# Should women have to register for the draft?



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Should women be required to register for the draft?


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

A better question would be, should anybody have to register for the draft? Imagine how much more careful our elites would be if they had to rely on true volunteers to back up their escapades.


----------



## Giro flee (Mar 12, 2013)

Yes, of course.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

No.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Yes, why shouldn't they?


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Yes.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Ynot said:


> A better question would be, should anybody have to register for the draft? Imagine how much more careful our elites would be if they had to rely on true volunteers to back up their escapades.


Oh, absolutely.

There are times, though not for 70 years now, when that "cheap, cheap, cheap insurance policy" is actually needed. Even the strictest Constitutionalist has to admit to the authority of the federal government in providing for the national defense.


----------



## MarriedDude (Jun 21, 2014)

Yes -everyone should.

having spent a fair amount of time as a soldier -working with other soldiers from around the globe...the female troops I encountered -had ZERO problem taking care of business.


----------



## staarz21 (Feb 6, 2013)

I think they should 100%.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

I'm probably batshyt crazy but maybe not alone.

If this screwy government tried to draft my wife I would take up arms against them.

That would easily be enough to push me over.

Just my view. 

I do like an all volunteer military BTW.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

ConanHub said:


> I'm probably batshyt crazy but maybe not alone.
> 
> If this screwy government tried to draft my wife I would take up arms against them.
> 
> ...


I would bet that a lot of 1940's era mothers could commiserate. What if she was your son? Does that change your reaction?


----------



## staarz21 (Feb 6, 2013)

ConanHub said:


> I'm probably batshyt crazy but maybe not alone.
> 
> If this screwy government tried to draft my wife I would take up arms against them.
> 
> ...


I think it's something like up to age 25 though for the draft. Now that women are in combat roles, it really is the right thing to do to make things equal. Next, they need to work on those PT tests and paternity leave for men so it can all be square.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Yes! I'm of the belief that all citizens of a nation, regardless of gender, should be required to do their share militarily if there is ever a need that great.


----------



## Kivlor (Oct 27, 2015)

Based on this study commissioned by the Marines Corps, I would say no. In fact, I'd say they probably don't belong in the armed forces.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

staarz21 said:


> I think it's something like up to age 25 though for the draft. Now that women are in combat roles, it really is the right thing to do to make things equal. Next, they need to work on those PT tests and paternity leave for men so it can all be square.


18 to 26


----------



## MarriedDude (Jun 21, 2014)

Kivlor said:


> Based on this study commissioned by the Marines Corps, I would say no. In fact, I'd say they probably don't belong in the armed forces.


The few the proud...the dead on the beach


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

Yes.


----------



## staarz21 (Feb 6, 2013)

anonmd said:


> 18 to 26


Ah thank you. I couldn't remember. :grin2:


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I think the rules should be the same for men and women. 

I don't see any likely need for a draft in the future. My impression is that the nature of war has changed a lot. We need higher skilled soldiers with a lot more support at home than we did in the past. I suspect that even in a desperate war, we want a relatively small number of soldiers (who can be volunteers), and a large number of people working back home to provide the materials and equipment required to let those soldiers fight effectively. 

I don't see mass numbers of soldiers charging machine gun emplacements. I see smaller groups, with various forms of air power and other remote strikes used to take out hard points of resistance.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

I have a lot of mixed feelings about this. Having been in the army voluntarily I am inclined to say yes they should sign up. 

And I do think there's value in the public having a dog in the fight whenever congress decides to nation build so their buddies can get rich; it might not have been so easy to concoct reasons to invade Iraq if people knew everyone close to them was on the list to get drafted. It would make people think a lot harder about what's worth it.

The fact is that if people perceived that the US was in danger you'd have no problem getting people to sign up.....after 9/11 people volunteered in droves. But people may not want to risk their lives or their kids' lives so the govt can meddle in the internal affairs of other countries (Vietnam, anyone?).

But at the same time there could be consequences; what if you drafted a single mother or father? What if nobody was available to care for the kids? Why should they get out of service but childless people don't?

What if you drafted both parents? Do you think the military gives a rat's behind about your family? I have been in and believe me when I say they do not.

And will people still be able to get student deferments and buy their kids out of service? Many of those in congress screaming for military action have never served and their kids don't serve.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

lifeistooshort said:


> And I do think there's value in the public having a dog in the fight whenever congress decides to nation build so their buddies can get rich; it might not have been so easy to concoct reasons to invade Iraq if people knew everyone close to them was on the list to get drafted. It would make people think a lot harder about what's worth it. Or if it were a pay-as-you-go war, with special war taxes.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Ynot said:


> A better question would be, should anybody have to register for the draft? Imagine how much more careful our elites would be if they had to rely on true volunteers to back up their escapades.


