War Czar Considers Draft.

[TC Pilot]

This is compounded by the fact that, if one uses a conscript army(AKA, one built by the draft) they are necessarily less motivated, less well trained, and less well equipped than a volunteer force. As a result, casualties and fatalities will increase, and most likely, so will mental disorders.

How exactly does the method of obtaining manpower necessarily impact the quality of the army, without consideration of training, quantity of equipment and munitions, and national background? There are numerous examples in history of conscript armies being vastly superior to volunteer armies.

[chitoryu12]

This is compounded by the fact that, if one uses a conscript army(AKA, one built by the draft) they are necessarily less motivated, less well trained, and less well equipped than a volunteer force. As a result, casualties and fatalities will increase, and most likely, so will mental disorders.

How exactly does the method of obtaining manpower necessarily impact the quality of the army, without consideration of training, quantity of equipment and munitions, and national background? There are numerous examples in history of conscript armies being vastly superior to volunteer armies.

You mind showing us those examples?

[Howedar]

This is compounded by the fact that, if one uses a conscript army(AKA, one built by the draft) they are necessarily less motivated, less well trained, and less well equipped than a volunteer force. As a result, casualties and fatalities will increase, and most likely, so will mental disorders.

How exactly does the method of obtaining manpower necessarily impact the quality of the army, without consideration of training, quantity of equipment and munitions, and national background? There are numerous examples in history of conscript armies being vastly superior to volunteer armies.

There is an example in history of David killing Goliath.

Clearly midgets are superior to giants in battle.

[TC Pilot]

Surely no one would rationally claim the British Army was superior to the French Grande Armée of the Napoleonic Wars, or superior to its German counterpart in World War I, or that any army was superior to the Red Army throughout the Cold War. Even in ancient times, the Roman Republic relied heavily upon obligatory military service to expand its Empire, and it was the best army of the time.

[SirNitram]

This is compounded by the fact that, if one uses a conscript army(AKA, one built by the draft) they are necessarily less motivated, less well trained, and less well equipped than a volunteer force. As a result, casualties and fatalities will increase, and most likely, so will mental disorders.

How exactly does the method of obtaining manpower necessarily impact the quality of the army, without consideration of training, quantity of equipment and munitions, and national background? There are numerous examples in history of conscript armies being vastly superior to volunteer armies.

Kinda illuminate one that would be relevent to the current situation and it's purported attempts to resolve the problems faced by the military. Because of course, the reason it's being brought up is a matter of manpower. More manpower will result in less training and less per soldier spent on equipment. Then there's the whole 'Less motivated' thing.

It's called math. I'm sure you can manage it if you try.

[chitoryu12]

Didn't the Romans condition and train their soldiers extremely well, however? I would assume that the fact that they were well-trained gave them their advantage, conscripted or not.

[SirNitram]

Surely no one would rationally claim the British Army was superior to the French Grande Armée of the Napoleonic Wars, or superior to its German counterpart in World War I, or that any army was superior to the Red Army throughout the Cold War. Even in ancient times, the Roman Republic relied heavily upon obligatory military service to expand its Empire, and it was the best army of the time.

Yes, both nations also had ridiculously huge empires to funnel cash directly into the military. The US is not on the surest economic footing at present. Try again.

[Stark]

That is a cultural thing, though: some nations have a positive attitude towards the military and military service, and in the case of the Romans service was for twenty years. It's not like a modern conscript army, which will contain people who hate the military and can't wait to get back to their jobs in one or two years, and usually have to be trained up and deployed while the war is in progress and already straining the military.

[Darth Wong]

One of the few wars where we like to think things were pretty black-and-white, though, was World War Two and that was fought with a draft army. But that war is fading from living memory, and we are left instead with living memory of Vietnam, and the perception that brings with it.

More importantly, it is totally irrelevant to this discussion, in which most people have acknowledged that one should fight if one's country is actually in danger of being destroyed or overrun.

DW puts on a miner's helmet and goes right up my ass demanding to know why I think dodging the draft for cowardly reasons is unethical.

You haven't shown that it's unethical for ANY reason, regardless of what that reason is.

I realize that a lot of this stems from my idea that service is not a descent into hell, contrary to popular belief, that you're not destroyed by the experience, it's not some soul-corrupting thing and quite frankly I think that someone who avoids a call of responsibility for the sake of the comfort of their own pampered ass to be contemptible.

Except that you haven't shown it to be an ethical responsibility yet, fucktard. Your argument is nothing more than circular logic: it's unethical because it's a responsibility, and it's a responsibility because ... you say so?

