Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
The USA national draft?
Biggles
<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
in Zocalo v2.0
[url]http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=5834001&content_dir=ua_congressorg[/url]
(I don't know how accurate this article is - the site could be a conspiracy theory site done pretty for all I know.)
(I don't know how accurate this article is - the site could be a conspiracy theory site done pretty for all I know.)
Comments
There's nothing wrong with learning some of the stuff you learn in miltary service. Teamwork, discipline, basic firearms and survival skills. Plus all the other little benefits. Having said that, the detractions need to be addressed. The total smashing of the individual in an effort to build cameraderie etc.
I'm not suggesting a 'caring sharing' military but there needs to be some give and take. The Military is renowned for homogenising folk, which is ok doses big enough to form good solid teams, but lousy when it removes all sense of initiative etc. Not being able to fart without express permission of a superior officer sucks....
[B]Twelve months in National Service would do alot of people alot more good than bad.[/B][/QUOTE]
Especially for those who are leading countries.
[i]I'm Exempt...I'm Exempt!....[/i] :D
While I dont agree that a national draft is the right thing for this country, mandatory service would definatly make this country a little bit better place to live. When I was in the service and went to Isreal (a place that has mandatory service), you can just see the diference in the citizens there as opposed to here.
For one thing, it would dispell the myth that the millitary is full of rejects and people who are too stupid or too poor to get into college, or that you would be serving next to a criminal whose only option was jail or military service.
It also gives everyone an understanding of what it really means to be free. Im sick and tired of hearing about a bunch of college kids protesting about their freedom of speach, when all they know of freadom is what they read in a book. Its different when you have to fight for it.
[B]
For one thing, it would dispell the myth that the millitary is full of rejects and people who are too stupid or too poor to get into college, or that you would be serving next to a criminal whose only option was jail or military service.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Actually I think thats the reason why reinstituting the draft would be a horrible idea, is through the draft that the military ends up with all those rejects!! The people in todays army are better educated then the average populace, hell all the officers are collage graduates or have equivillent levels of education, and many of the officers also have equivilent education to those holding graduate degrees!
I've got nothing against "national service"; I really do like the idea. However, I am very much opposed to forcing people into the armed forces against their will or forcing the armed services into accepting those people; contrary to popular belief, the "all-volunteer military" works quite well here in the U.S., and I would much prefer to keep it that way.
Before this, everyone who was not a cripple, or a maniac did it, so it was nothing special...
Recruitment is sky high at the moment and all the armed forces are more than filling up their quotas.
Even if the draft started tomorrow, it would take them over a year to get the draftees together, process them, and train them. That doesn't even include the time to get brand new units established. You just can't throw together 5,000 people into a new combat unit. It takes time to get equipment stockpiled and the whole command staff sorted out. It would be about 1.5 years (give or take a few months) before a new unit rolled out.
Here's the current make-up of the military since 1950:
[url]http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/ms9.pdf[/url]
As you can see....certain years have rather large numbers and that's due to the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Conflict, and Operation Desert Storm. Between those years active personnel for the most part has been stable.
When Clinton took office in the early 1990s, he actively closed down dozens of military bases all throughout the United States. The statistics definitely show a pretty good drop in active personnel. Once Clinton left office and President Bush assumed it, recruitment started going back up (pre-2001). After the September 11th attacks, recruitment has continued to go up. I cannot locate the 2003 numbers (probably haven't been released/compiled yet) so I can't give you an up-to-date assessment.
However, our military statistically speaking is the smallest its been in the last 50 or so years. Some of this is due to our use of highly advanced technology which allows for us to operate more efficiently.
I'm sure in the next 10 years our military will be about the same levels as 1993 or 1994 due to increased funding. In fact, the Navy is adding a lot of new people due to the new carriers coming on-line.
===
On another note, the Army and Marines would be the last place I would want to end up in. I'd rather go Coast Guard, Air Force, or Navy (in that order) if I HAD to go into the military.
Currently, I would most likely be disqualified for the draft due to a medical reasons (messed up left knee that continues to give me problems today...even after having it looked at).