The draft ended, when? 1975? That's 41 years ago. It seems unlikely that there will be any draft any time soon. It doesn't seem like an undue burden to register.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Runs like Dog said:


> The draft ended, when? 1975? That's 41 years ago. It seems unlikely that there will be any draft any time soon. It doesn't seem like an undue burden to register.


Why should the government assume that I or my children would be a willing accomplice in their schemes? They can pick a fight with Iran on the basis of their own fallacious circular reasoning and then snag my son or daughter off the street to go and do their dirty work? No thanks! 
Part of the reason they feel they can do whatever they want is because of the willing compliance of the citizenry.
BTW, is it also an undue burden to register your weapons? your marital status? your race? your income?


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

I registered for the draft at 18. Before I was 25, I moved 7 times. Lived outside the the country for 23 months. Got married and fathered children. I don't recall sending a change of address form in one time. My Son just registered. I read about all the possible penalties for not registering. My feeling on the whole thing is why have a whole department of the government that does nothing. While tho potential for abuse is huge, in fact , they don't enforce the law they have. Why double the amount of data to collect?


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

Cletus said:


> Should women be required to register for the draft?


*In a word, yes!

But should only be allowed to serve in non-combat roles!*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

Runs like Dog said:


> The draft ended, when? 1975? That's 41 years ago. It seems unlikely that there will be any draft any time soon. It doesn't seem like an undue burden to register.


That's terrible reasoning. So it's ok to force someone to do anything you want as long as it's not an "undue burden"?

As for my answer, no one should have to register for the draft. If someone feels strongly enough about a cause or has reason to believe that something they care about (family, home, country, freedom, etc) is in jeopardy and the consequences of losing that thing are greater (to them) than the risk of death or injury, they are welcome to pick up a rifle and go to war. But no one has the right to decide that any cause is worth someone else's life.


----------



## Grogmiester (Nov 23, 2015)

yes


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I think the rules should be the same for men and women.
> 
> I don't see any likely need for a draft in the future. My impression is that the nature of war has changed a lot. We need higher skilled soldiers with a lot more support at home than we did in the past. I suspect that even in a desperate war, we want a relatively small number of soldiers (who can be volunteers), and a large number of people working back home to provide the materials and equipment required to let those soldiers fight effectively.
> ...


Depends on the enemy in question.

ISIS? You may be right.

China or NK? You're going to need more manpower.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Kivlor said:


> Based on this study commissioned by the Marines Corps, I would say no. In fact, I'd say they probably don't belong in the armed forces.


If there are problems with women in combat (and I'm not sure there are as long as they meet the same standards as men), then we can always draft them for non-combat roles.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
way out of my area of expertise here, but my thinking:

Modern ground troops are most effective when supported by air power, drones, surveillance etc. It seems that for ever combat soldier in the field, we need a lot of (can be civilian) support building equipment, providing materials etc. 

If we were planning to invade China, we would need a lot of ground forces, but I just don't see that happening. In a war we would (hopefully) pound them until they surrendered. 





Fozzy said:


> Depends on the enemy in question.
> 
> ISIS? You may be right.
> 
> China or NK? You're going to need more manpower.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Ynot said:


> Why should the government assume that I or my children would be a willing accomplice in their schemes? They can pick a fight with Iran on the basis of their own fallacious circular reasoning and then snag my son or daughter off the street to go and do their dirty work? No thanks!
> Part of the reason they feel they can do whatever they want is because of the willing compliance of the citizenry.
> BTW, is it also an undue burden to register your weapons? your marital status? your race? your income?


Well historically there has been an implied bargain with duties and obligations in order to be a member of the nation state. Defense is one of those things. You can of course designate yourself a conscientious objector for any number of accepted religious or social reasons but a big part of the tradeoff when this group or that finally acquires the rights they fought for is a taking-on of some new responsibilities and obligations. Just like being a legal adult. You get to do adult things, but also get to be criminally prosecuted as an adult. 

It's interesting to see how California will cope with this. For instance there's a movement to give the vote or some level of voting participation to illegal aliens. Does that mean they get to serve on juries and run for public office too? I would not accept an illegal alien as a member of a jury of my peers. I would not accept the authority of an illegal alien as an elected official. If you want that right then you need to 'sacrifice' something, in this case the 'freedom' not to be citizen.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Runs like Dog said:


> Well historically there has been an implied bargain with duties and obligations in order to be a member of the nation state. Defense is one of those things. You can of course designate yourself a conscientious objector for any number of accepted religious or social reasons but a big part of the tradeoff when this group or that finally acquires the rights they fought for is a taking-on of some new responsibilities and obligations. Just like being a legal adult. You get to do adult things, but also get to be criminally prosecuted as an adult.


And the other end of that "implied bargain" is that said government will act in the best interests of its citizens. Which has hardly been the case for the past 70 years or so. Abuse of this "implied bargain" along with many others has resulted in many of the issues we face as a nation. What better way to hold government accountable other than to withdraw consent from the "implied bargain"?