I say again-- our society gives a lot and rarely asks for much in return, and even more rarely these days do we ask this much. But sometimes we do-- and it behooves people to remember that I am talking about a draft in general, not a draft for George Bush, or Iraq, or to refight Vietnam.

So you make generalizations about the cowardice of avoiding a draft IN GENERAL. How is that any more justifiable than making generalizations about the cowardice of avoiding a draft for Iraq or Vietnam, moron? Do you realize that you just admitted to making a blanket generalization for an argument, with no regard whatsoever for context? Are you honestly so fucking stupid that you think this makes your argument stronger?

Running away from your responsibility and whining about it ...

There you go again, stating that it's a moral responsibility without explaining why. Hey dipshit, if someone asks you to explain why something is immoral and you simply say that it's a moral responsibility, that is NOT an answer. That is merely a re-phrasing of your original statement.

I see the occasional draft as a part of overall social responsibility.

And I don't. You have to give some better reason why it's part of one's social responsibility, like the nation facing imminent destruction or something. Simply saying that a draft is an ethical responsibility with no regard whatsoever for the context is pure idiocy, of the sort that I would have hoped you'd be above. Apparently, I overestimated you.

[TC Pilot]

Because of course, the reason it's being brought up is a matter of manpower. More manpower will result in less training and less per soldier spent on equipment.

The draft is being considered as a solution to manpower, not as a means of decreasing the amount of money and resources spent on traning soldiers. You simply assume the United States will send its soldiers undertrained and even more ill-equipped than its current army. Considering this was not the case in every war the United States has used the draft in, I don't believe your assertion.

Then there's the whole 'Less motivated' thing.

"Less motivated" to do what? Follow orders? Shoot a gun? Kill a person? That's what training is for.

It's called math. I'm sure you can manage it if you try.

Of course it costs more to sustain a larger army than a smaller one. That has nothing to do with the quality of conscripts compared to volunteers, solely on the basis of how they were brought into the army.

Yes, both nations also had ridiculously huge empires to funnel cash directly into the military. The US is not on the surest economic footing at present. Try again.

"Both nations"? I mentioned five. France was in the throes of a severe economic depression (you know, the whole cause of that minor Revolution), yet managed to field the largest, most potent fighting force in European history up to that point. Germany was suffering from massive shortages since the start of the war. The Soviet Union's economy and industry was in shambles by the end of the Cold War.

Didn't the Romans condition and train their soldiers extremely well, however? I would assume that the fact that they were well-trained gave them their advantage, conscripted or not

Exactly.

A volunteer with a day's training would inevitably be inferior to a conscript with a year's training. The method the soldier is procured is important to an extent, but it's absurd to assume it to be the sole determinant of a soldier's quality, as SirNitram suggested it was.

[Darth Wong]

A volunteer with a day's training would inevitably be inferior to a conscript with a year's training. The method the soldier is procured is important to an extent, but it's absurd to assume it to be the sole determinant of a soldier's quality, as SirNitram suggested it was.

All other factors being equal, a volunterr will be better on average than a conscript. You're simply assuming that he said it was impossible for a conscript to be better than a volunteer no matter how preposterously you stack the deck. I don't recall him saying any such thing.

[Superman]

If you don't want to get drafted, go get on psych meds. They won't touch you.

I wonder if the Repubs will keep saying how this is NOT like Vietnam...

[TC Pilot]

Whoops, missed this:

That is a cultural thing, though: some nations have a positive attitude towards the military and military service, and in the case of the Romans service was for twenty years. It's not like a modern conscript army, which will contain people who hate the military and can't wait to get back to their jobs in one or two years, and usually have to be trained up and deployed while the war is in progress and already straining the military.

Actually, until several hundred years into the Roman Republic, military service was not for any specific length of time. Rather, farmers (land ownership was a requirement for military service) were called up in the event of war, and were required to provide their own armor and weapons. Until the Punic Wars, Rome had no standing armies. The city was entirely dependant upon a class of citizens whose economic security would be jeopardized in the event of prolonged conflict or injury in battle.

[TC Pilot]

All other factors being equal, a volunterr will be better on average than a conscript. You're simply assuming that he said it was impossible for a conscript to be better than a volunteer no matter how preposterously you stack the deck. I don't recall him saying any such thing.

