Some thoughts on the draft...

[Suddenly]

I was looking over the online version of the latest issue of "Time," which is available on CNN.com, and I noticed an article that asked whether the draft should be reinstated. There were a bunch of short position statements from various people.

In general, about half were military professionals saying more or less: "Please don't, our military words so well now that we got the whiners and losers out and the only people in it want to be in it."

The other half were politicians (mostly conservative) that said they favored it as a draft made the army more diverse in the socio-economic backgrounds of it's members. Plus I was drafted and it taught me some discipline. Maybe if these kids had to serve we wouldn't have all this crime, drugs, rap music, baggy clothes and that other stuff that bothers me because I'm old, cranky and bitter and just don't understand the kids these days.

So, it seems there are those that want to weaken the U.S. armed forces in the name of social engineering. These people also seem to be the same people that went apesh*t over Clinton's gays in the military policy, not because they are a bunch of homophobes you see, rather because the purpose of the military is to fight and anything that threatens that in the name of social change is just wrong and evil and what we would expect from a pot smoking kremlin loving draft dodger whose wife dictates his every move....

Just seems odd. I wonder how many people we can scrape up that were for the draft and for accepting gays. I understand there is a sizable minority that were against both, but I'd guess not a whole lot for both.

I would like to hear a justification against gays but for the draft that isn't based on dislike of homosexuals, either on the part of the person arguing or implied in others. Can't really come up with one myself.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Suddenly
In general, about half were military professionals saying more or less: "Please don't, our military words so well now that we got the whiners and losers out and the only people in it want to be in it."

The other half were politicians (mostly conservative) that said they favored it as a draft made the army more diverse in the socio-economic backgrounds of it's members.

I think these people (http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2003/poyforum.html), don't match the description you give. Are there more views of others elsewhere?

There is one liberal politician and one conservative politician who support the draft. You might consider Doug Bandow a conservative politician, certainly a former political operator, but he opposes it.

I think you'll find that support for the draft is miniscule in Congress without respect to conservative/liberal.

[Tmy]

They woouldnt use the draft until afte the election. Its political suicide. In fact thats whatteh demos should harp on. Vote Bush and little Jonny might end up on the front line.

[Ed]

I think some sort of national service is a pretty good idea.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Suddenly

The other half were politicians (mostly conservative) that said they favored it as a draft made the army more diverse in the socio-economic backgrounds of it's members. Plus I was drafted and it taught me some discipline. Maybe if these kids had to serve we wouldn't have all this crime, drugs, rap music, baggy clothes and that other stuff that bothers me because I'm old, cranky and bitter and just don't understand the kids these days.


LOL, don't count in it :D

[peptoabysmal]

Hmmm.. I changed my mind, I would like to see Michael Moore get drafted.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Ed
I think some sort of national service is a pretty good idea.

Why? I think Itd be expensive. Not to mention that I'd play havoc with the young workforce and student poplulation.

Why not just give everyone 2 free years of college.

[Luke T.]

I guess I'm one of those "Please don't, our military works so well now that we got the whiners and losers out and the only people in it want to be in it" military people.

I don't even see why anyone is even considering a draft. We have enough troops for the current situation. If a war breaks out with China or something, then maybe a draft.

Even some of the people who volunteered to be in the military are whining right now. They thought they would just collect an extra paycheck and some other benefits each month. They didn't expect to actually have to earn it. Oops.

Our troops are stretched pretty thin. They are away from home longer than usual, and that really sucks. But I don't think it has reached the point that we need a draft.

Re-enlistment rates should tell the real story of whether or not things are as bad as the media would like us to believe.

As for gays in the military, I have not made it a secret that I am against it. There are privacy issues that come into play. I am sure that a company of women wouldn't want a male living, sleeping and showering with them 24 hours a day. Why should hetero men have to live with a gay male? And why would a gay man (or woman, for that matter) want to put him/herself through that kind of torture? I mean, if I was living with 200 women in close quarters on a ship for six months, and showering with them, I'd lose my ever lovin' mind!

It was a rumor around the Navy that when Bill Clinton visited an aircraft carrier and saw what the actual berthing accomodations were like, he began to back off on his insistence of allowing gays in the military. Don't know if that is true or not.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Ed
I think some sort of national service is a pretty good idea.