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Registering seems so antiquated. Once upon a time, the government knew little about us. Not so anymore. If a draft need arises, they know who we are already.


----------



## MarriedDude (Jun 21, 2014)

lifeistooshort said:


> I have a lot of mixed feelings about this. Having been in the army voluntarily I am inclined to say yes they should sign up.
> 
> And I do think there's value in the public having a dog in the fight whenever congress decides to nation build so their buddies can get rich; it might not have been so easy to concoct reasons to invade Iraq if people knew everyone close to them was on the list to get drafted. It would make people think a lot harder about what's worth it.
> 
> ...


In my experience -MANY if not MOST people that scream for military action have never had to pull that trigger themselves. Never spent 1 day in a uniform, never gave of their own time. Speak volumes about how great the strength of our military and how it should be used as a first resort instead of the last. 

It bugs me more and more. They never serve...but have a great and many opinions about what our military should be used for. IMO..they should shut the hell up...or grab a weapon and walk a post


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

larry.gray said:


> Registering seems so antiquated. Once upon a time, the government knew little about us. Not so anymore. If a draft need arises, they know who we are already.


I can't say that I like this, but I do agree. If they decide they "need" you, they certainly know how to find you.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

We need more good enlistment propaganda.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

MarriedDude said:


> In my experience -MANY if not MOST people that scream for military action have never had to pull that trigger themselves. Never spent 1 day in a uniform, never gave of their own time. Speak volumes about how great the strength of our military and how it should be used as a first resort instead of the last.
> 
> It bugs me more and more. They never serve...but have a great and many opinions about what our military should be used for. IMO..they should shut the hell up...or grab a weapon and walk a post


I agree.....always easy to make decisions that don't affect you. 

And these same scumbags will happily send people off to combat and then have the bvlls to judge some of the things that happen.

War is ugly so if it's not worth it to you don't get involved.

But don't send other peoples kids off and then b!tch that they weren't ethical enough for you while you sat your rear end home on the couch.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

lifeistooshort said:


> But don't send other peoples kids off and then b!tch that they weren't ethical enough for you while you sat your rear end home on the couch.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I never served.

The fact that the military wanted me very much for Nuke school until they found out that I had asthma past my 12th birthday doesn't really factor in to the fact that I "sat on my rear end home on the couch" (or in a regular 4 year university, as the case may be).

So I object to the notion that never having served automatically disqualifies one from having input on the military decision making process. This isn't "Starship Troopers" - citizenship isn't granted only to those who spent time enlisted.


----------



## richie33 (Jul 20, 2012)

Yes...if Uncle Sam demands our sons he should also demand our daughters. Proud Gulf War Veteran.


----------



## MarriedDude (Jun 21, 2014)

Cletus said:


> I never served.
> 
> The fact that the military wanted me very much for Nuke school until they found out that I had asthma past my 12th birthday doesn't really factor in to the fact that I "sat on my rear end home on the couch" (or in a regular 4 year university, as the case may be).
> 
> *So I object to the notion that never having served automatically disqualifies one from having input on the military decision making process. * This isn't "Starship Troopers" - citizenship isn't granted only to those who spent time enlisted.


Of course those that never serve are entitled to their input. No matter how little they understand the consequences of military action. 

regardless of having asthma, flat feet or just all encompassing fear...if you haven't lived it. You just don't get it. Referring to "Starship Troopers" proves my point


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

Cletus said:


> I never served.
> 
> The fact that the military wanted me very much for Nuke school until they found out that I had asthma past my 12th birthday doesn't really factor in to the fact that I "sat on my rear end home on the couch" (or in a regular 4 year university, as the case may be).
> 
> So I object to the notion that never having served automatically disqualifies one from having input on the military decision making process. This isn't "Starship Troopers" - citizenship isn't granted only to those who spent time enlisted.


I didn't mean to imply that everyone who doesn't serve is a deadbeat, only that it's easy to make decisions about things that don't affect you. 


And that it's easy to sit in judgement of the actions of the people that did go when you didn't. 

Of course there are circumstances that make serving impractical or impossible and it's unreasonable to expect everyone to do it.

But even though you couldn't serve if you knew that sending troops would impact those close to you. .... your friends, their kids, your kids, people you know..... you'd be a little more careful when making said decision. 

Right now so few serve that few are even remotely impacted. 

That is a problem.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

lifeistooshort said:


> I didn't mean to imply that everyone who doesn't serve is a deadbeat, only that it's easy to make decisions about things that don't affect you.


That is, of course, true of all government. Voting for a local library levy is taking money out of someone's pocket - money that I can easily afford but to others might be seen as a hardship.

I'm not equating taxation to the loss of life, but the concept is the same. We empower our representatives to make those decisions, hoping that they at least have _some_ skin in the game. 