Here's what he said:

This is compounded by the fact that, if one uses a conscript army(AKA, one built by the draft) they are necessarily less motivated, less well trained, and less well equipped than a volunteer force. As a result, casualties and fatalities will increase, and most likely, so will mental disorders.

So, no, he did say volunteers are fundamentally superior to conscripts because they will be better trained, better equipped, and better motivated by virtue of them being volunteers.

[General Zod]

Whoops, missed this:

That is a cultural thing, though: some nations have a positive attitude towards the military and military service, and in the case of the Romans service was for twenty years. It's not like a modern conscript army, which will contain people who hate the military and can't wait to get back to their jobs in one or two years, and usually have to be trained up and deployed while the war is in progress and already straining the military.

Actually, until several hundred years into the Roman Republic, military service was not for any specific length of time. Rather, farmers (land ownership was a requirement for military service) were called up in the event of war, and were required to provide their own armor and weapons. Until the Punic Wars, Rome had no standing armies. The city was entirely dependant upon a class of citizens whose economic security would be jeopardized in the event of prolonged conflict or injury in battle.

Didn't The Duchess already explain this point already about 8 pages ago?

[Darth Wong]

All other factors being equal, a volunterr will be better on average than a conscript. You're simply assuming that he said it was impossible for a conscript to be better than a volunteer no matter how preposterously you stack the deck. I don't recall him saying any such thing.

Here's what he said:

This is compounded by the fact that, if one uses a conscript army(AKA, one built by the draft) they are necessarily less motivated, less well trained, and less well equipped than a volunteer force. As a result, casualties and fatalities will increase, and most likely, so will mental disorders.

So, no, he did say volunteers are fundamentally superior to conscripts because they will be better trained, better equipped, and better motivated by virtue of them being volunteers.

Oh, I didn't realize it was Nitpick Day. And I forgot my Nitpicker Hat!

The fact that he doesn't bother saying "all other factors being equal" doesn't mean it isn't implicit, genius. Your "aha, but if you took conscripts from a totally different culture and compared them to volunteers from this other culture" or "assume that the conscripts get vastly higher training budget per person" retort is nothing more than you trying to score points for nothing.

[Coyote]

But why is it citizen x's responsibility to fight in George Bush's Ridiculous War? Because Bush says it is?

The OP is dealing with a General's comments about Iraq and a draft, but when the subject drifted to 'cowards' and 'draft dodging' I started talking about a draft in general-- the concept, not just the single application to Iraq.

... Because we should serve the state?

Putting it that way sounds like some sort of socialist-directed uberstate that determines its citizens lives, which is not what I am trying to convey. My point is precisely that the state asks very, very little of us beyond taxes and obeying the law. It is rare for the state to ask this sort of service of us, so when it comes up it must be a matter of national importance. And remember, I mention conscientious objector status frequently as a reason to avoid war, or making a stand of it and go to jail over the situation. It's the running away from all these options that I find problematic.

I realise this is a specific example, but you compare a war your idiot politicians start and then herd people into to someone getting a girl pregnant. Sorry, fighting in random unpopular wars is NOT my responsibility just because my country is involved.

My example was more to focus on shouldering responsibility, even though it will be a major responsibility and potentially life-altering. Not so much to compare war to an unintended pregnancy/marriage.

And again-- "random unpopular" wars-- you continue to assume that every war that uses a draft to boost manpower is an unjust war. Again, I'm talking about wars that may well be justified or where the moral choice is clear, but the amount of volunteers isn't enough and more people are needed. Again, World War Two as an example where a draft army was used.

Actually, since Bush was heavily supported at the time, I guess you could argue that random people were responsible. In this way, perhaps the remoteness of the draft as an option is a bad thing: I'm sure much of the resistance to entering WW2 was due to the knowledge that heaps of people were going to be shipped off to fight it. These days, everyone knows the option isn't really on the table, so they can be Angry White Republicans all they want and nobody they know will have to fight.

Agreed, which in a way is an argument in favor of a draft-- putting the money where the mouth is for the chickenhawks. Unfortunately, a lot of others would be scooped up alongside them, which is another reason why I actually oppose the draft.

[chitoryu12]

Exactly.

A volunteer with a day's training would inevitably be inferior to a conscript with a year's training. The method the soldier is procured is important to an extent, but it's absurd to assume it to be the sole determinant of a soldier's quality, as SirNitram suggested it was.

Of course a volunteer with a day's training is inferior to a conscript with a year's training. That's common sense, unless we're talking about soldiers in the Matrix. Mind actually proving that volunteers get less training than conscripts?

