4 ms·

People calling for the US to do more against Russia, be careful what you wish for. You have no idea how close the US is to a draft. The US has been woefully low

People calling for the US to do more against Russia, be careful what you wish for. You have no idea how close the US is to a draft. The US has been woefully low at filling military recruiting quotas. Keep in mind both presidents during WWI and WWII campaigned to keep us out of those wars. Any major conflict like that will most certainly require a draft. Better keep your saber rattling to a minimum. Though the percentage of active duty military members has fluctuated since 2001, it has declined by 39% since 1987, its most recent high. https://usafacts.org/articles/military-recruitment-is-down/ https://usafacts.org/articles/military-recruitment-is-down/

ethanbond 3y ago
Uhhh that’s why it’s better to fund Ukraine to fight the battle for us before it’s actually on NATO’s doorstep. Not that confusing.
- Clubber 3y ago
  Sure, I support funding Ukraine 100% for that very reason, but consider what happens when Ukraine runs out of troops. Russia has a 3:1 advantage. https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-demography-of-war-ukraine-vs-russia https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-demography-of-war-ukraine-vs-...
  - KaiserPro 3y ago
    If you use your troops as bait for tanks, then sure having a 3:1 people advantage is useful. If you have a bit more respect for the lives of your citizens, its not so much of a disadvantage.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    Consider what happens when the Taliban runs out of troops. The United States has a 28:1 advantage.
    - Clubber 3y ago
      >Consider what happens when the Taliban runs out of troops. The United States has a 28:1 advantage. The US conquered and held Afghanistan for 20 years and we could have done it for another 20+ years, we just lost the political will to do so. I'm in total agreement with getting out of Afghanistan, as ugly as it was.
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        The US didn’t “conquer” Afghanistan. It was fighting a nonstop insurgency that obviously we couldn’t sustain for another 20+ years as evidenced by the fact we didn’t sustain it for another 20+ years. Losing political will is quite literally “losing,” and we left and the Taliban now gets to (actually) rule their country how they want to.
        Clubber 3y ago
        >The US didn’t “conquer” Afghanistan It certainly did. It took the Taliban out of power and installed our own government. Also, all conquered countries have insurgencies. France, Poland, Belgium, Holland all had insurgencies and they were certainly conquered by Germany in WW2. Insurgencies by conquered people have been happening since before Alexander. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conquer https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conquer >Losing political will is quite literally “losing,” Maybe. Did Britain lose to India because they lost the political will to occupy them? Canada? Australia? Maybe. Did the US lose to the Philippines because we no longer colonized them? Doesn't seem like it. I'd be hard pressed to find any rational historian to say the US lost to the Philippines. >It was fighting a nonstop insurgency that obviously we couldn’t sustain for another 20+ years as evidenced by the fact we didn’t sustain it for another 20+ years. Afghanistan didn't force us out. We could have kept doing what we did for another 20 years. It would have been as stupid as the last 20 years, but we certainly had the financial and military means. Anyhow this is a tangent. If we go to war with Russia, there will be a draft and millions will likely die. This has been a known for the last 80 years. I'm amazed people don't think this would be true. Those who forget history are destined to repeat it I guess. Better start getting in shape.
GartzenDeHaes 3y ago
The people behind this propaganda are pushing for privatization, not a draft. The US Army is dramatically downsizing its uniformed troop strength at the same time its budget is dramatically increasing. "Under end strength levels outlined in the annual defense authorization bill passed by the Senate Wednesday evening and expected to be passed by the House on Thursday, the total number of active-duty troops in the armed forces will drop to 1,284,500 in fiscal 2024. That’s down nearly 64,000 personnel in the last three years and the smallest total for America’s military since 1940, before the United States’ entry into World War II." https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2023/12/14/amid-recruiting-woes-active-duty-end-strength-to-drop-again-in-2024/ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2023/12...
- Clubber 3y ago
  Second paragraph after the one you pasted: Lawmakers say the reason for the lower target isn’t a decrease in missions or threats in recent years. Instead, the number reflects recruiting challenges across the services and an expectation of what level of personnel is realistic in coming months. They aren't lowering troop numbers because they want to, they're moving the goalposts to meet the reality of diminished recruiting. Also, privatization is for non-combat roles, logistics and what not. It allows us to keep more US military personnel in combat roles instead of support roles. When all of these hack aren't enough to fill ranks in a major conflict, the next step is a draft. Iraq I, II and Afghanistan were not major conflicts in terms of total deployment. https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_wars.pdf https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_w... Also, no politician will utter the word "draft," or they will lose all support. If a major conflict arises with Russia, it will get instituted, make no mistake about it. Everyone pushing for war with Russia needs to consider the consequences.