We have a national "civilian service" ("Zivildienst") of draftees as an alternative to military service here in Germany. I chose that, too, by the way.

It works very well. As far as care for old people and care for the disabled is concerned (except the purely medical care), the system would instantly collapse without the "Zivis". (They cost a fraction of what qualified full-time personnel would cost, and for what they do, their training is adequate)

Incidentally, it works wonders for making people better citizens, too. I´ve known two people who had been @ssholes when I was at school with them who had become sensible, caring young men through having to care for old/disabled people.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed
I think some sort of national service is a pretty good idea.

You seem to think it is a good idea to teach all and sundry how to use arms and kill. It is also a good way to increase crime.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by a_unique_person:
You seem to think it is a good idea to teach all and sundry how to use arms and kill. It is also a good way to increase crime.

What about Switzerland? A nation armed to the teeth, where everly adult male is part of the national militia, and one of the safest socieities on earth.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


You seem to think it is a good idea to teach all and sundry how to use arms and kill. It is also a good way to increase crime. \

Reference to where I said that. Explination of how national service equates to crime.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed
\

Reference to where I said that. Explination of how national service equates to crime.

I believe it was drug addled ex-bomber crews who founded the Hells Angels after WWII, for example.

[ArmchairPhysicist]

I personally don't like the idea of a draft or manditory service as a blanket policy (exceptions will follow).

Drafts and manditory service puts too much power in the hands of the government regarding our personal freedom to choose what we want to do with our bodies. If standing in front of moving bullets is not on my list of career choices, why should the government be able to say "Too bad, get out there!"?

Consider how we'd feel if some representatives from the government showed up at our doors and said "You have to come with us, the new highway project needs more laborers. It should only take three or four years to complete."

Consider further if your personal safety were at risk. Would you like to have police patrolling your neighborhood if they didn't want to be police and really didn't care about the law or your life?
Or if you were the cop, would you want a drafted partner who was forced into the uniform? Would you feel comfortable having him as back-up in any situation?

Would you like to click on CNN and see our massive armies marching across the battlefield, only to duck, cover, and run when the first shot is fired? Personally, I prefer national security to be in the hands of people who want to be there.

Sure, these are all just a bunch of "What if?" scenarios, but consider the full results of what manditory service would have before deciding what you'd like your government to do.

Something to consider is that the government actually does have a better program than manditory service; the National Guard.

What the military already does is pays college students for service. You can go to school for free, and all it takes is one weekend a month and two weeks for the summer. You really can't get a better deal than that, but guess what? Not every student does it!. There are hundreds of thousands of students out there who have been approached with the National Guard education package and have turned it down! Think about it, four years of free school, and all you have to do is show up one weekend a month and pretend to be a soldier.

People would rather work part time all month, scrape by on living expenses, run themselves ragged all month long balancing work with school, go into debt to keep their tuition paid, and spend years after graduation working to pay their student loans back!

People who are that adamant about not joining the military should most certainly not be forced into the military under any circumstances short full-scale invasion of conus.

Now, there are some circumstances where forced service could be good. Our prisons are crowded with people who have made stupid mistakes which have caused them to be removed from society briefly. When they get done their sentances, they will have criminal records, they will have fallen a few years behind on their careers, and they will have been exposed to a society that will most likely change them for the worse. Once they get out, they will be severely limited in their career choices.

For certain crimes and certain sentances, we could instead offer military service as an alternative. Two years for transporting controlled substances? How about four years in the Army?At the very least, he'll come out with skills to make a living legally, and maybe a sense of responsibility. Three years for burglery? Four years in the infantry should straighten him out.

Sure, the system would need more detail than that, but you get the idea. These people would be in the military instead of being in jail, so they would have a bit more motivation to be successful. Failure would put them back in prison where they don't want to be.

Just a few thoughts.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by ArmchairPhysicist


For certain crimes and certain sentances, we could instead offer military service as an alternative. Two years for transporting controlled substances? How about four years in the Army?At the very least, he'll come out with skills to make a living legally, and maybe a sense of responsibility. Three years for burglery? Four years in the infantry should straighten him out.