I'm not disagreeing with your point, only mentioning that this is a necessary evil of our system of government.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

I wish we could all agree to stop referring to our troops as kids. They're not kids, either measured by legality or by their maturity level.

Anyone old enough to serve is old enough to cast their vote on the matter.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Ynot said:


> And the other end of that "implied bargain" is that said government will act in the best interests of its citizens. Which has hardly been the case for the past 70 years or so. Abuse of this "implied bargain" along with many others has resulted in many of the issues we face as a nation. What better way to hold government accountable other than to withdraw consent from the "implied bargain"?


Well sure. You can vote from the rooftops if you like. Better be organized and have a very large number of people behind you first or it won't end well. The Marxist revolution in Mozambique killed more than a half million people and they called that a victory.


----------



## Kivlor (Oct 27, 2015)

lifeistooshort said:


> But don't send other peoples kids off and then b!tch that they weren't ethical enough for you while you sat your rear end home on the couch.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I agree with this sentiment. Especially the last part, about complaining that they aren't ethical enough in the field. I've never understood that whole thing.


----------



## Big Tree (Jul 25, 2014)

I hope that American women are not content with equal opportunity but also want equal responsibility.


----------



## CantePe (Oct 5, 2011)

Ynot said:


> A better question would be, should anybody have to register for the draft? Imagine how much more careful our elites would be if they had to rely on true volunteers to back up their escapades.


This is the best answer in a perfect world.

As for the original question: why not. Women want truly equal rights, shouldn't they have the same expectations of them then?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Perhaps the point of perfect equity will be the day a woman has to burn her draft card and move to Canada.


----------



## CantePe (Oct 5, 2011)

Cletus said:


> Perhaps the point of perfect equity will be the day a woman has to burn her draft card and move to Canada.


I would say so. I'm an equal opportunistic woman.

I'm the one with the unconventional thought process that if a woman comes out swinging at a man she should expect him to swing back at her.

Even my husband doesn't like my views. I also think DV laws are way too skewed in favor of women. All legislation should be gender neutral in my eyes (not just DV ones).

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

CantePe said:


> I would say so. I'm an equal opportunistic woman.
> 
> I'm the one with the unconventional thought process that if a woman comes out swinging at a man she should expect him to swing back at her.


I have struck my wife once in our relationship, when we were engaged.

She took a swing in anger and hit me in the arm (to this day she claims it was playful. I didn't think so at the time). I delivered one right back and told her if I couldn't hit her, she couldn't hit me.

The MAD detente has lasted many years now without border incident.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Cletus said:


> Perhaps the point of perfect equity will be the day a woman has to burn her draft card and move to Canada.



Hardly an issue. It is has been suggested that 75% of military aged Americans are not fit to serve. They are either physically or mentally unfit. No draft card burning, necessary. These sons and daughters need only continue to drink their big gulps and spend all their free time playing on their favorite video console. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

CantePe said:


> I would say so. I'm an equal opportunistic woman.
> 
> I'm the one with the unconventional thought process that if a woman comes out swinging at a man she should expect him to swing back at her.
> 
> ...


:toast:


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

How about doing what Israel and Switzerland do? Everyone serves 2 years when they turn 18?


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

Everyone, even females, should know how to defend themselves and others. 


https://www.quora.com/How-common-is...-military-grade-rifles-as-fashion-accessories

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/119408/why-israel-has-no-newtowns

http://www.solveisraelsproblems.com/pictures-of-israeli-female-soldiers/


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Ynot said:


> Why should the government assume that I or my children would be a willing accomplice in their schemes? They can pick a fight with Iran on the basis of their own fallacious circular reasoning and then snag my son or daughter off the street to go and do their dirty work? No thanks!
> Part of the reason they feel they can do whatever they want is because of the willing compliance of the citizenry.
> BTW, is it also an undue burden to register your weapons? your marital status? your race? your income?


The same reason that government can appropriate your tax money to be spent to make tanks and abortions, whether you want it or not. You (like all of us) are subject to the laws that are passed, not the laws we want to acknowledge, no matter how much it might chap my @$$.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

farsidejunky said:


> The same reason that government can appropriate your tax money to be spent to make tanks and abortions, whether you want it or not. You (like all of us) are subject to the laws that are passed, not the laws we want to acknowledge, no matter how much it might chap my @$$.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I think you need to address your concerns to the person I was quoting. I already understand all of that and my original comments on this thread were in response to a question about a hypothetical situation.


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

farsidejunky said:


> The same reason that government can appropriate your tax money to be spent to make tanks and abortions, whether you want it or not. You (like all of us) are subject to the laws that are passed, not the laws we want to acknowledge, no matter how much it might chap my @$$.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


The question wasn't whether the government could make women register, but whether they should.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Cletus said:


> Oh, absolutely.
> 
> There are times, though not for 70 years now, when that "cheap, cheap, cheap insurance policy" is actually needed. Even the strictest Constitutionalist has to admit to the authority of the federal government in providing for the national defense.


