4 ms·

The linked report[1] is 160ish pages long, and "Ctrl + F" for "draft" or "conscription" yields nothing. Posturing about fighting a two front war - in Europe an

The linked report[1] is 160ish pages long, and "Ctrl + F" for "draft" or "conscription" yields nothing. Posturing about fighting a two front war - in Europe and in Asia, again - is not serious unless we are talking about conscription. There is an on-going recruiting crisis across all service branches, and the AVF will not be able to support a single front war, let alone two. This is perhaps a neat laundry list of interesting technology, from people who I'm sure are very smart, but, again, unless the first paragraph of the first chapter starts out by talking about how you put bodies in uniforms to use that technology it doesn't matter. [1] https://www.ida.org/-/media/feature/publications/A/Am/Americas%20Strategic%20Posture/Strategic-Posture-Commission-Report.pdf https://www.ida.org/-/media/feature/publications/A/Am/Americ...

nradov 3y ago
Does the military even want conscripts? If those great power conflicts do happen then they will largely be fought using complex stand-off weapons. Low skilled, unmotivated conscripts are likely to be more of a hindrance than a help. If we can procure another cruise missile instead of training and supplying a few more riflemen, which will make the greater contribution?
- maximinus_thrax 3y ago
  > Low skilled, unmotivated conscripts ... are ok in the rear echelon. You don't have to have much motivation to load up crates of ammo, drive trucks, deal with the food supply, etc. The US military doctrine (unlike the Russian doctrine which is on the frontpage right now) does not rely on cannon fodder, barrier troops and stuff like that, so it's not like we need to send more bodies into a war of attrition unless of course, we're literally invaded by land sea and air.
drodgers 3y ago
My understanding is that unwilling conscripts are widely regarded as less than worthless in a modern military. It’s a little different for Ukraine since their conscripts are so highly motivated by defending their home, but even they were turning away recruits for a while. I’m sure the same kind of motivated conscripts could be found if the US mainland were threatened but that’s not what’s being contemplated here.
- muttled 3y ago
  I wonder if they'd get sucked into things like logistics, loading up pallets of equipment rather than getting handed a rifle and some sunflower seeds to keep in their pockets.
addicted 3y ago
The US is surrounded by 2 oceans and friendly countries as far as one can see (well, barring Cuba, but blockading Cuba could not be easier, and making them an ally would be even easier). The US is unlikely to be engaging in fighting on its own territory and any ground fighting will likely be in Asia. It’s very hard to see a situation where it’s logistically feasible for the US to transport so many people over that it exceeds the number of soldiers already in the military. It’s likely thst if a war is going badly enough to conscript people, the US would decide to stop fighting it continents over well before it gets to the stage of a draft. Especially in modern warfare where it’s becoming extremely Evident that unmanned drones will play the bulk of the role of actual fighting.
- Armisael16 3y ago
  > It’s very hard to see a situation where it’s logistically feasible for the US to transport so many people over that it exceeds the number of soldiers already in the military. The US military has about 1.5 million people at present. When Germany surrendered in 1945, the US had about 3 million people in Europe alone - entirely ignoring the whole Pacific front. It is generally unwise to underestimate the logistical capabilities of the US military. (The other points seem more grounded, especially about the nature of modern western war.)
jjk166 3y ago
There are two possibilities: limited or total war. In the far more likely scenario of limited wars in Europe and Asia, the AVF should be sufficient. Most of the land combat would be in Europe where NATO forces outnumber Russia 3:1, and most fighting in Asia would be naval, where the US navy alone is nearly twice the PLAN's size in terms of tonnage and 1.5 times in terms of personnel. While both Russia and China would be impossible to conquer without substantially larger forces, there is no need to do so in a limited war, and in fact it would likely be agreed upon early in the war that such an option is completely off the table to avoid the conflict escalating to a total war. The alternative scenario is such a total war where these great powers are existentially threatened, which would almost certainly go nuclear.

nradov 3y ago

Does the military even want conscripts? If those great power conflicts do happen then they will largely be fought using complex stand-off weapons. Low skilled, unmotivated conscripts are likely to be more of a hindrance than a help. If we can procure another cruise missile instead of training and supplying a few more riflemen, which will make the greater contribution?

maximinus_thrax 3y ago
> Low skilled, unmotivated conscripts ... are ok in the rear echelon. You don't have to have much motivation to load up crates of ammo, drive trucks, deal with the food supply, etc. The US military doctrine (unlike the Russian doctrine which is on the frontpage right now) does not rely on cannon fodder, barrier troops and stuff like that, so it's not like we need to send more bodies into a war of attrition unless of course, we're literally invaded by land sea and air.

drodgers 3y ago

My understanding is that unwilling conscripts are widely regarded as less than worthless in a modern military. It’s a little different for Ukraine since their conscripts are so highly motivated by defending their home, but even they were turning away recruits for a while. I’m sure the same kind of motivated conscripts could be found if the US mainland were threatened but that’s not what’s being contemplated here.

muttled 3y ago
I wonder if they'd get sucked into things like logistics, loading up pallets of equipment rather than getting handed a rifle and some sunflower seeds to keep in their pockets.

addicted 3y ago

The US is surrounded by 2 oceans and friendly countries as far as one can see (well, barring Cuba, but blockading Cuba could not be easier, and making them an ally would be even easier). The US is unlikely to be engaging in fighting on its own territory and any ground fighting will likely be in Asia. It’s very hard to see a situation where it’s logistically feasible for the US to transport so many people over that it exceeds the number of soldiers already in the military. It’s likely thst if a war is going badly enough to conscript people, the US would decide to stop fighting it continents over well before it gets to the stage of a draft. Especially in modern warfare where it’s becoming extremely Evident that unmanned drones will play the bulk of the role of actual fighting.

Armisael16 3y ago
> It’s very hard to see a situation where it’s logistically feasible for the US to transport so many people over that it exceeds the number of soldiers already in the military. The US military has about 1.5 million people at present. When Germany surrendered in 1945, the US had about 3 million people in Europe alone - entirely ignoring the whole Pacific front. It is generally unwise to underestimate the logistical capabilities of the US military. (The other points seem more grounded, especially about the nature of modern western war.)

jjk166 3y ago

There are two possibilities: limited or total war. In the far more likely scenario of limited wars in Europe and Asia, the AVF should be sufficient. Most of the land combat would be in Europe where NATO forces outnumber Russia 3:1, and most fighting in Asia would be naval, where the US navy alone is nearly twice the PLAN's size in terms of tonnage and 1.5 times in terms of personnel. While both Russia and China would be impossible to conquer without substantially larger forces, there is no need to do so in a limited war, and in fact it would likely be agreed upon early in the war that such an option is completely off the table to avoid the conflict escalating to a total war. The alternative scenario is such a total war where these great powers are existentially threatened, which would almost certainly go nuclear.