  - GartzenDeHaes 3y ago
    I think the flow of money points to the truth of the mater.
globalnode 3y ago
downvoted by propagandists and bots?
postingawayonhn 3y ago
Do you realise how easy it would be for the US to defeat the depleted Russian military? The US Air Force alone could probably do it in a weekend. The war in Ukraine only drags on for so long because of the refusal of the west (partly tachnical issues, partly political hesitation) to equip Ukraine with modern weapons in sufficient quantities.
- Clubber 3y ago
  >the depleted Russian military They aren't depleted. They've suffered 300K casualties, they have 24,700,000 left of fighting age. Also keep in mind Russia has no qualms about putting women in front line combat roles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrain... Also, Iran seems like they want to get involved. They've been selling Russia arms during the conflict. They have about 17 million people of fighting age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_global_manpower_fit_for_military_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_global_manpower_fit_fo... >do it in a weekend They said that about the US Civil War https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/civil-war-in-america/april-1861-april-1862.html https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/civil-war-in-america/april-1861... And WWI https://www.theworldwar.org/exhibitions/over-christmas https://www.theworldwar.org/exhibitions/over-christmas By WWII, we realized it wouldn't be a short war. We seem to have forgotten. Also Russia has a lot of nukes, you know what MAD stands for right? Best case we're probably looking at a Phyrric victory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory
  - terafo 3y ago
    > they have 24,700,000 left of fighting age Without equipment, logistics and ammo to support it it's a dead weight. Also, it's very interesting that you omitted Gulf War, which would be the most similar conflict in terms of power dynamics. 4th by strength military in the world in war against large coalition of countries that is led by USA.
    - Clubber 3y ago
      >Without equipment, logistics and ammo to support it it's a dead weight. Russia is an industrial country. They managed to build more tanks than anybody in WWII and this was while being invaded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_industry_in_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_industry_in_World_War_I... >Also, it's very interesting that you omitted Gulf War, which would be the most similar conflict in terms of power dynamics. Most of the Iraqi soldiers surrendered as soon as they saw coalition forces. Only the Republican Guard remained to fight and they were only around 75K. I doubt the Russians will surrender en masse like the Iraqi regular army did. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iraqis-surrendering-in-hordes https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iraqis-surrendering-in-hordes
tryauuum 3y ago
I don't know much about the US but I assumed you don't have draft since the Vietnam war? And this is why USA army has to actually produce cool ads as opposed to Russian army who just takes people. Are you suspecting that the law would be changed to enable draft? Or maybe I'm confusing draft and conscription, are those different?
- Clubber 3y ago
  >I don't know much about the US but I assumed you don't have draft since the Vietnam war? And this is why USA army has to actually produce cool ads as opposed to Russian army who just takes people. You are correct. Conscription and the draft are essentially the same. I believe conscription is when you enter military service regardless of wartime, while the draft is explicitly to fill ranks. I could be wrong on that though. >Are you suspecting that the law would be changed to enable draft? Yes, if we get into a large scale war without the ability to recruit enough volunteers, most certainly. Currently our recruiting numbers are way down. The US has had a draft/conscription throughout most of its history. Current times since 1973 are an anomaly. Also, the law is already in place. Every male citizen, when they turn 18 must register with the Selective Service, which is responsible for the draft. However, conscription remains in place on a contingency basis; all male U.S. citizens, regardless of where they live, and male immigrants, whether documented or undocumented, residing within the United States, who are 18 through 25 are required to register with the Selective Service System.[2][3] United States federal law also continues to provide for the compulsory conscription of men between the ages of 17 and 44 who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, U.S. citizens, and additionally certain women, for militia service pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution and 10 U.S. Code § 246.[4][5][6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_Sta... In fact, reinstitution the draft is required by law: A national emergency, exceeding the Department of Defense’s capability to recruit and retain its total force strength, requires Congress to amend the Military Selective Service Act to authorize the President to induct personnel into the Armed Forces. https://www.sss.gov/about/return-to-draft https://www.sss.gov/about/return-to-draft The term for a person who pushes for war without any intention of serving themselves is called a Chickenhawk. I'm just reminding all the people who are pushing for escalation with Russia that if war happens, they will likely be drafted and aren't just sending the mostly poor kids to fight their war. To those people I say, be careful what you wish for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_(politics)

ethanbond 3y ago

Uhhh that’s why it’s better to fund Ukraine to fight the battle for us before it’s actually on NATO’s doorstep. Not that confusing.

