General News Congress moves to require women to register for military draft

I've never heard a feminist actually argue that women should be exempt, but they do seem to conveniently dodge the question of women being conscripted with the answer that "no one should be conscripted". Obviously I agree with that as well, but it doesn't look like selective services is going away any time soon. So in the meantime, shouldn't it be as equal as possible? Or do they only want the rights and none of the responsibilities? Conscription is something we all disagree with when we're in the age range and once we're out of it, we may end up supporting it. After all, "young people need to learn some responsibility".

In some countries, all young people are required to do something for a couple years that qualifies as "serving your country" and that doesn't necessarily mean military service. But something like that the United States could benefit from. Of course if that were ever enacted, then it would have to apply to both men and women.

 

Unless we're talking Tumblr feminists or something, I believe they/we all agree that it is only fair to have both sexes required to be in Selective Service.

Though as others have already noted, the damn thing should be done away with entirely.

 

I know, I always thought that was so funny. I also love how they say that but then proceed to do nothing about, when they would be completely losing their shit if it was the other way around. Legalized gender discrimination is fine as long as it doesn't hurt women.

 

Good! I agree with most that it shouldn't even be a thing, but they really should look at EVERYONE if that need came up.

Under no circumstance do you want me to be in war - but I know of many females who would do a whole lot better.

 

I am out of the pool.. I can't believe we needed to get females in the army just now.. This should have done years ago.. Clinton was such a disappointment!

 

Voting used to be able to be restricted by states to those over 21. It wasn't until the 26th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified in the 70s that 18 year olds everywhere could vote. This was also strange because you could be unable to vote for the government that starts a war and be sent to war.

It is strange that you can be old enough to kill in the name of the country, but not old enough to drink (though, if you are stationed overseas you will probably be in a country that you can legally drink at 18).

One interesting thing will be how trans people would theoretically be covered in the event of the draft:

Currently, only "penis holders" have to register. For draftability, Selective Service considers transmen to be women, and transwomen to be men, but for registration it's the marker on your ID/driver license/birth certificate. So if you are a transguy and change all the paperwork, you could register theoretically but might be exempt from the actual draft because of your condition. Transwomen would potentially be draftable but might be considered medically unfit. If you haven't caught on yet, war business is a man's business to the military, and undeniably sexist.

A problem might arise for transmen who transition and get their paperwork done after their 26th birthday because Selective Service only accepts late registration before your 26th birthday (because by then you are out of the pool so it would be like "cheating" to register when you can't be drafted). If all your markers say male and you apply for certain government jobs as a man you have to certify under perjury you registered for the draft and didn't register, you might get denied jobs and benefits and have to get an exemption (which might out you in the process as not being born a guy). I think.

 

Well, fuck the government. I'm gonna cut off my fingers when I'm 18 just so I don't have to register. I hate this country so much.

 

If the United States were to get into a protracted war with a country of comparable power (that would be China and Russia in the immediate term, possibly someone else in the further future) or a country where conditions were not practically tailor made for a rapid 'conventional' ground fight then it might very well need many more troops than those who are currently in service. Which would mean a draft would be needed.

Only a tiny fraction of the US population is currently in the military, allowing the rest of us to sit at home and feel safe and comfy. You should thank them for that. Saying that you flat out want the draft to be eliminated or to be exempted from serving in the event a draft was actually needed because you know...reasons...or that you wouldn't want to fight raises the question of if you would like the results of losing a war in which a draft was needed more or less than that.

I see no problem with selective service and see no problem with women being required to sign up for it. I would like to see something in place so that there is no possible way to use wealth or family connections to avoid the draft if one is required.

Todd

 

But the above relies on the idea that most people would be willing to fight for their country. Most might be - I'm not sure - but I wouldn't. Nor would I expect anyone else to. Which is why I find comments calling Syrian men leaving Syria 'cowardly' to be ridiculous - they're doing what comes naturally to many people - fleeing danger. The lives of young men are not disposable, and they do not exist to fight wars for other people.

I believe there was a person on here in Finland who flat-out refused to do mandatory military training, and was facing potential jail time for doing so. I'm not sure what happened with that - but I'd take a similar stance. Given the choice between prison, and potential death in a warzone, the former seems slightly less worse.

There is no draft, no selective service, no conscription in the vast majority of European countries - and this is despite an often belligerent Russia and a volatile Middle East being on our doorstep. Life goes on. The number of global conflicts in the 2000s was lower than in any decade of the 20th century - and given the presence of nuclear warheads, it's debatable whether any future war involving the nuclear powers (US, UK, France, Russia, China) would even be fought via conventional methods. People who grew up during the 60s and 70s - like my mother - will be able to attest to the fact that the concern then was about one kind of war - one that would have no winners or losers. One that renders a selective service completely irrelevant and unnecessary. With any luck, we won't find out.

 

Same. I would literally rather kill myself than register for selective service.

 

While this argument relies on the idea that all wars are voluntary on both sides and that nothing negative ever happens to the losers.

Conveniently, you have people in the UK (and the US) who are willing to perform military service so you don't have to. But if an adversary were invading England and made it clear by word and deed that they were intent on killing all LGBT people, or all British citizens, just what would you do about it?