Sure, the system would need more detail than that, but you get the idea. These people would be in the military instead of being in jail, so they would have a bit more motivation to be successful. Failure would put them back in prison where they don't want to be.

Just a few thoughts.

This is pretty much what happens in some places on an informal basis. My only problem with making it formal is that it could make people suspicious of those with a military background or even those in the service, i.e. " and why were you in the Army? Hmm?"

I support "boot camp" type programs for young first-time offenders; we have a system here that I think quite reasonable. Perhaps a special program along those lines with a emphesis on public service, one that is very strict and difficult to complete successfully...

[CapelDodger]

from Suddenly:
In general, about half were military professionals saying more or less: "Please don't, our military words so well now that we got the whiners and losers out and the only people in it want to be in it."
After WW2 Britain continued conscription as National Service, which meant service in the Armed Forces. This continued until about 1954, as I recall, and was mostly prompted by the die-hard imperialist tendencies within government. The military were overwhelmingly opposed to the whole thing, since money that was being spent on training, feeding and housing unwilling teenagers for two years could be better spent on people who actually wanted to be there. That attitude triumphed, and Britain now has a system of professionals and Territorials (similar to the US reservists and National Guards). I'm not at all surprised that the US military would rather have the money spent on attracting willing recruits, full- and part-time.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by ArmchairPhysicist

For certain crimes and certain sentances, we could instead offer military service as an alternative. Two years for transporting controlled substances? How about four years in the Army?At the very least, he'll come out with skills to make a living legally, and maybe a sense of responsibility. Three years for burglery? Four years in the infantry should straighten him out.

Sure, the system would need more detail than that, but you get the idea. These people would be in the military instead of being in jail, so they would have a bit more motivation to be successful. Failure would put them back in prison where they don't want to be.

Just a few thoughts.

So you think forcing people to join the military would be dangerous, but it would be okay to put criminals in the military? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Yeah, that's what I want. A thief on my ship. Sure. :rolleyes:

edited to add: I wonder why they stopped that practice...

Yeah. I wonder.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I believe it was drug addled ex-bomber crews who founded the Hells Angels after WWII, for example.

I wish I had that laughing dog graphic someone else uses right now...

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I wish I had that laughing dog graphic someone else uses right now...

Everybody has it... just click the "get more" over to the left.

Watch:

:dl:

Woo hoo!

I read Hunter Thompson's book about the Hell's Angels. My memory may suck but I seem to recall War Veterans playing some part, but nothing so specific as old bomber crews.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Everybody has it... just click the "get more" over to the left.

Watch:

:dl:

Woo hoo!

Thanks!

I read Hunter Thompson's book about the Hell's Angels. My memory may suck but I seem to recall War Veterans playing some part, but nothing so specific as old bomber crews.

I think Thompson's book was written well after the Hell's Angels became an outlaw motorcycle gang. He spent a year with them, I believe.

Why I laughed so hard at AUP's description is because it betrays his bias.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I believe it was drug addled ex-bomber crews who founded the Hells Angels after WWII, for example.

I think the members of the 303rd would be upset to hear this trash being repeated again.

Another Urban Legend (http://www.hells-angels.com/history.htm)

The Hells Angels were born in an era where there were servicemen who had come home and had difficulty adjusting to normal life. Motorcycles were cheap and offered an escape from the mundane. Eventually, some of the groups turned into gangs, Hells Angels were not the first. How you can hold this anomaly out as an example of a strong connection between war and crime is beyond my understanding.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Luke T.
As for gays in the military, I have not made it a secret that I am against it. There are privacy issues that come into play. I am sure that a company of women wouldn't want a male living, sleeping and showering with them 24 hours a day. Why should hetero men have to live with a gay male? And why would a gay man (or woman, for that matter) want to put him/herself through that kind of torture? I mean, if I was living with 200 women in close quarters on a ship for six months, and showering with them, I'd lose my ever lovin' mind!


I thought no-one was 'gay' when they were out to sea? Only if they kept 'it' up when they got back to shore? ;)

[NullPointerException]

Until they allow soldiers the same freedoms as citizens im against a draft. I love our army/navy/airforce/marine officers and soldiers but the higher ups and processes would have to bend over backwards with changes before I would go through that mess again. They still use archaic and degrading training procedures for our soldiers so the skilled people who didn't want to be there would just say %$#@ America and go to Canada where they would get payed more.