The draft is clearly unConstitutional, being specifically prohibited by Amendment XIII:

"Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

The fact that the SCOTUS has neglected to take judicial notice of this is a travesty of justice.


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

IMFarAboveRubies said:


> How about doing what Israel and Switzerland do? Everyone serves 2 years when they turn 18?


This idea has lots of merit. All citizens turning 18 in the US should serve as a government/military member for 2 yrs. It can be in any of the 438 government agencies. Successful completion (or waiver if applicable) warrants full funding of college, tech school, or vocational training. Full voting rights as a citizen would be granted upon completion as well. Countries like Israel and Germany have used this system for years, including roles for females and special needs kids. 
Then a draft would be unnecessary as this country would always have a trained and ready military reserve available if needed.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

MAJDEATH said:


> This idea has lots of merit. All citizens turning 18 in the US should serve as a government/military member for 2 yrs. It can be in any of the 438 government agencies. Successful completion (or waiver if applicable) warrants full funding of college, tech school, or vocational training. Full voting rights as a citizen would be granted upon completion as well. Countries like Israel and Germany have used this system for years, including roles for females and special needs kids.
> Then a draft would be unnecessary as this country would always have a trained and ready military reserve available if needed.


Someone is going to be VERY busy rewriting our Constitution.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

MAJDEATH said:


> This idea has lots of merit. All citizens turning 18 in the US should serve as a government/military member for 2 yrs. It can be in any of the 438 government agencies. Successful completion (or waiver if applicable) warrants full funding of college, tech school, or vocational training. Full voting rights as a citizen would be granted upon completion as well. Countries like Israel and Germany have used this system for years, including roles for females and special needs kids.
> Then a draft would be unnecessary as this country would always have a trained and ready military reserve available if needed.



The only problem, the military has a primary agenda (narrow and rigid) and to assume we can find work for everyone to fill that overall goal is impractical. Plus, the current budget would amplify many fold. This is hardly justify having that many in the military unless we want to assume that both Canada and Mexico are in constant "war-like" conflict with us. The Israeli experience is very different. 

I like the idea that most youth coming out of high school be require for some level of service work, national, community or international level, but I don't think making the military the dumping ground for this is the best choice. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

Cletus said:


> MAJDEATH said:
> 
> 
> > This idea has lots of merit. All citizens turning 18 in the US should serve as a government/military member for 2 yrs. It can be in any of the 438 government agencies. Successful completion (or waiver if applicable) warrants full funding of college, tech school, or vocational training. Full voting rights as a citizen would be granted upon completion as well. Countries like Israel and Germany have used this system for years, including roles for females and special needs kids.
> ...


"We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union...provide for the common defense, support the general welfare.....". It's already in there. What are you afraid of? 
To the OP, no. Women should not have to register for the draft, as they (along with everyone else) will already be trained or preparing to enter government service.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

MAJDEATH said:


> "We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union...provide for the common defense, support the general welfare.....". It's already in there. What are you afraid of?


Conditioning the right to vote on military service. That will require an amendment, just for starters.


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

Cletus said:


> MAJDEATH said:
> 
> 
> > "We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union...provide for the common defense, support the general welfare.....". It's already in there. What are you afraid of?
> ...


Just a slight clarification to the 14th. I notice there is no amendment approving the draft.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

Ikaika said:


> The only problem, the military has a primary agenda (narrow and rigid) and to assume we can find work for everyone to fill that overall goal is impractical. Plus, the current budget would amplify many fold. This is hardly justify having that many in the military unless we want to assume that both Canada and Mexico are in constant "war-like" conflict with us. The Israeli experience is very different.
> 
> I like the idea that most youth coming out of high school be require for some level of service work, national, community or international level, but I don't think making the military the dumping ground for this is the best choice.
> 
> ...


I'd be happy if everyone had to do a 6 month stint in customer service. I think if everyone had to deal with the aholes at wal mart people would be a lot nicer in general.

I worked customer service in college and it definitely impacts how I deal with customer service.


----------



## Dycedarg (Apr 17, 2014)

No.


----------



## Sammy64 (Oct 28, 2013)

Yes...


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

I doubt anyone wants to pay for a massive increase in the headcount if only for 2 years constantly recycling. Also keep in mind that 'combat' is pretty vague. One of the most dangerous jobs of the military in Afghanistan was/is driving a tanker truck. Women do that job now. What everyone is really alluding to is the small percentage of men and then women who WANT to sit in a rocky hole on the side of a mountain in West Goat.