Clubber 3y ago
Sure, I support funding Ukraine 100% for that very reason, but consider what happens when Ukraine runs out of troops. Russia has a 3:1 advantage. https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-demography-of-war-ukraine-vs-russia https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-demography-of-war-ukraine-vs-...
- KaiserPro 3y ago
  If you use your troops as bait for tanks, then sure having a 3:1 people advantage is useful. If you have a bit more respect for the lives of your citizens, its not so much of a disadvantage.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Consider what happens when the Taliban runs out of troops. The United States has a 28:1 advantage.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    >Consider what happens when the Taliban runs out of troops. The United States has a 28:1 advantage. The US conquered and held Afghanistan for 20 years and we could have done it for another 20+ years, we just lost the political will to do so. I'm in total agreement with getting out of Afghanistan, as ugly as it was.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      The US didn’t “conquer” Afghanistan. It was fighting a nonstop insurgency that obviously we couldn’t sustain for another 20+ years as evidenced by the fact we didn’t sustain it for another 20+ years. Losing political will is quite literally “losing,” and we left and the Taliban now gets to (actually) rule their country how they want to.
      - Clubber 3y ago
        >The US didn’t “conquer” Afghanistan It certainly did. It took the Taliban out of power and installed our own government. Also, all conquered countries have insurgencies. France, Poland, Belgium, Holland all had insurgencies and they were certainly conquered by Germany in WW2. Insurgencies by conquered people have been happening since before Alexander. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conquer https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conquer >Losing political will is quite literally “losing,” Maybe. Did Britain lose to India because they lost the political will to occupy them? Canada? Australia? Maybe. Did the US lose to the Philippines because we no longer colonized them? Doesn't seem like it. I'd be hard pressed to find any rational historian to say the US lost to the Philippines. >It was fighting a nonstop insurgency that obviously we couldn’t sustain for another 20+ years as evidenced by the fact we didn’t sustain it for another 20+ years. Afghanistan didn't force us out. We could have kept doing what we did for another 20 years. It would have been as stupid as the last 20 years, but we certainly had the financial and military means. Anyhow this is a tangent. If we go to war with Russia, there will be a draft and millions will likely die. This has been a known for the last 80 years. I'm amazed people don't think this would be true. Those who forget history are destined to repeat it I guess. Better start getting in shape.

GartzenDeHaes 3y ago

The people behind this propaganda are pushing for privatization, not a draft. The US Army is dramatically downsizing its uniformed troop strength at the same time its budget is dramatically increasing. "Under end strength levels outlined in the annual defense authorization bill passed by the Senate Wednesday evening and expected to be passed by the House on Thursday, the total number of active-duty troops in the armed forces will drop to 1,284,500 in fiscal 2024. That’s down nearly 64,000 personnel in the last three years and the smallest total for America’s military since 1940, before the United States’ entry into World War II." https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2023/12/14/amid-recruiting-woes-active-duty-end-strength-to-drop-again-in-2024/ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2023/12...

Clubber 3y ago
Second paragraph after the one you pasted: Lawmakers say the reason for the lower target isn’t a decrease in missions or threats in recent years. Instead, the number reflects recruiting challenges across the services and an expectation of what level of personnel is realistic in coming months. They aren't lowering troop numbers because they want to, they're moving the goalposts to meet the reality of diminished recruiting. Also, privatization is for non-combat roles, logistics and what not. It allows us to keep more US military personnel in combat roles instead of support roles. When all of these hack aren't enough to fill ranks in a major conflict, the next step is a draft. Iraq I, II and Afghanistan were not major conflicts in terms of total deployment. https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_wars.pdf https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_w... Also, no politician will utter the word "draft," or they will lose all support. If a major conflict arises with Russia, it will get instituted, make no mistake about it. Everyone pushing for war with Russia needs to consider the consequences.
- GartzenDeHaes 3y ago
  I think the flow of money points to the truth of the mater.

globalnode 3y ago

downvoted by propagandists and bots?

postingawayonhn 3y ago

Do you realise how easy it would be for the US to defeat the depleted Russian military? The US Air Force alone could probably do it in a weekend. The war in Ukraine only drags on for so long because of the refusal of the west (partly tachnical issues, partly political hesitation) to equip Ukraine with modern weapons in sufficient quantities.