[TruthSeeker]

Honest question: If there were a draft, would an openly gay person be excluded? I know about "don't ask, don't tell" But what about someone that is well known and gay? Say the guys from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy? Could they be drafted?

Another question I just thought of...would a draft include both men and women?

Thanks and sorry if this detracts from the thread.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I guess I'm one of those "Please don't, our military works so well now that we got the whiners and losers out and the only people in it want to be in it" military people.

I don't even see why anyone is even considering a draft. We have enough troops for the current situation. If a war breaks out with China or something, then maybe a draft.

Even some of the people who volunteered to be in the military are whining right now. They thought they would just collect an extra paycheck and some other benefits each month. They didn't expect to actually have to earn it. Oops.

Our troops are stretched pretty thin. They are away from home longer than usual, and that really sucks. But I don't think it has reached the point that we need a draft.

Re-enlistment rates should tell the real story of whether or not things are as bad as the media would like us to believe.

As for gays in the military, I have not made it a secret that I am against it. There are privacy issues that come into play. I am sure that a company of women wouldn't want a male living, sleeping and showering with them 24 hours a day. Why should hetero men have to live with a gay male? And why would a gay man (or woman, for that matter) want to put him/herself through that kind of torture? I mean, if I was living with 200 women in close quarters on a ship for six months, and showering with them, I'd lose my ever lovin' mind!

It was a rumor around the Navy that when Bill Clinton visited an aircraft carrier and saw what the actual berthing accomodations were like, he began to back off on his insistence of allowing gays in the military. Don't know if that is true or not.

Bah! Couldn't let it rest.

There are at least two problems with this position.

First of all, the way you talk about gays in the military as a what-if scenario hides the fact that there are already gays in the military. They just don't come out and say it, because they don't want to lose their job for picking the wrong sexual orientation. In otherwords, there are already gay males sleeping and showering with the hets, 24 hours a day, and coping with the torture of living with 200 eligible bachelors for six months.

Second, assuming that the military does have some fool-proof way of telling who's gay and who isn't (and if they do, they should market it. Plenty of gay bachelors would kill for one of those.), what's normal about the set-up for naval crew anyway? Six months without seeing a woman. Only being able to talk about them or look at pictures of them. Yet they don't go out of their mind? Is it that much of an adjustment for gay people to go without for six months?

[JAR]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Maybe if these kids had to serve we wouldn't have all this crime, drugs, rap music, baggy clothes and that other stuff that bothers me because I'm old, cranky and bitter and just don't understand the kids these days.

If the U.S. government reinstated the draft, it would have to spend a lot more money on the military.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Plus I was drafted and it taught me some discipline.
That may be true with you, but I was forced to be in the Boy Scouts by my father and I'm the laziest and most irresponsible person I know.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Tmy
They woouldnt use the draft until afte the election. Its political suicide. In fact thats whatteh demos should harp on. Vote Bush and little Jonny might end up on the front line.
That sounds like a good idea for the democrats. If the republican candidate said he was going to reinstate the draft and the democratic one said he would ban drafts altogether, my vote would be for the democratic one.

[jj]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I guess I'm one of those "Please don't, our military works so well now that we got the whiners and losers out and the only people in it want to be in it" military people.


Indeed. The armed forces seem to work astonishingly well at present, why break a good thing!?!?!?


I don't even see why anyone is even considering a draft. We have enough troops for the current situation. If a war breaks out with China or something, then maybe a draft.


If war breaks out with China? No! Please!


Even some of the people who volunteered to be in the military are whining right now. They thought they would just collect an extra paycheck and some other benefits each month. They didn't expect to actually have to earn it. Oops.


Well I find it somewhat astonishing that people who JOINED the army voluntarily are suprised that they have a tin hat and a gun. Um, what did they think the army was!?!?!?


Our troops are stretched pretty thin. They are away from home longer than usual, and that really sucks. But I don't think it has reached the point that we need a draft.


I know quite a few people who were mustered out durning the 1990's who are still of the age, and still recall a lot of the training. If they hadn't been mustered out because of cost-cutting, we'd have a bigger army, and a willing, trained one.

