Conscription and women

[Chulanowa]

Almost everyone that's weighed in on this thread with an opinion has granted it as a hypothetical for the purpose of discussion. Should there be a draft is not the same question as if we are to have a draft, should we draft women as well. If you don't want to discuss that and instead say we shouldn't have a draft in the first place...ok. But that's not really what we're talking about.

Q: "is it fair that only men are drafted?"
A: "It is unfair that anyone be drafted."

Q: "Should women be drafted too, to make it more fair?"
A: "Expanding exploitation in the name of inclusivity is a harebraned notion"

Seems like valid responses to me. But of course I may be biased on that regard 

One really can't have a discussion about conscription without confronting the question of conscription itself, though. Especially if the core of the question is equality or fairness.

[Oniya]

Almost everyone that's weighed in on this thread with an opinion has granted it as a hypothetical for the purpose of discussion. Should there be a draft is not the same question as if we are to have a draft, should we draft women as well. If you don't want to discuss that and instead say we shouldn't have a draft in the first place...ok. But that's not really what we're talking about.

So, funfact:  Although the Selective Service was reintroduced in the US in 1980, it's been literally 50 years since the last draft ended in 1973.  So that's over fifty years since someone said 'Hey, we don't have enough people volunteering for the military.  Let's compel people to leave their homes, jobs, and helpless elders/children to get shot at.'

[Regina Minx]

So, funfact:  Although the Selective Service was reintroduced in the US in 1980, it's been literally 50 years since the last draft ended in 1973.  So that's over fifty years since someone said 'Hey, we don't have enough people volunteering for the military.  Let's compel people to leave their homes, jobs, and helpless elders/children to get shot at.'

True enough as far as it goes for the USA. Beorning opened the talk with a mention of Latvia and Poland because they are considering re-instituting mandatory military service in light of Russia. We have been using the terms 'draft,' 'conscription,' and 'mandatory military service' more or less interchangeably here. Worldwide, there are something like 80+ nations with required military service, of which I'm familiar with two in light of my own research; Israel and Finland.

Finland has universal male conscription of men above the age of 18 for service of up to 1 year, and roughly 80% of the population has served or is serving. The reasons for Finland's high rate of mandatory military service are obvious with a basic knowledge of geography and history. Israel has far more carve-outs than I understand is typical, Arab citizens are exempted by request, and ultra-Orthodox Jews are also exempted under Tal laws.

[Oniya]

True enough as far as it goes for the USA. Beorning opened the talk with a mention of Latvia and Poland because they are considering re-instituting mandatory military service in light of Russia. We have been using the terms 'draft,' 'conscription,' and 'mandatory military service' more or less interchangeably here. Worldwide, there are something like 80+ nations with required military service, of which I'm familiar with two in light of my own research; Israel and Finland.

Finland has universal male conscription of men above the age of 18 for service of up to 1 year, and roughly 80% of the population has served or is serving. The reasons for Finland's high rate of mandatory military service are obvious with a basic knowledge of geography and history. Israel has far more carve-outs than I understand is typical, Arab citizens are exempted by request, and ultra-Orthodox Jews are also exempted under Tal laws.

Agreed.  However things like the US minimum wage (which still sucks) vs. military pay would be a bit of a distraction, since the US shows no signs of reinstating an actual 'draft'. 

Now, the compensation/minimum wages of these other countries might indeed be a consideration.

[GloomCookie]

I mean we were both talking about exploitation.

Think of it as the difference between having your kid wash dishes after dinner, and children working in a restaurant. One is chores for upkeep of a shared home, the other is labor for someone else's profit. One is a necessity, the other is an exploitation.

I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear:
Meaning that unlike jury duty, the military is not a necessary service.

This line doesn't sit well with me.

How would the people of Ukraine feel right now if you walked up to them and said "I don't think we need a military." Their homes are being invaded by an outside, hostile military and they are requiring military service.

Trying to say that because war is bad we should not prepare for war is a naive position to take. Every single nation on this planet has a military of some capacity, serving roles from national defense to policing duties. The US Coast Guard is one branch of the military and they serve numerous duties from repairing and maintaining navigational buoys and beacons to intercepting illegal shipments of narcotics. The US Navy operates two hospital ships that it sails around the world to assist with natural disasters and just helping people in general. The Air Force maintains specialist aircraft to fly into hurricanes to gather much needed weather data for scientists. DARPA and other similar organizations have made their research available to the general public giving us numerous inventions including the internet.