However, they can still put you in non-combat roles like administration, supplies, etc. if they really need you that badly.
We had this one kid, we will call him fucknuts to protect his identity (his real name is Brian Sprayberry). Fucknuts had a problem with telling the truth, he lied about anything and everything. He lied about his age, his schooling, his familiy, his education. What drives me nuts is he lied about things we could find out hes lieing about. Fucknuts also had a problem with cleanliness. He would not shower, or clean his gear. He once got jungle rot on his foot because he wouldnt shower or change his socks from day to day. Unfortunately, me being his NCO, I had to take him to the hospital. 1 bottle of febreez later, and I could sit in my car again. I made the duty driver pick him up.
There were a lot more problems with fucknuts, and he eventually got the Big Chicken Dinner (BCD or Bad Conduct Discharge), one of my SNCO's had his BCD framed and kept it on his desk.
other problem children include the kid I had over for Thanksgiving dinner one year so I knew he wasnt going to kill himself. He had just lost his young fiance, who was pregnant to a drunk driver, his mom to cancer and his vehicle for missing the payments.
In fact, he was the 2nd person I know from the military who wanted to kill himself.
I could write a book on some of the folks I served with. *shudders*
[B]In fact, the Navy is adding a lot of new people due to the new carriers coming on-line.[/B][/QUOTE]
And same time they say these new ship designs come cheaper because smaller crews. (and maintenance costs)
Like this:[url]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dd-x-specs.htm[/url]
[B]And same time they say these new ship designs come cheaper because smaller crews. (and maintenance costs)
Like this:[url]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dd-x-specs.htm[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
That's true, but you do know a carrier takes about 5,000 people to operate it don't you? Just adding two or three of these can put a strain on the Navy's resources without additional sailors.
[B]I've got nothing against "national service"; I really do like the idea. However, I am very much opposed to forcing people into the armed forces against their will or forcing the armed services into accepting those people; contrary to popular belief, the "all-volunteer military" works quite well here in the U.S., and I would much prefer to keep it that way. [/B][/QUOTE]
I very much agree with Tyvar and An Ex Squid!
That said I would still love to see woman forced to register for "Selective Service" when they turn 18 like all men are. You want equal rights sister - you should get it. :) That doesn't mean I want them in combat roles ~ but those of you who know where I'm coming from understand.
[B]That's true, but you do know a carrier takes about 5,000 people to operate it don't you?[/B][/QUOTE]
I think it was about 3000 for carrier, that other 3000 belongs to air wing crew.
[B]absoulutley! women shouldnt be able to have their cake and eat it. (tho ive never understood that expression:rolleyes: ) [/B][/QUOTE]
Really, what would be the point of getting cake if you couldn't eat it? :p
[B]I think it was about 3000 for carrier, that other 3000 belongs to air wing crew. [/B][/QUOTE]
Taken from navy.mil's web site for the crew of Nimitz-class aircraft carriers:
Crew: Ship's Company: 3,200 - Air Wing: 2,480
So, it takes over 5,000 to operate a carrier. A carrier is nothing more than an oversized tin can without its air wing. =) So, the air wing is part of the crew. :)
[B]Food fights, of course. [/B][/QUOTE]
food fights with topless women:D
[B]I very much agree with Tyvar and An Ex Squid!
That said I would still love to see woman forced to register for "Selective Service" when they turn 18 like all men are. You want equal rights sister - you should get it. :) That doesn't mean I want them in combat roles ~ but those of you who know where I'm coming from understand. [/B][/QUOTE]
But think of the poor feminists! :rolleyes:
I say make 'em do the same grunt work the men would have to do. You want equal rights? Then do equal work.
[B]A carrier is nothing more than an oversized tin can without its air wing. =)[/B][/QUOTE]
And oversized target.;)
[B]Taken from navy.mil's web site for the crew of Nimitz-class aircraft carriers:
Crew: Ship's Company: 3,200 - Air Wing: 2,480
So, it takes over 5,000 to operate a carrier. A carrier is nothing more than an oversized tin can without its air wing. =) So, the air wing is part of the crew. :) [/B][/QUOTE]
Not quite (I was stationed on the USS Carl Vinson, one of the early Nimitz class carriers, so I should know:) ).