I have no idea if they'd go back, but it would appear to be a pool of good soldiers.


Re-enlistment rates should tell the real story of whether or not things are as bad as the media would like us to believe.


In a nutshell.


As for gays in the military, I have not made it a secret that I am against it. There are privacy issues that come into play. I am sure that a company of women wouldn't want a male living, sleeping and showering with them 24 hours a day. Why should hetero men have to live with a gay male? And why would a gay man (or woman, for that matter) want to put him/herself through that kind of torture? I mean, if I was living with 200 women in close quarters on a ship for six months, and showering with them, I'd lose my ever lovin' mind!


One difference, Luke, you can't tell the difference from the outside, and if the guy keeps it to himself (I don't mean "don't ask, don't tell, I mean he just doesn't, err, proselytize) what's the problem? No idea why, but until I started being places with an obvious female companion, I got hit on by gays fairly often, and you know, I never "defected", just wasn't interested.


It was a rumor around the Navy that when Bill Clinton visited an aircraft carrier and saw what the actual berthing accomodations were like, he began to back off on his insistence of allowing gays in the military. Don't know if that is true or not.
That might scare people off more than gays in the military, eh?

At least it wasn't a Los Angeles with extra crew compliment and full food/supplies for an extended trip, eh?

[jj]

Originally posted by Luke T.


So you think forcing people to join the military would be dangerous, but it would be okay to put criminals in the military? :eek: :eek: :eek:


Unh. Yah. Last kind of person I want to train how to use a gun effectively is the criminal element.

No thanks.


Yeah. I wonder.

Neither do I.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by JAR

That may be true with you, but I was forced to be in the Boy Scouts by my father and I'm the laziest and most irresponsible person I know.

Ummm....

Read it again. I was speaking form the point of view of the "draft supporter."

I personally was never drafted. It was a literary device, as was the other quote of mine you responded to. You aren't responding to me, you are responding to the composite "draft supporter" I created out of thin air.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by ArmchairPhysicist


Something to consider is that the government actually does have a better program than manditory service; the National Guard.

What the military already does is pays college students for service. You can go to school for free, and all it takes is one weekend a month and two weeks for the summer. You really can't get a better deal than that, but guess what? Not every student does it!. There are hundreds of thousands of students out there who have been approached with the National Guard education package and have turned it down! Think about it, four years of free school, and all you have to do is show up one weekend a month and pretend to be a soldier.

People would rather work part time all month, scrape by on living expenses, run themselves ragged all month long balancing work with school, go into debt to keep their tuition paid, and spend years after graduation working to pay their student loans back!

.

Dont forget, theres always that chance of war. Like now. Guys who thought it was sweet deal to join the Natl Guard probably didnt think the risk was high that theyd end up spending 2 years being sniped at in the desert.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Bah! Couldn't let it rest.

There are at least two problems with this position.

First of all, the way you talk about gays in the military as a what-if scenario hides the fact that there are already gays in the military. They just don't come out and say it, because they don't want to lose their job for picking the wrong sexual orientation. In otherwords, there are already gay males sleeping and showering with the hets, 24 hours a day, and coping with the torture of living with 200 eligible bachelors for six months.

I am aware of that. And on every deployment, a couple of them are caught going at it in a storeroom or in their bunks. ANd they have to immediately be placed in protective custody to prevent them from being beaten to death.

That might sound incredibly homophobic, but imagine if a man passed himself off as a woman and lived with 200 women for a while and then was found out. You don't think those women would want to tear him to little shreds?


Second, assuming that the military does have some fool-proof way of telling who's gay and who isn't (and if they do, they should market it. Plenty of gay bachelors would kill for one of those.),

You haven't heard about the AN/HOMO-1(V)3 gaydar? :D


what's normal about the set-up for naval crew anyway? Six months without seeing a woman. Only being able to talk about them or look at pictures of them. Yet they don't go out of their mind? Is it that much of an adjustment for gay people to go without for six months?

Being deprived of women for six months is light years away from actually living and showering with them for six months without being about to touch or even stare.

Imagine being a gay male showering with 200 other guys and restraining yourself from looking and getting aroused...

[Doubt]

Draft only as a last resort.

