conscription under a different set of circumstances?


January 3, 2003, 07:26 PM
the thread about Ranquel seems to get pretty heated, so i thought i'd take the topic in a different direction.

Suppose it was a different country America was trying to 'control' (for lack of a better word). Lets suppose that hitler never gained any political power and there wasnt a WWII. but hitlers grandson is now in control of much of europe and is oppressing, persecuting, torturing and murdering the peoples of his neighboring lands.
i know that many dont like the idea of being 'forced', or 'coerved' or 'mandated' to serve thier country. my point is to determine if this could possibly be due in part because the American way of life is not percieved as being at risk.

so the question is, would you support a draft if America and her people were in greater danger? say from, a nuclear attack?

If you enjoyed reading about "conscription under a different set of circumstances?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
January 3, 2003, 07:45 PM
If we are under that big of a threat, it should not be a hard sell to get people to volunteer.

I stand by my assertion that the very legitimacy of our government and the freedoms we cherish is threatened by the idea of the draft.

If we cannot raise an army, then we deserve to be defeated.

Would you let the nazis come over here and kill your grandmother?

I sure as hell would not.

If America was directly threatened and we did not have enough volunteers to defend the country, we would have to change the requirements for service first of all. Let women fight, loosen up the age restrictions a bit and take people with minor medical problems to at least free the able bodied up to fight.

If we still could not muster the forces, it would not matter - we would be invaded and then we would essentially all be drafted by circumstance.

I see this as a self correcting problem.

As for nukes - the lack of troops would not really impact our ability to nuke someone who really needed it.

From time to time, we see or hear of wars in diverse places where children are carrying guns and fighting. We look on that with horror and sadness, but usually, the kids are fighting because the men have all been killed.

If we had Stalingrad like conditions, 14 year old boys might have to take up a rifle.

Such conditions would have a profound effect upon future generations and many of the current social diseases (lazyness, apathy, lack of patriotism) would be cast to the wind for a good long time.

January 3, 2003, 08:03 PM
Well Pendragon, I believe we had a draft in WW2, didnt we?

I suppose that would be because not enough people would volunteer otherwise.

I dont think one could argue that our cause was not just, and our country was under attack.

Should the USA have perished in 1945?

January 3, 2003, 09:45 PM
So then if the number of objectors is greater than the numbers of "patriots" then we deserve to die as a country?

I certainly hope we never get to that point.

Hopefully if any country ever carried the battlefield to our native soil we could muster enough of an Army to defend her. I doubted that in that instance there would be much tolerance, if any for any man who refused to fight.

Good Shooting

Bob Locke
January 3, 2003, 09:54 PM
Drafts are only necessary in non-defensive wars.

There was zero conscription in the Revolutionary War, because the cause was just and joined by those wanting to be free.

No man has the right to decide for another what cause(s) are worth dying for.

Bob Locke
January 3, 2003, 09:55 PM
So then if the number of objectors is greater than the numbers of "patriots" then we deserve to die as a country?

Any people unwilling to fight for their own freedom(s) deserve whatever fate they get.

Bob Locke
January 3, 2003, 09:57 PM
Should the USA have perished in 1945?
The U.S. wasn't on the verge of extinction in 1945. Not even close. There were zero attacks conducted on our soil, other than Pearl Harbor, and the threat of invasion on mainland America was nil.

January 3, 2003, 10:40 PM
Um, I fail to see the point of a draft to fend off a nuclear attack. :rolleyes:

But seriously, spiff, while I'm of the firm belief that the draft amounts to involuntary servitude, I recognize that there are extreme circumstances where it might be necessary.

Emphasis on extreme.


It would be interesting to know whether we could have had our WWII fighting force absent the draft. I believe that there is as distinct possibility that we might have. But we'll never know.

In any event, our modern Army is able to do more with less, meaning have less need for sheer numbers of men to throw against the enemy. Normady would be just plane stupid, now ... vertical insertion.

In 1991 we took on the 4th largest army inthe world. Yep, it was a relative cakewalk, but we didn't know before hand that it would be and the cakewalk was due to our bringing to bear sufficent power to defeat a more powerful army. From '73 to '91 we built a volunteer military capable of defeating the Soviets, and theoor Iraqis got in the way.

"Iraq went from the fourth-largest army in the world to the second-largest army in Iraq in 100 hours". Lieutenant General Tom Kelly.

and the threat of invasion on mainland America was nil. Well, the threat of Japanese air attacks on the West Coast wasn't quite nil and the Germans got UBoats into our waters, but your point is strong nonetheless.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm aware of the difference beteen "invasion" and "attack."

January 3, 2003, 10:55 PM
If you enjoy the rights of living in a free democratic republic of the people, by the people, for the people, then you have the responsibility to defend it. Conscription just chooses who is going to have to exercise that responsbility.

January 4, 2003, 04:16 AM
So what if conscription was banned by the constitution?

Does no one grasp the idea that a people unwilling to voluntarily defend their country are on a collision course with Darwin and Tyranny?

Suppose all of Europe (*cough*haha*cough*) banded together to take over the USA. (Lets say that for some reason, nukes are not an option)

The EEE (Evil European Empire) declares war on the US and vows to enslave every man woman and child (especially the women).

The call goes out - we need people to fight, to defend the country.

Personally, I think people would sign up in record numbers.

But suppose they did not. Suppose the populace gave a collective apathetic yawn. The government will protect us.

So... what? The EEE lands on our beaches and starts taking prisoners or shooting people.

Are we all just going to say "not my job"?

If we have not raised our young people up to heed the call, then we have failed to instill in them what America is about and at that point, it really does not matter if the Stars and Stripes are flying or if we fly the EEE flag (which sports a yellow sheep - er, golden ram).

Do you not get that?

January 4, 2003, 08:34 AM
I get your point Pendragon, but your point is over simplified.

Volunteerism is great, but it is reactive, not proactive.

If an"EEE" was to come into being, for example, I doubt it would do much to spur Americans to join the military unless it posed a clear and immediate threat to American security.

Take WWII as an example. We had 2 foreign powers with large aggressive armies, but Americans were not volunteering for military service until after Pearl Harbor. Even then, we still had a draft to increase the numbers.

I agree with you that if America is invaded or attacked, it would be pretty easy to quickly raise a volunteer army, but it is going to be poorly trained and poorly equipped.

Don't get me wrong here, I am not for the idea of a draft in general, but I think that certain circumstances should allow it.

If you enjoyed reading about "conscription under a different set of circumstances?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!