Carrier air wing (CVW) crews are not a permanent part of an aircraft carrier's crew since CVWs are not permanently assigned to a given carrier, even though they are both part of the same type command (COMNAVAIRPAC or COMNAVAIRLANT). Part of the reason for this is the simple fact that very few Naval Air Stations (where the CVWs are based) have facilities for aircraft carriers since they're usually located in isolated areas inland and/or areas where having pier facilities would be impossible (or too expensive), so having the air wing personnel as part of the ship's force isn't too practical. Also, air wings assigned to a carrier that's about to enter an extended maintenance/repair period are reassigned to a carrier that is coming out of its maintenance period in to keep that air wing available for service.
Also, the air wing crew is only responsible for operating and maintaining their aircraft and equipment; everything else that is related to flight operations (spotting aircraft on the flight/hangar deck or aircraft elevators, refueling/arming aircraft, etc.) is done by ship's personnel in the appropriate ratings, so the CVW crew is [I]not[/I] needed to operate the aircraft carrier itself. :)
And yes, a carrier certainly [I]is[/I] a big tin can without its air wing (or a big, funny-looking cargo ship;) ).:)
[B]Not quite (I was stationed on the USS Carl Vinson, one of the early Nimitz class carriers, so I should know:) ).
Carrier air wing (CVW) crews are not a permanent part of an aircraft carrier's crew since CVWs are not permanently assigned to a given carrier, even though they are both part of the same type command (COMNAVAIRPAC or COMNAVAIRLANT). Part of the reason for this is the simple fact that very few Naval Air Stations (where the CVWs are based) have facilities for aircraft carriers since they're usually located in isolated areas inland and/or areas where having pier facilities would be impossible (or too expensive), so having the air wing personnel as part of the ship's force isn't too practical. Also, air wings assigned to a carrier that's about to enter an extended maintenance/repair period are reassigned to a carrier that is coming out of its maintenance period in to keep that air wing available for service.
Also, the air wing crew is only responsible for operating and maintaining their aircraft and equipment; everything else that is related to flight operations (spotting aircraft on the flight/hangar deck or aircraft elevators, refueling/arming aircraft, etc.) is done by ship's personnel in the appropriate ratings, so the CVW crew is [I]not[/I] needed to operate the aircraft carrier itself. :)
And yes, a carrier certainly [I]is[/I] a big tin can without its air wing (or a big, funny-looking cargo ship;) ).:) [/B][/QUOTE]
I am aware of all that. However, it still takes over 5,000 men/women to keep an aircraft carrier battle ready...regardless if they have "permanent" duty orders. The number listed on the US Navy's web site is most likely an "average" for both crew and air wing.
[B]id definitly be in favour of mandatory national service (even tho id probably be exempt). it would certainly help deal with some of the young delinquents on the streets [/B][/QUOTE]
Question is, would you really want some 'Still Game' type neds in the Armed Forces. :)
Then again, that should have been made clear on the web page itself (it is an [I]official[/I] U.S. Navy website, after all :p) Oh well, expecting the Public Affairs Office to put out completely accurate information to the general public is like expecting your military records to be just as accurate; no matter what, someone in Personnel will [I]always[/I] screw something up.:rolleyes:
[B]absoulutley! women shouldnt be able to have their cake and eat it. (tho ive never understood that expression:rolleyes: ) [/B][/QUOTE]
it's not being able to both have the whole cake, and be able to eat it.
for example, you get a model starfury kit, mint condition, still in box, first of the production, a colectors item.
It's YOURS.
but, if you put it together, you no longer have a mint condition un-used model kit.
put into the terms it's applied to.
your mom makes this beutiful cake for you, you don't know how she did it, it has all kinds of decorations on it, it's a masterpeice that you could look at for hours and still not see all the stuff done to it.
So, you have the cake, but if you cut into it, well, then you can no longer enjoy the cake as a whole, only the cake slice you eat. The masterpeice is gone.