The military does not exist to provide a means of social adaptation for those who were not raised properly. However, I do sometimes refer to the army as the place that I grew up. Most of that had to do with learning to take responsibility for the actions of others.

Also draftees are not retained long enough to get a good return on investment in their training. Most Vietnam era vets were drafted for two years. Many who were sent to Vietnam were discharged in less than two years. This was fine when you had a relatively low technology force where independent action was not considered a good thing. Now the military has large numbers of technical personnel who require at least a year just to train up for their jobs.

Also modern warfare calls for lower troop concentrations on the battlefield. The end result is that you have lower ranking people making more important decisions. I would not want some conscript with little experience leading a fire team when I could have a sergeant with four years experience leading that same team. More draftees means fewer career soldiers.

Another problem with the draft is that it would push those who are technically orientated away from the army. Get drafted and you could get stuck in the infantry. Join the air force and you may end up living in an air conditioned dorm and get your choice of technical training schools.

I have no problem with the don’t ask, don’t tell policy. Gender orientation should not be an issue. Conduct is an issue. In the civilian world, co-workers should not be involved in any sort of hanky-panky when on company property or on company time. In the military, the living conditions make things more complicated. But if someone can keep it to themselves, then it is their own business. Beyond that, I see no perfect solution.

I do think the military needs to take a closer look at relations between genders. Within the military, I don’t think it is very professional to have intimate relationships with people you work with everyday. How to deal with such an issue is just as difficult as dealing with don’t ask, don’t tell. Then again, I was only in all male units.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Luke T.


So you think forcing people to join the military would be dangerous, but it would be okay to put criminals in the military? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Yeah, that's what I want. A thief on my ship. Sure. :rolleyes:

edited to add: I wonder why they stopped that practice...

Yeah. I wonder.

Have they stopped the practice? I was listening to the This American Life (http://www.thislife.org) where they spend some time on one of the large ships. It's been quite a while since I've heard it, but IIRC, one of the personnel they interview was offered (by a judge) the choice to go to jail or serve in the military.

That would not be a formal program, mind you.

[shanek]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
Have they stopped the practice? I was listening to the This American Life (http://www.thislife.org) where they spend some time on one of the large ships. It's been quite a while since I've heard it, but IIRC, one of the personnel they interview was offered (by a judge) the choice to go to jail or serve in the military.

That would not be a formal program, mind you.

I hardly think it's a coincidence that every time tropps are shipped out from Ft. Bragg the crime rate in Fayetteville drops, only to rise again when the troops come home...

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by shanek


I hardly think it's a coincidence that every time tropps are shipped out from Ft. Bragg the crime rate in Fayetteville drops, only to rise again when the troops come home...

I'm thinking the odds are good that LukeT did, in fact, serve with thieves and other criminals.

I'm not trying to disparage the military here. It just seems that some judges do use the military as a tool for social engineering.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


Have they stopped the practice? I was listening to the This American Life (http://www.thislife.org) where they spend some time on one of the large ships. It's been quite a while since I've heard it, but IIRC, one of the personnel they interview was offered (by a judge) the choice to go to jail or serve in the military.

That would not be a formal program, mind you.

If a potential enlistee has a criminal background, he most likely will not be accepted into service by the recruiter these days. It depends on the severity of the crime. If a judge offers jail or military service to a criminal, he would either have to ensure that the conviction is not on the criminal's record or have an arrangement with the recruiter.

Recruiters can get waivers for certain background problems. Again, it depends on the severity of the "problem" and the desperation of the recruiter.

After the "peace dividend" drawdown in the early 90s, the Navy found itself a little shorthanded. So recruitment requirements were slackened. Next thing I knew, I was getting kids with some very bad backgrounds. One memorable sailor had an armed robbery conviction in his record!!! Was it any wonder he came to my attention as a disciplinary problem?

[Furious]

I'd support a wartime draft for obvious reasons.

What bothers me is the half-assed declarations we've had since WWII requiring a peace time draft. Grow a pair and get Congress to declare it.

I know we have this "War on Terror", but I don't think a draft is needed to win it.

EDIT: It might even be challengeable in court:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_140b.html

[ArmchairPhysicist]

Originally posted by Luke T.