BTW ladies, the F-35 JSF ejection seat is so poorly designed that the AF has won't allow pilots of under 136lbs to fly the plane and there are other restrictions on pilots up to 165lbs. Isaac Newton is not your friend.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

Runs like Dog said:


> I doubt anyone wants to pay for a massive increase in the headcount if only for 2 years constantly recycling. Also keep in mind that 'combat' is pretty vague. One of the most dangerous jobs of the military in Afghanistan was/is driving a tanker truck. Women do that job now. What everyone is really alluding to is the small percentage of men and then women who WANT to sit in a rocky hole on the side of a mountain in West Goat.
> 
> 
> BTW ladies, the F-35 JSF ejection seat is so poorly designed that the AF has won't allow pilots of under 136lbs to fly the plane and there are other restrictions on pilots up to 165lbs. Isaac Newton is not your friend.


Very true. Many people don't consider that the nature of combat has changed and women ARE on what now constitutes front lines. 

War is no longer about a bunch of guys meeting on the battlefield.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## C3156 (Jun 13, 2012)

To answer the OP, yes. 

The feminists have demanded equality, give it to them. Men have been required for years to sign up with the Selective Service, I see no reason that should not be extended to women as there are no longer restrictions on service.

Being a military member, there now needs to be some equality in other areas, such as pregnancy, now that we can all do everything.


----------



## lateralus (Feb 14, 2016)

Yes.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

It's kind of a chicken vs egg problem isn't it? You want people to have skin in the game but at the same time you want people to be horrified by that. On the other hand there's a shiny technological sheen that American warfare seems to have now; distant, disconnected. Death from above. Unlike say back in the day. Personally, I was exempt from national service for medical reasons but the wars of liberation in the 1960's were brutal up close affairs. You crept around the bush and killed people in plain sight (factoid - next-door Rhodesia's army and police were completely integrated. Our own SAA was partially integrated)


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Runs like Dog said:


> It's kind of a chicken vs egg problem isn't it? You want people to have skin in the game but at the same time you want people to be horrified by that. On the other hand there's a shiny technological sheen that American warfare seems to have now; distant, disconnected. Death from above. Unlike say back in the day. Personally, I was exempt from national service for medical reasons but the wars of liberation in the 1960's were brutal up close affairs. You crept around the bush and killed people in plain sight (factoid - next-door Rhodesia's army and police were completely integrated. Our own SAA was partially integrated)



Those wars of old you speak of are horrible, the stuff of nightmares. The sounds and smells of war are not the stuff of movies, ugh. I will say again, military service is not for everyone. But I am for everyone serving their community, country or worldwide community in some capacity. 

The new drone wars are certainly equally terrifying to the recipients. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Which serves the nation best? Sending young mothers into combat or having them raise the next generation? Which would be most likely to win the next war? 100% male combat troops or 50% female combat troops? With which group can our commanders train to the highest, most challenging standards without incurring the wrath of feminist groups? The military doesn't exist to be trendy, sensitive, or inclusive. We exist to kill people and break their stuff. We don't need people or gear that are 70% effective in combat. Do you have some plan to replace the mothers killed in combat? Have some plan to deal with the offspring of female soldiers who will be raped by the enemy if they are taken POW? Will we make the offspring of terrorists U.S. citizens? Have some plan to deal with the public outcry over propaganda videos of our women being raped? Have some plan to deal with those females who endeavor to get pregnant to avoid combat after receiving their draft notices or after enlisting? 

Will single mothers be exempt from the draft? If so, African American, Native American, and Hispanic females will receive substantially more exemptions than white and Asian women, resulting in a force that would not be racially representative. Asian and Pacific Islander females will receive the fewest exemptions and will, therefore, be drafted at rates higher than their percentage of the population.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog (Sep 27, 2015)

Cletus said:


> Should women be required to register for the draft?


yes.
equality? or just "equality" to get stuff they want?


----------



## Haiku (Apr 9, 2014)

tech-novelist said:


> The draft is clearly unConstitutional, being specifically prohibited by Amendment XIII:
> 
> "Section 1.
> 
> ...


I believe this was settled in 1918. 

To answer the thread's question; yes, if Congress requires it. 
My personal opinion is that if there's a selective service registration it should be required for every able bodied person regardless of gender.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Haiku said:


> I believe this was settled in 1918.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The definition of which can be tricky. A recent report (based upon volunteer recruitment - which may not necessarily represent the whole) from the pentagon stated that only about 25% of all military aged recruits are fit to serve. The major reason for not being fit was primarily due to mental disabilities, physical ailments such as obesity, DM2 and the other medical issues not previous seen in younger individuals. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Haiku (Apr 9, 2014)

Ikaika said:


> The definition of which can be tricky. A recent report (based upon volunteer recruitment - which may not necessarily represent the whole) from the pentagon stated that only about 25% of all military aged recruits are fit to serve. The major reason for not being fit was primarily due to mental disabilities, physical ailments such as obesity, DM2 and the other medical issues not previous seen in younger individuals.


