuclear or biological weapons).
- angersock 15y ago
  I don't think that there is anything terribly indirect about linking (explicitly) the blood of common Americans with hawkish politicians. An intellectual argument is irrelevant in the face of the masses--by definition, half of them are of below-average intelligence, yeah? So, we should pursue policies that make it concrete--even to the slowest citizen or smartest zealot--that there will be immediate, personal sacrifice for any military action they support. I would also question the analogy to women and minority rights--neither has particular import here, and only muddy the waters. War is an issue that has faced all states, regardless of race and gender; it is somewhat misleading to treat it as something that may be "overcome" like a silly cultural preference of the West. "In fact, my fear is that my generation will be unwilling to take preemptive offensive action when it is necessary (e.g. to prevent untrusted parties from acquiring nuclear or biological weapons)." This is also a place where I think we differ in viewpoint. Why is it so that Pakistan can have the atomic bomb, but not Iran? Why Israel and not Iraq? I do not live in fear of my fellow man because he is armed--I only am worried if he is actively hostile. If your state does not pursue hostilities, what does it matter what they have in their stockpiles? I believe that the bigger threat to my (apparently, our) generation is to continue to live in fear of terrorism, war, weapons, and each other--so many problems would go away if people would just accept that some day their ticket comes up, and do the best that they can in the meantime.

tlb 15y ago

The point is that the public wouldn't support unnecessary wars if they or their children would be drafted to fight.

javert 15y ago
US drafts work from the bottom up. Because as you go higher up (e.g. people in college, then blue collars, then white collars, then leadership...) those people are increasingly indispensable to the war effort. In Vietnam, they made universities give them lists of the students that were doing badly to draft first, once they ran out of people not going to college. And if I had children, I would definitely consider relocating them abroad as an option, depending on whether they personally agreed with the war and other factors. In short, as you go up that hierarchy, people are increasingly politically active, yet are increasingly isolated from the draft. So, if you wanted this solution to work (and I contend it's a very poor solution to the problem anyway), there are some serious obstacles.
- philwelch 15y ago
  Back in the day, there was a serious social stigma to being a "draft dodger".
  - jahmed 15y ago
    Back in the day there used to be serious social stigma to colored people using the same drinking fountains as white people. Nationalism is just as bad as racism. People are people. Black and white are just the same as people from Country A and Country B. I dont want to go fight people whos only problem is me trying to kill them.
    - philwelch 15y ago
      I think the better comparison is tax evasion; you're cheating the system to get out of paying your fair share.
      - 15y ago