So you think forcing people to join the military would be dangerous, but it would be okay to put criminals in the military? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Yeah, that's what I want. A thief on my ship. Sure. :rolleyes:

edited to add: I wonder why they stopped that practice...

Yeah. I wonder.

Try not to assume that every person put into jail is a bad person who in incapable of reform. Many of them are caught in bad positions in society and could use an oppurtunity to become more than just another ex-con who can't contribute to society. Prison is not always the best place to reform someone, and Army recruiters could bag a good number of worthwhile soldiers by cutting deals with judges.

Like I said, such a system would need more detail than just a blanket choice for every convict to take prison or jail.

Other things to consider for drafting and manditory enlistment is where the money comes from to support such an increase in the military population and who will be filling the gaps in the civilian workforce while the draftees are away on tour. I think the economy would have some quite interesting times.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by ArmchairPhysicist


Try not to assume that every person put into jail is a bad person who in incapable of reform. Many of them are caught in bad positions in society and could use an oppurtunity to become more than just another ex-con who can't contribute to society. Prison is not always the best place to reform someone, and Army recruiters could bag a good number of worthwhile soldiers by cutting deals with judges.

Try not to assume every criminal is just a poor kid who had bad toilet training. The last thing the military needs is more social engineering and experimentation!

The days when a DI could smack a problem child around are long gone.

This reminds me of something that happened a few years ago. Kids started showing up in the fleet with these little credit card thingies. Some sort of stress indicator. They put their thumb on it and could tell by the color the little window turned how stressed out they were. One step up from a freaking mood ring. They were issued these in boot camp. If things got a little too rough, they could call a "training time out." I kid you not.

When we CPOs saw these things starting to show up in the fleet, we would ask the kid if we could look at it. Real nice like. Then we'd take it and toss it over the ship's rail. No training time out on inbound missiles, boys!

There were more than a few times I wished I could belt a subordinate who was being stupid or getting out of line. Perhaps that is where my infinite patience with some people on here comes from. :D :D :D

If you were to offer me, a CPO, the choice between a kid who has a clean record or a kid who was put in the military by a judge for stealing, I'll take the kid who has a clean record every time. I'd rather be short-handed (and I always was) than take on a problem child. I had enough of them as it was.

On ships, you will find that thieves are hated more than anyone else. You have to be able to trust your shipmates when you are living in such close quarters. If you can't, it has a devastating effect on morale.

Like I said, such a system would need more detail than just a blanket choice for every convict to take prison or jail.

Don't use the military as your garbage dump, please.

[ArmchairPhysicist]

This reminds me of something that happened a few years ago. Kids started showing up in the fleet with these little credit card thingies. Some sort of stress indicator.

I'd thought these things were just another legend. I've heard all about them, but have never met someone who actually saw one. It was always "The series that was coming in when we were graduating got them, but we didn't actually get them." with some kind of speculation about their actual use. Everybody knew about them, but none of us had actually seen one. Didn't stop us from making fun of the newjoins, though. ;)


Anyway, it isn't a black and white concept. If we, as a society, believe that certain criminals can be released into society after a limited prison term, then we certainly must believe that those criminals are capable of adjusting to a crime-free life (speeding tickits aside) or at least a socially acceptable life. Given this, we should also be able to evaluate certain criminals as being able to adjust almost immediately, but still deserving of punishment. Persons like this, who show the ability to continue as a productive member of society, could be offered a choice between prison (on their permanant record) or the military.

Of course, the military would still have the choice to decline them.

Don't use the military as your garbage dump, please.

Recruiters would have the final say on whether the candidates would be allowed in, so ultimately it wouldn't be civilians forcing the military to take the dregs of society, it would be the military agreeing to take reformable recruits.

On ships, you will find that thieves are hated more than anyone else. You have to be able to trust your shipmates when you are living in such close quarters. If you can't, it has a devastating effect on morale.

Good point.

We had a saying.. "There ain't but one thief in the Corps... The rest of us are just trying to get our s#it back". ;)

Anyway, it's just a consideration. I think could have potential, but I had different experiences than you did. What might work for grunts might be insane for sailors, and vice-versa.

[NullPointerException]

From my experience military training is more likely you mess you up than reform you.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by NullPointerException
From my experience military training is more likely you mess you up than reform you.