"Able bodied" is merely an expression. Registering for the selective service is not the same as being inducted.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Haiku said:


> "Able bodied" is merely an expression. Registering for the selective service is not the same as being inducted.



Why register if one does not plan to induct? Oh well, I like the idea of service, I just don't think military service is for everyone. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Haiku (Apr 9, 2014)

Ikaika said:


> Why register if one does not plan to induct? Oh well, I like the idea of service, I just don't think military service is for everyone.


The thread's topic asks if women should be required to register. Many people have registered to comply with the statutory requirement never intending to induct unless drafted.


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

unbelievable said:


> Which serves the nation best? Sending young mothers into combat or having them raise the next generation? Which would be most likely to win the next war? 100% male combat troops or 50% female combat troops? With which group can our commanders train to the highest, most challenging standards without incurring the wrath of feminist groups?  The military doesn't exist to be trendy, sensitive, or inclusive. We exist to kill people and break their stuff. We don't need people or gear that are 70% effective in combat. Do you have some plan to replace the mothers killed in combat? Have some plan to deal with the offspring of female soldiers who will be raped by the enemy if they are taken POW? Will we make the offspring of terrorists U.S. citizens? Have some plan to deal with the public outcry over propaganda videos of our women being raped? Have some plan to deal with those females who endeavor to get pregnant to avoid combat after receiving their draft notices or after enlisting?
> 
> Will single mothers be exempt from the draft? If so, African American, Native American, and Hispanic females will receive substantially more exemptions than white and Asian women, resulting in a force that would not be racially representative. Asian and Pacific Islander females will receive the fewest exemptions and will, therefore, be drafted at rates higher than their percentage of the population.


My suggestion is that kids, male and female serve, for two years, at the age of 18 or when they graduate high school. In an ideal world, they are not married or have children. 

I also don't want these young people to serve overseas, but serve at military bases on the North American continent. Let the professional soldiers (males) who enlist after their 2 year stint fight the wars. 

Women should not be fighting wars on foreign soil on the front lines for all the reasons you cited.

Women should know how to handle a variety of weapons and shoot accurately, in case there is an attack in our own country, or to be able to defend their own homes if their husband is gone.

Our young people should not be doing random "volunteer, or community service" during those 2 years, but learning to fight as soldiers. Even if they choose to not enlist, they won't forget their training if / when there is an attack on our homeland and they find themselves in the position to have to fight or defend others.


----------



## Redactus (Nov 22, 2015)

I personally love Heinlein's social dichotomy of "civilians" and "citizens" from Starship Troopers. Those that volunteer, regardless of sex, for a stint of military service become "citizens" with the right to vote. Those that choose not to serve become "civilians" with no right to vote. It would solve a lot of current problems we have in American culture.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Haiku said:


> The thread's topic asks if women should be required to register. Many people have registered to comply with the statutory requirement never intending to induct unless drafted.



I totally understand. And if one does not, getting a federal guaranteed student loan is impossible let alone getting a federal employment. 

My point is that I like the idea (regardless of gender) having every young person registered to actually serve in some capacity, military, community service or world outreach service. 

I served in the military, I just don't think it is for everyone. So I don't get the full extent of military conscription registration for everyone, including women. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

IMFarAboveRubies said:


> My suggestion is that kids, male and female serve, for two years, at the age of 18 or when they graduate high school. In an ideal world, they are not married or have children.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Having been in the military I would disagree. It's just not for everyone. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kilgoretrout (Feb 2, 2016)

But we don't have a draft now. Does the question assume we would reinstitute one?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

Ikaika said:


> Having been in the military I would disagree. It's just not for everyone.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You don't believe that an 18-20 year old can work as a clerk on a base after going through boot camp and some weapons training? My dad had clerks in the military.

(I haven't served in the militrary myself, but I grew up around it and heard my dad talk a lot...he also served during more than one combat tour and would want me to add that he is buried in Arlington.)


----------



## Kilgoretrout (Feb 2, 2016)

IMFarAboveRubies said:


> You don't believe that an 18-20 year old can work as a clerk on a base after going through boot camp and some weapons training? My dad had clerks in the military.
> 
> (I haven't served in the militrary myself, but I grew up around it and heard my dad talk a lot...he also served during more than one combat tour and would want me to add that he is buried in Arlington.)


I don't think we should have a draft at all by I think anyone who signs up should be guaranteed a lot of $
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

IMFarAboveRubies said:


> You don't believe that an 18-20 year old can work as a clerk on a base after going through boot camp and some weapons training? My dad had clerks in the military.
> 
> 
> 
> (I haven't served in the militrary myself, but I grew up around it and heard my dad talk a lot...he also served during more than one combat tour and would want me to add that he is buried in Arlington.)