Militaries are not all about war. Yes, they must prepare for and train for war as part of their duties, but they are not a one-dimensional force of evil. Many recruits receive the GI bill, which they use to get college education which helps them go on to achieve success in the civilian world. They get benefits that aren't available to the average citizen because they served.

Sorry if this ruffles your feathers, but I feel like claiming the military isn't a necessary service is very, very short sighted.

[Chulanowa]

I'm pretty sure it's not my feathers ruffled here.

There's a distinction between "useful" and "necessary" (maybe "essential" would have been a better word choice for my point.) A fighting force has a use for sure. However, compared to the example given (Jury service) it's certainly not essential; you're always going to need jurors. You're not always going to need a standing military.

[Beorning]

Well, to be honest, a justice system can work without jurors, too. Not every country uses juries for trials.

[Regina Minx]

I'm pretty sure it's not my feathers ruffled here.

There's a distinction between "useful" and "necessary" (maybe "essential" would have been a better word choice for my point.) A fighting force has a use for sure. However, compared to the example given (Jury service) it's certainly not essential; you're always going to need jurors. You're not always going to need a standing military.

Now we've taken a side trip into the 'what is needed/necessary/useful and the distinction between them is somehow important' dimension. Much like condoms, it's better to have and not need a fighting force than to need and not have a fighting force.

[Chulanowa]

Now we've taken a side trip into the 'what is needed/necessary/useful and the distinction between them is somehow important' dimension. Much like condoms, it's better to have and not need a fighting force than to need and not have a fighting force.

Yeah that side trip will happen when you compare military conscription to jury duty.

Well, to be honest, a justice system can work without jurors, too. Not every country uses juries for trials.

True enough, I suppose.

[Regina Minx]

Yeah that side trip will happen when you compare military conscription to jury duty.

Because comparing two things that have similarities between them is often a useful technique for thought and debate. Your response has been to identify differences, real or imagined, between them and say compulsory jury duty is A-OK but compulsory military service is awful. I've not been persuaded that the differences are in fact meaningful, and I also pointed out that most people responding to the question have already done the 'if' part of the hypothetical for purposes of the discussion. Since you, to date, have not, I'm guessing you won't so...ok. Good talk.

[Chulanowa]

Because comparing two things that have similarities between them is often a useful technique for thought and debate. Your response has been to identify differences, real or imagined, between them and say compulsory jury duty is A-OK but compulsory military service is awful. I've not been persuaded that the differences are in fact meaningful, and I also pointed out that most people responding to the question have already done the 'if' part of the hypothetical for purposes of the discussion. Since you, to date, have not, I'm guessing you won't so...ok. Good talk.

It has been a delight.

[Forsaken]

If women truly want equal rights then they should also accept the bad parts of being a man which are far more than you might think! So conscription should also apply to women.

[GloomCookie]

Perhaps. Or, maybe there are distinct differences that should be considered that could lend them to other duties, like rear support. There's no one-size-fits-all solution but I also don't think it should be all or nothing. Definitely need a little more nuance than just a blanket statement of tossing people into the deep end right off the bat.

[Missy]

I think it's worth noting a lot of modern technology mitigates the differences in terms of body size and average physical strength.

[Forsaken]

Perhaps. Or, maybe there are distinct differences that should be considered that could lend them to other duties, like rear support. There's no one-size-fits-all solution but I also don't think it should be all or nothing. Definitely need a little more nuance than just a blanket statement of tossing people into the deep end right off the bat.

What do you think has happened to millions of men? They get conscripted, trained then sent to the meat grinder.

Besides Russia had female frontline soldiers in WW2 and Israel also has female frontline soldiers..

[GloomCookie]

I think it's worth noting a lot of modern technology mitigates the differences in terms of body size and average physical strength.

To a degree. A lot of military training still requires soldiers to train for the possibility that in the field, they will not have technology to render aid, like a mobile crane. They do a lot of stuff with strong backs, so to a degree there is still a need for raw physical strength that, on average, a man will have more of than the average woman. There are obviously exceptions, but that's on the whole.

What do you think has happened to millions of men? They get conscripted, trained then sent to the meat grinder.

Besides Russia had female frontline soldiers in WW2 and Israel also has female frontline soldiers..