I know what you mean. I had a good friend who went into the Navy because "he needed discipline." He was twice the mess when he got out.

I think it depends on the raw material. Another point against random or forced selection. Let the pros, not the politicians decide who will thrive.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I think it depends on the raw material.

Garbage In, Garbage Out?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by ArmchairPhysicist


I'd thought these things were just another legend. I've heard all about them, but have never met someone who actually saw one. It was always "The series that was coming in when we were graduating got them, but we didn't actually get them." with some kind of speculation about their actual use. Everybody knew about them, but none of us had actually seen one. Didn't stop us from making fun of the newjoins, though. ;)




Yes I assumed it was a legend as well...

http://www.snopes.com/military/stress.htm

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Garbage In, Garbage Out?

Sort of. Maybe not that simple. Some garbage can be reformulated into something useful, other garbage just becomes more noxious.

Also I'm guessing there are those that are just fine and military training warps their minds, something like Private Pyle in "Full Metal Jacket."

I'd like to think they could develop some criteria for determining who is likely to respond favorably to the training, and who is likely to become a bigger problem for society. Mandatory service would make this sort of thing sticky at best, given the political pressures in place.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Andonyx


Yes I assumed it was a legend as well...

http://www.snopes.com/military/stress.htm

That was a card for explaining the training time out. That is not a myth. It was for real. There was also a period when plastic cards with little mushy squares on them were handed out. I saw them with my own eyes. These squares changed colors like mood rings.

The training time out is not a myth.

Perhaps the myth part is that a recruit could use it at any time and everybody had to stop what they were doing. The actual intention of a training time out was if the recruit felt his life was in jeopardy or if he was stressed out too much and wanted counseling. Because this was unheard of prior to that, it became a Navy-wide joke.

And even snopes confirms it was a short-lived thing. Once these kids started getting to the fleet and flashing their cards around, word got back to basic training to cut the crap real quick.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by ArmchairPhysicist


I'd thought these things were just another legend. I've heard all about them, but have never met someone who actually saw one. It was always "The series that was coming in when we were graduating got them, but we didn't actually get them." with some kind of speculation about their actual use. Everybody knew about them, but none of us had actually seen one. Didn't stop us from making fun of the newjoins, though. ;)

I gather you were in the Marines. The Marines didn't have them, so that part was a legend.

Anyway, it isn't a black and white concept. If we, as a society, believe that certain criminals can be released into society after a limited prison term, then we certainly must believe that those criminals are capable of adjusting to a crime-free life (speeding tickits aside) or at least a socially acceptable life. Given this, we should also be able to evaluate certain criminals as being able to adjust almost immediately, but still deserving of punishment. Persons like this, who show the ability to continue as a productive member of society, could be offered a choice between prison (on their permanant record) or the military.

The job of the military is national defense. Not criminal rehabilitation. It is hard enough getting a suburban kid ship-shape without having to deal with a hood.

Of course, the military would still have the choice to decline them.

Recruiters would have the final say on whether the candidates would be allowed in, so ultimately it wouldn't be civilians forcing the military to take the dregs of society, it would be the military agreeing to take reformable recruits.

And they do decline them. A record search is done on every applicant. If you have a criminal record, forget about getting in.

But as I said earlier, if the military forces begin to get low on people, they will begin to allow waivers for certain offenses. A good indication to me of how bad things had gotten was when I was charged with investigating one particular sailor's crimes and during a records check I found he had a prior conviction for armed robbery before he came into the service. That told me more than anything else how much the drawdown of the 90s had gone too far. More often than not, a problem sailor had problems in his record from before his military service for which he had been waived.

We had a saying.. "There ain't but one thief in the Corps... The rest of us are just trying to get our s#it back". ;)

Anyway, it's just a consideration. I think could have potential, but I had different experiences than you did. What might work for grunts might be insane for sailors, and vice-versa.

I hate thieves. Nothing worse than a shipboard thief. Your men can't go to the shower without locking all their stuff up first until you catch him. Whenever we had a thief, I would clear my desk and make it my number one priority to catch him above everything else.

Never saw a Commanding Officer not immediately discharge a thief from the Navy.