To your first paragraph? No, I still don't believe this is for everyone. I do believe community service and or world outreach service is a great alternative. 

The military has a very specific mission, and just placing people there because it seems like a good idea, does not always end up serving that mission. 

I certainly don't believe my oldest son should serve, he does not have the mental capacity. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

Ikaika said:


> I certainly don't believe my oldest son should serve, he does not have the mental capacity.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


They wouldn't allow him to serve even if he wanted to, because of his autism. My brother couldn't get in because of being flat footed.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

IMFarAboveRubies said:


> They wouldn't allow him to serve even if he wanted to, because of his autism. My brother couldn't get in because of being flat footed.



My point earlier, the pentagon suggest only 25% of military age youth are military ready. Let alone being combat ready, given we are moving more special forces combat (JSOC) and support by robotic fighting units (drones, etc). The military is already very professional. So why even consider a draft. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

Ikaika said:


> My point earlier, the pentagon suggest only 25% of military age youth are military ready. Let alone being combat ready, given we are moving more special forces combat (JSOC) and support by robotic fighting units (drones, etc). The military is already very professional. So why even consider a draft.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If there were a war, and a draft were necessary, it would take a lot less time to train someone who was already in for 2 years, even as a clerk, than to vet, and then train someone from scratch, no?


----------



## Kilgoretrout (Feb 2, 2016)

IMFarAboveRubies said:


> If there were a war, and a draft were necessary, it would take a lot less time to train someone who was already in for 2 years, even as a clerk, than to vet, and then train someone from scratch, no?


I think compelling people to go to war is wrong. Compelling some sort of community service I could agree with
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

IMFarAboveRubies said:


> They wouldn't allow him to serve even if he wanted to, because of his autism. My brother couldn't get in because of being flat footed.


Not to derail, but I retired from the Army in 2013 after 20 years or service.

My feet are so flat I require orthotics.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

farsidejunky said:


> Not to derail, but I retired from the Army in 2013 after 20 years or service.
> 
> My feet are so flat I require orthotics.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


He is also pigeon toed. It was 36 years ago that he tried to get in. Perhaps the standards changed by the time you joined? Perhaps his feet were just too bad? He had orthotics as a child, and he still had problems when he was 18.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

IMFarAboveRubies said:


> If there were a war, and a draft were necessary, it would take a lot less time to train someone who was already in for 2 years, even as a clerk, than to vet, and then train someone from scratch, no?



We don't fight wars like we used to, so a draft is unnecessary. We fought two simultaneous wars and did not require a draft. Since then we even progressed even further from conventional fighting units. If you read the pentagon reports they prefer professional fighting units. 

So, still, I disagree. But, that is just my opinion. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

Ikaika said:


> *We don't fight wars like we used to*, so a draft is unnecessary. We fought two simultaneous wars and did not require a draft. Since then we even progressed even further from conventional fighting units. If you read the pentagon reports* they prefer professional fighting units.
> *
> So, still, I disagree. But, that is just my opinion.
> 
> ...


I did not know that. I imagined wars like the WWII movie reels/documentaries, where droves of men are fighting, and losing their lives.

If modern warfare is anything like the current Hollywood movies, I totally understand what you mean. 

Sorry I am comparing war to a movie, BTW. That is my only point or reference. I'm sure real soldiers are much more skilled and brave than an actor, and *I deeply respect them.*

The casualty rate would be much lower for professional fighting units, that's for sure, so I get what you are saying.

Can't 18-20 year olds do anything to assist our military while remaining on the continent, and learning how to fight and handle weapons in the event that urban warfare breaks out here someday?


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

IMFarAboveRubies said:


> I did not know that. I imagined wars like the WWII movie reels/documentaries, where droves of men are fighting, and losing their lives.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry, war is not like the movies. 

To your last paragraph, how would this fulfill the mission of the military? These 18-20 years would do better serving their community or some worldwide outreach. Community service - peace missions as to avoid urban warfare among our own citizens. If we get to a point of fighting urban warfare at level that our own police forces can't handle that is the beginning of the end. 

On side note, my oldest son currently works at Marine Corps Base Hawai'i in the PX food court. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Haiku (Apr 9, 2014)

Ikaika said:


> ...I would disagree. It's just not for everyone.


Ikaika - Your opinion there should be no draft and therefore no selective service registration because 'it's not for everyone' is understandable. However since a selective service requirement exists the topic seems to be asking if it should be applied equally to all genders.


----------



## Lionelhutz (Feb 2, 2012)

I think members of Congress should be obliged to have at least one of their military age children involved in any conflict. 

Plus no blanket college exemption.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Haiku said:


> Ikaika - *Your opinion there should be no draft and therefore no selective service registration because 'it's not for everyone' is understandable*. However since a selective service requirement exists the topic seems to be asking if it should be applied equally to all genders.



then that is my answer. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------