Clubber 3y ago
>the depleted Russian military They aren't depleted. They've suffered 300K casualties, they have 24,700,000 left of fighting age. Also keep in mind Russia has no qualms about putting women in front line combat roles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrain... Also, Iran seems like they want to get involved. They've been selling Russia arms during the conflict. They have about 17 million people of fighting age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_global_manpower_fit_for_military_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_global_manpower_fit_fo... >do it in a weekend They said that about the US Civil War https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/civil-war-in-america/april-1861-april-1862.html https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/civil-war-in-america/april-1861... And WWI https://www.theworldwar.org/exhibitions/over-christmas https://www.theworldwar.org/exhibitions/over-christmas By WWII, we realized it wouldn't be a short war. We seem to have forgotten. Also Russia has a lot of nukes, you know what MAD stands for right? Best case we're probably looking at a Phyrric victory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory
- terafo 3y ago
  > they have 24,700,000 left of fighting age Without equipment, logistics and ammo to support it it's a dead weight. Also, it's very interesting that you omitted Gulf War, which would be the most similar conflict in terms of power dynamics. 4th by strength military in the world in war against large coalition of countries that is led by USA.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    >Without equipment, logistics and ammo to support it it's a dead weight. Russia is an industrial country. They managed to build more tanks than anybody in WWII and this was while being invaded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_industry_in_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_industry_in_World_War_I... >Also, it's very interesting that you omitted Gulf War, which would be the most similar conflict in terms of power dynamics. Most of the Iraqi soldiers surrendered as soon as they saw coalition forces. Only the Republican Guard remained to fight and they were only around 75K. I doubt the Russians will surrender en masse like the Iraqi regular army did. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iraqis-surrendering-in-hordes https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iraqis-surrendering-in-hordes

tryauuum 3y ago

I don't know much about the US but I assumed you don't have draft since the Vietnam war? And this is why USA army has to actually produce cool ads as opposed to Russian army who just takes people. Are you suspecting that the law would be changed to enable draft? Or maybe I'm confusing draft and conscription, are those different?

Clubber 3y ago
>I don't know much about the US but I assumed you don't have draft since the Vietnam war? And this is why USA army has to actually produce cool ads as opposed to Russian army who just takes people. You are correct. Conscription and the draft are essentially the same. I believe conscription is when you enter military service regardless of wartime, while the draft is explicitly to fill ranks. I could be wrong on that though. >Are you suspecting that the law would be changed to enable draft? Yes, if we get into a large scale war without the ability to recruit enough volunteers, most certainly. Currently our recruiting numbers are way down. The US has had a draft/conscription throughout most of its history. Current times since 1973 are an anomaly. Also, the law is already in place. Every male citizen, when they turn 18 must register with the Selective Service, which is responsible for the draft. However, conscription remains in place on a contingency basis; all male U.S. citizens, regardless of where they live, and male immigrants, whether documented or undocumented, residing within the United States, who are 18 through 25 are required to register with the Selective Service System.[2][3] United States federal law also continues to provide for the compulsory conscription of men between the ages of 17 and 44 who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, U.S. citizens, and additionally certain women, for militia service pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution and 10 U.S. Code § 246.[4][5][6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_Sta... In fact, reinstitution the draft is required by law: A national emergency, exceeding the Department of Defense’s capability to recruit and retain its total force strength, requires Congress to amend the Military Selective Service Act to authorize the President to induct personnel into the Armed Forces. https://www.sss.gov/about/return-to-draft https://www.sss.gov/about/return-to-draft The term for a person who pushes for war without any intention of serving themselves is called a Chickenhawk. I'm just reminding all the people who are pushing for escalation with Russia that if war happens, they will likely be drafted and aren't just sending the mostly poor kids to fight their war. To those people I say, be careful what you wish for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_(politics)