Should women be drafted?

[MothBalls]

After reading through this thread about women in combat (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=136297), it made me think about a related but totally different question.


Here's a hypothetical question for you.

Let's say all hell breaks out in another part of the world, America's all volunteer force can no longer meet the demands, and they start the draft. If women are allowed into the military, and eventually into combat positions, should they be drafted?

If so, should they be forced into combat roles?

Should they be treated different than any other draftee because they are women?


I believe in equal rights, not just women but any person who can meet the requirements of any position, in the military or civilian life, should be given the opportunity to do so, if that's what they choose to do. Should they be forced to do it like they do to men?

[August]

Should they be forced to do it like they do to men?

Short answer is Yes.

[Letum]

Yup. So long as the draft selects people by merit.

If you need a few million fit people very fast, then you might not be able to select
them based on their individual merits. In this case (and only this case) it would make
sense to discriminate on the basis of gender, race (height different), professions,
etc., but this would not be a idea situation at all as you would miss out on many
of the better people in your hurry.

Woman kind may be physically weaker than man, but there are plenty of individuals
that buck the trend.

The idea that men should be the last on the lifeboats and first to the killing fields
is outdated.

I'm not saying everyone is the same. I am not saying everyone should be treated the
same. I am saying that everyone is different and should be treated as an individual on
their own merits/demerits, not those of their gender.
This is not only a issue of equality, but also one of efficiency and effectiveness.

[Ducimus]

Question is moot, since no US politian would commit whats tantamount to poltical suicide by reinstating the draft to begin with.

[Letum]

Question is moot, since no US politian would commit whats tantamount to poltical suicide by reinstating the draft to begin with.

That will soon change come world war three.

[August]

Question is moot, since no US politian would commit whats tantamount to poltical suicide by reinstating the draft to begin with.
That will soon change come world war three.

I think it would take just that for us to reinstate the draft, a war for national survival.

[flyingdane]

Tough Call :hmm: Maby For Stuff Like Compaionship Or something, :oops:
J\K,... Realy Though It Could Serve A Purpose, "Sure Why Not". :lol:

There are alot of bright females out there you know.

[Ducimus]

Question is moot, since no US politian would commit whats tantamount to poltical suicide by reinstating the draft to begin with.
That will soon change come world war three.

I think it would take just that for us to reinstate the draft, a war for national survival.

Nothing less would be accepted by John Q public. Of course, i think people these days are more leary of their leaders, so it would probably take nothing less then being attacked by a foreign nation. Not some rag tag group of nationless wackjob towelheads parking planes into skyscrapers, but a real "formal" attack by a sovreign power dropping manufactured bombs on US soil. That sends a TOTALLY different message, and arguably the only one that would make the draft acceptable to the public.

[flyingdane]

God I hate To Double post... But is there not allready another post similar to this one. :hmm:

[August]

Nothing less would be accepted by John Q public. Of course, i think people these days are more leary of their leaders, so it would probably take nothing less then being attacked by a foreign nation. Not some rag tag group of nationless wackjob towelheads parking planes into skyscrapers, but a real "formal" attack by a sovreign power dropping manufactured bombs on US soil. That sends a TOTALLY different message, and arguably the only one that would make the draft acceptable to the public.

In every war we've fought throughout our history draftees have been far more difficult to motivate and keep motivated. That's why the military much prefers volunteers.

Makes sense I think. You want the guy in the next foxhole to be there because he chose to be there, not because somebody threatened him with jailtime if he didn't.

[baggygreen]

i think it'd take more than just dropping bombs in the US, ducimus. i think it'd take more like a full blown invasion, and even then you'll get anti-war protestors blaming whatever govt is in power and trying to throw flowers and lovehearts on the enemy...

thatd certainly be the case down here!!!

[orwell]

If the US was formally attacked, I don't know about a draft revival, but you'd sure as hell hear about how many tons of bombs they got dropped on them. But then again, until the world opinion of nuclear weapons becomes one that is as indifferent to them as we are to regular bombs, I don't think we'll see formal wars between most nation-states. Skirmish operations, sure, but not something on scale with WWII.

[Wreford-Brown]

Equal rights took a long time to be introduced so let's show them we mean business.

If they still want doors opening for them, let's draft the lot!!!:D

[bookworm_020]

I doubt that they would re introduce the draft back to Australia. It was voted down twice in WW1, never tried for in WW2, and was unpopular in 70's. If it did come back, I would say yes to women being included, except for some positions.

[Skybird]

I think that it is more important to make sure that policy-makers' and rich people's sons and daughters no longer can manouver to get around getting drafterd, like it happened often during the vietnam war. Those making decisions on or making profits from war should have something personal and precious at risk - not just votes and money.

[Platapus]

That's why the military much prefers volunteers.

Makes sense I think. You want the guy in the next foxhole to be there because he chose to be there, not because somebody threatened him with jailtime if he didn't.

You are making the assumption that everyone who volunteers for the military is motivated by the same things.

How about having the guy in the next foxhole being there because he just wanted the college money and he will be damned if he is going to risk his life for you?

I don't think you can accurately make such generalizations that everyone who volunteers will be motivated by the same things. People join the military for different reasons

Dedication to the country
Education benefits
Training opportunities
Getting away from the family
No other economic opportunities


Hey there are all kinds of reasons for someone to join up. Hell, I can't pin down only one reason I joined up.

I also don't think you can accurately make such generalizations that all draftees are "far more difficult to motivate". Not every draftee resists and goes over the hill. Many many of our draftees accepted the duty as THEIR duty and performed it most honourably.

Some of our bravest heros were draftees who were doing a job they really did not want to do.

Some of our worst schleps were volunteers who only joined for the educational benefits.

I think people are a bit more complex in their motivations.

[Wreford-Brown]

Professional soldiers are the way forward with the wars we're fighting at the moment. In MothBalls original question, he asked a hypothetical question about a WW3 type scenario. If it goes anything like WW2 for the UK, the professional soldiers will be decimated in the first few months of the war and the remaining professionals will be divided amongst drafted troops to try and give them some hard won combat experience. Limited wars are fine for a professional army, total war will be 100% reliant on a draft.

As flyingdane points out, there was a long debate on women in the military in an old thread, kicked off by an 'all female sub crew' report on 1 Apr.