[Coyote]

Well, DW, I guess it's just an appeal to an emotion-- specifically, my emotion; how I feel about the subject. I see it as an unfortunate (and thankfully rare) responsibility due to certain values I hold and that's all there is to it. Ducking out when there are other (IMO) honorable options is just cowardice, and I guess there's no other way to put it.

[Darth Wong]

Well, DW, I guess it's just an appeal to an emotion-- specifically, my emotion; how I feel about the subject. I see it as an unfortunate (and thankfully rare) responsibility due to certain values I hold and that's all there is to it. Ducking out when there are other (IMO) honorable options is just cowardice, and I guess there's no other way to put it.

In other words, it is because you say it is. You're a moron.

Hey guess what: military service is evil. Therefore, you are evil. How do I know this? I just say so! There, I just made an argument 100% as good as yours. Actually even better, because I included an exclamation mark.

[Stark]

The OP is dealing with a General's comments about Iraq and a draft, but when the subject drifted to 'cowards' and 'draft dodging' I started talking about a draft in general-- the concept, not just the single application to Iraq.

I appreciate that, and I'm not doing a great job separating them myself. :S

Putting it that way sounds like some sort of socialist-directed uberstate that determines its citizens lives, which is not what I am trying to convey. My point is precisely that the state asks very, very little of us beyond taxes and obeying the law. It is rare for the state to ask this sort of service of us, so when it comes up it must be a matter of national importance. And remember, I mention conscientious objector status frequently as a reason to avoid war, or making a stand of it and go to jail over the situation. It's the running away from all these options that I find problematic.

I disagree with your logic here. Yes, society asks little of citizens, and people often shirk their social responsibilities even when they cost them very little (ie, voting). However, when a draft comes up it is NOT necessarily a matter of national importance: it could be like the current situation, where it's simply an unpopular war. In these cases, low volunteer numbers is a form of social feedback which -should- be telling decisionmakers that people don't support the war (even if poll numbers of chickenhawks say otherwise). I'm not totally against a draft, I simply think in many cases it would be used to prop up an otherwise untenable war by force of law.

My choice of words here was due to your mentioning of resposibilities of service, which as a regular citizen I don't really have any experience with.

My example was more to focus on shouldering responsibility, even though it will be a major responsibility and potentially life-altering. Not so much to compare war to an unintended pregnancy/marriage.

I see that, but I considered linking one's personal actions to their consequence different to linking someone ELSE'S actions/decisions to their consequences for ME. This led me to my next thought, of course, that these politicians/decisions ARE supported by the population, at least as long as they don't have to actually DO anything.

And again-- "random unpopular" wars-- you continue to assume that every war that uses a draft to boost manpower is an unjust war. Again, I'm talking about wars that may well be justified or where the moral choice is clear, but the amount of volunteers isn't enough and more people are needed. Again, World War Two as an example where a draft army was used.

While unrealistic, perhaps if a nation has a clear course of action that people agree on, but not enough people volunteer, that represents their cultural priorities. I think other cultures (both contemporary and in history) have had a much higher willingness to serve in the military, and if our cultures don't a draft is just a bandaid fix.

Agreed, which in a way is an argument in favor of a draft-- putting the money where the mouth is for the chickenhawks. Unfortunately, a lot of others would be scooped up alongside them, which is another reason why I actually oppose the draft.

I think it's less whether a draft is used or not, rather the common idea that a draft is political suicide. That says 'we don't want to fight', which should really lead to 'maybe we won't start wars'. A population that supports militaristic leaders but doesn't provide volunteer numbers or even ALLOW a draft is a very strange population.

[TC Pilot]

Oh, I didn't realize it was Nitpick Day. And I forgot my Nitpicker Hat!

Curious. I was unaware questioning the validity of his entire argument as to why a draft would be a bad idea is a nitpick. How foolish of me.

The fact that he doesn't bother saying "all other factors being equal" doesn't mean it isn't implicit, genius.

It's hard to find an implicit "all other factors being equal" meaning in a statment that explicitely declares that all factors (training, equipment, and motivation) aren't equal.

That's, of course, ignoring the fact SirNitram did not clarify your implied "all-things-being-equal" after I raised the issue, but actually reinforced his earlier statement:

More manpower will result in less training and less per soldier spent on equipment. Then there's the whole 'Less motivated' thing.

Mind actually proving that volunteers get less training than conscripts?