Modern US tactics and strategy doesn't use meat grinder tactics. US armed forces use combined arms to support each other such that if a unit comes under fire, they can receive reinforcement from artillery, air strikes, mortar, armored units, nearby infantry, etc. There is a major effort to medivac anyone who gets wounded, and there isn't a normal mindset of being unable to retreat. US forces know they can and often will fall back to a more advantageous position and call in support, not just grind away at the enemy until they all die. I know some militaries are different but even in smaller militaries, there isn't a meat-grinder mentality. A dead soldier is a dead soldier, while a wounded soldier can be healed and returned to the front. A war of attrition only works if you have overwhelming numbers compared to your opponent, and even then is reliant on ensuring that at the end of the day you still come out on top. The Russians have tried this tactic before and had it not been for the Allies pushing against another front, the numbers suggest that had it just been the Germans and Russians on the eastern front, Russia would have lost.

Raw numbers don't mean anything in a modern war. It's about training and quality of equipment, and the US excels at both. Most European militaries excel at both. The meat grinder doesn't work because it relies on the logical fallacy of "Quantity is a quality all it's own."  No, it isn't. If you have 100 tanks that are two generations out of date and 50 modern tanks, you'd be better off with the new tanks because they can run rings around the older tanks and do so with less fuel, less ammunition, less personnel, etc. Trying to grind those 50 tanks into the dirt doesn't work when those modern tanks might kill 4 of the older tanks for each one they lose. In a raw numbers game, the modern tanks still come out ahead because they can kill faster than they themselves are killed.

[Chulanowa]

I think Afghanistan, Iraq, and Ukraine are bringing into question the "all you need is better equipment!" mentality that has dominated US (and its allies') military stratagem for the last uh, sixty years. You know what throw Vietnam on that list too.

A cynical person might even say that this mentality is born out of weapons dealers and contractors having such heavy sway in the government of these nations, and plying politicians with fantastical notions of "cutting edge next-gen weapons"

I mean obviously better equipment helps, but I think it's a case of diminishing returns; a rifle with a digital readout and bluetooth feed into a visor is still just a rifle and the goatherd with a 40 year old AK-47 his dad looted off a Soviet infantryman is still perfectly able of putting a bullet into the soldier with the iGun.

[GloomCookie]

I think Afghanistan, Iraq, and Ukraine are bringing into question the "all you need is better equipment!" mentality that has dominated US (and its allies') military stratagem for the last uh, sixty years. You know what throw Vietnam on that list too.

A cynical person might even say that this mentality is born out of weapons dealers and contractors having such heavy sway in the government of these nations, and plying politicians with fantastical notions of "cutting edge next-gen weapons"

I mean obviously better equipment helps, but I think it's a case of diminishing returns; a rifle with a digital readout and bluetooth feed into a visor is still just a rifle and the goatherd with a 40 year old AK-47 his dad looted off a Soviet infantryman is still perfectly able of putting a bullet into the soldier with the iGun.

The AK-47 is a rifle meant to be manufactured cheap and has such loose tolerances that it's a garbage weapon. The reason the US invested in the M14, M16, and later variants is because we could do far more with far less. But ok, sure, in guerilla warfare, you want cheap and I get that, but Saddam's army folded like a house of cards. There are reports of Iraqi troops surrendering to scout vehicles because they'd been hit so hard, so fast, they couldn't respond. The opening air campaign tore through radar coverage and obliterated Iraqi air defenses, and they knew we were coming. Like, I'm sorry, but you do not get much better than rolling up on a prepared military position and taking it in mere hours and nearly outrunning your own supply lines while going through the enemy lines.

But sure, the AK-47 is the best weapon ever because oh, you can drop it in mud then hand it to a toothless conscript you dug out of the wilderness somewhere who isn't sure how to properly bathe himself. Yes, diminishing returns and all that. In fact, I'm not gonna say much more, I'd rather turn it over to Keelan because they know where I'm going with this. There is a point, yes, where even a normal weapon that any civilian can get their hands on that they become effective, but that is usually using ambush tactics and then scurrying off into a hole somewhere hoping that you can outrun the world of hurt heading your way.

[Chulanowa]

But sure, the AK-47 is the best weapon ever because oh, you can drop it in mud then hand it to a toothless conscript you dug out of the wilderness somewhere who isn't sure how to properly bathe himself.

I didn't know we were giving AK's to the US Marine Corps 

Nah man my point isn't some weird fetishization of the AK - in fact I'm agreeing with you, it's grungy as hell, probably works better as a bong than a rifle. I'm just saying it does work as a rifle and is still pretty good at killing someone, which is the basic function of a rifle.

But then you get goofiness like the OICW, which ended up with a 20 year old rifle that had a war crime with a digital readout on top, clipped together in a plastic casing designed specifically to make it look "space age." Like there's a point where you're just overdesigning shit and changing aesthetics to feul a market rather than to increase any effectiveness.