That would be because the US carries a lot of that water for them. Certainly that's not done out of altruistic reasons and the US has manipulated circumstances to create that situation for what it's leaders see as our self-interest. But there it is.

I grew up during the 70s and 80s and I'm quite familiar with the threat of nuclear war and the annihilation of the human race as a result as a real day-to-day concern, thanks.

We've had nuclear weapons for decades and while the nuclear powers haven't flat out gone at it with each other (conventionally or via nukes), it's not an absolute given that they wouldn't. Whether the other nation-states on Earth now or in the future would be equally...reasonable...is not a given.

Selective Service is an insurance policy. Like an insurance policy, you hope you never have to use it. But you're probably better off having it and not needing it than needing it and not having it.

Todd

 

What would I do? It's hard to say - what I think I would do and what I would actually do, are two different things. At this moment in time, I would say - flee, with my family, and advise other people to do the same. People who flee occupied nations may be categorized as cowards by some people, but this has happened throughout history and I imagine most people would put the needs of their family above that of the collective good. If I thought my life was in immediate danger, I wouldn't hang around.

I don't see selective service improving the fortunes of any country in the face of a foreign aggressor - not least because the people being drafted will often be unfit, poorly trained, or disinterested/not wanting to be there.

Sorry, but if the UK were to introduce something similar, I would happily go to jail, rather than be drafted.

 

I would too. I wouldn't fight no matter what. If I couldn't flee I would rather let my self be killed than kill someone else.

 

If it ever came to the situation where an invasion occurred and LGBT people were being killed, then I'd probably voluntary fight in such an extreme situation, as I would expect others would as well. But fighting a proxy war in some far away nation (e.g. Vietnam) is not a situation like that, and yet the draft was used then. The draft has historically not exclusively been used in situations where U.S. soil was attacked. So I have every reason to be opposed to it.

And there is no way to avoid wealth or family connections as an out for the draft. There will always be bribery, favors, and corruption. A draft system will inherently attract that.

My mother grew up during the same time as you and her older brother just missed the Vietnam draft. My grandparents got out of poverty-stricken Mexico to come to the U.S., but my grandfather always said that he would've gone right back to avoid my uncle being drafted. That's a powerful sentiment coming from him, and I understand it completely.

I would be one of the people burning my draft card and I would do it proudly. Take me to jail if you must.

 

This is politically correct.

 

Can we just eliminate the draft in general? I don't like the idea of someone forced to be part of a cause they want nothing to do with.

 

Quite honestly I'm astounded by the amount of anti-drafters here. The draft is a back up plan in case there is literally nothing else we can do. In this day and age, the draft isn't to give the military more power to add to their own, it is in case the military has completely been destroyed and we have no other option to defend ourselves.

If there hadn't been a draft in WW2, Hitler probably would have won, and all of Europe would be speaking German right now. There would also be no jews, and gay people would be killed.

The idea that so many of you have nothing in life worth fighting for is shocking, considering that we are a group of people who are constantly abused. You don't like the current government? News flash, there are so many countries where it is so much worse. You can't just say that you would rather run away to another country. Eventually there would be no where else to run to.

You don't have to like the draft. No one wants to be drafted, but the naivety of some of these answers, about how the world works, are incredible sad.

 

Wow, I find this incredibly ironic considering how pie-in-the-sky naïve this entire answer of yours is.

First of all, the draft has historically not been used when the "military was destroyed". See Vietnam, a completely unnecessary disaster of a war where the draft did nothing but turn a generation of people against the military and against many of the engagements the United States has undertaken around the world. For a latter day example, the extremely misguided and ineffective "war on terror" shows the extent to which the United States still does not know what it is doing overseas. Being opposed to these engagements is not as simple as "not liking the government", it's a matter of not liking the situations in which the governments deems it appropriate to have U.S. citizens KILLED for.

Secondly, the idea of "other people have it worse" is a fallacy in the sense that just because there are other governments and nations that are more corrupt and more oppressive does not mean we can just ignore the issues we have here.

Being opposed to being forced to fight in a war does not mean we have "nothing worth fighting for". There is a lot I have worth fighting for, VOLUNTARILY. Not under pressure from the government. In the event of such an extreme situation where the military had been completely obliterated and the United States was going to be destroyed, the people would have no choice but to fight...a situation so extreme that no amount of "drafting" would solve it alone. Literally almost every person in the country would have to take up arms in a situation like that.

Think again before you ignorantly condemn a large amount of people on this site. Do not accuse me of having no attachments or no principles just because I do not support compulsory military service.

 

People can say whatever they want about me or my principles, I don't care. I'm not being drafted into war, under any circumstances.

As Libertino rightly points out, things like drafts/selective service have the potential to be abused for no-gain wars. I wouldn't trust the US government to use any selective service wisely given its appalling track record on military matters. I'm just thankfully that this country did away with it years ago because I wouldn't trust it either.

 

I'm not American but I think they should get rid of it entirely, if people aren't willing to fight voluntarily it's probably a war that doesn't need to happen.