Considering doing so would serve no purpose other than to satisfy your frivolous and irrelevant demand, yes, I would mind. Instead, I pose you this question (one that's actually relevant): "Why would conscripts get less training than volunteers?" It's strange how people seem to equate conscripts with the Red Army in the midst of Operation Barbarossa, and not, for example, the United States Army in every war conscription was used.

[Stark]

Actually, until several hundred years into the Roman Republic, military service was not for any specific length of time. Rather, farmers (land ownership was a requirement for military service) were called up in the event of war, and were required to provide their own armor and weapons. Until the Punic Wars, Rome had no standing armies. The city was entirely dependant upon a class of citizens whose economic security would be jeopardized in the event of prolonged conflict or injury in battle.

While this isn't really the substance of my post (which was about attitudes towards the military), I was indeed thinking of Imperial legions. However, I don't think that example is particularly relevant, since ancient citizen-farmers would band together to fight invaders *anyway*, and being ordered to show up and organised by the government is a bit different than grabbing modern officeworkers and waitresses and training them.

[SirNitram]

Because of course, the reason it's being brought up is a matter of manpower. More manpower will result in less training and less per soldier spent on equipment.

The draft is being considered as a solution to manpower, not as a means of decreasing the amount of money and resources spent on traning soldiers. You simply assume the United States will send its soldiers undertrained and even more ill-equipped than its current army. Considering this was not the case in every war the United States has used the draft in, I don't believe your assertion.

It's called math. Learn it.

Solving manpower problem means having more soldiers. This means the military budget must now have less per-capita for training and equipment. Again. It's math. I would suggest you learn it.

And I really don't give a fuck if you 'don't believe it'. It's simple math. You're welcome to try and disprove division.

Then there's the whole 'Less motivated' thing.

"Less motivated" to do what? Follow orders? Shoot a gun? Kill a person? That's what training is for.

All of the above. To complete their training. To actually do the job you force them into.

Perhaps you should read some history; conscript armies are notorious in this modern age for their cowardice, mental problems, and discipline problems. Hell, whole units surrender at times(See Desert Storm).

It's called math. I'm sure you can manage it if you try.

Of course it costs more to sustain a larger army than a smaller one. That has nothing to do with the quality of conscripts compared to volunteers, solely on the basis of how they were brought into the army.

Indeed. That would be the matter of 'less motivation' and of course, you have to have less training train, because the service term has to be less. Otherwise the economy can't handle so many people gone.

Yes, both nations also had ridiculously huge empires to funnel cash directly into the military. The US is not on the surest economic footing at present. Try again.

"Both nations"? I mentioned five. France was in the throes of a severe economic depression (you know, the whole cause of that minor Revolution), yet managed to field the largest, most potent fighting force in European history up to that point. Germany was suffering from massive shortages since the start of the war. The Soviet Union's economy and industry was in shambles by the end of the Cold War.

I'm sorry, your wording made it seem like you were comparing the British Empire's armed forces to the above. It matters little; these historical examples lack a certain.. Oh.. Relevence to the modern battlefield, that's it. It's unsurprising you reference so many older ones, really.(And the Soviet Union's army? And where did they fare so well that they merit inclusion?)

Didn't the Romans condition and train their soldiers extremely well, however? I would assume that the fact that they were well-trained gave them their advantage, conscripted or not

Exactly.

A volunteer with a day's training would inevitably be inferior to a conscript with a year's training. The method the soldier is procured is important to an extent, but it's absurd to assume it to be the sole determinant of a soldier's quality, as SirNitram suggested it was.

Actually, it's quite logical to, since the chances of getting a draft passed that would keep in Draftees for over a decade is about nil. To anyone with a basic, rudimentary grasp of reality.

[Drooling Iguana]

Putting it that way sounds like some sort of socialist-directed uberstate that determines its citizens lives, which is not what I am trying to convey. My point is precisely that the state asks very, very little of us beyond taxes and obeying the law. It is rare for the state to ask this sort of service of us, so when it comes up it must be a matter of national importance. And remember, I mention conscientious objector status frequently as a reason to avoid war, or making a stand of it and go to jail over the situation. It's the running away from all these options that I find problematic.

And what makes you think that the state has any right to ask anything of us beyond taxes and obeying the law? The state isn't a person who's feelings will be slighted if you don't reward him/her for their good behaviour. It's merely a mechanism that we built because it's necessary in order for societies beyond a certain size to function. The state, as an entity, has no more right to ask anything of us than the computer you're typing on or the furnace you use to heat your home. You give it the fuel and maintenance it needs to do the job we built it for, no more, no less.