Men’s Group wins lawsuit. U.S. Women may be forced to be drafted to wars.

[notimp]

This whole thing has one positive outcome at most.

As soon as the next war gets declared, all of a sudden, you'll have feminists protesting it on the street as well. Because suddenly they are personally affected.

Likely outcome - people will call a war not by its name anymore, the same way its handled for the past three decades.

 

[Saiyan Lusitano]

Going to a foreign country to fight someone else's war and in that process, you might even come back 'incomplete' or in pieces, see friends go crazy or die and for what.. "humanitarian aid"? Not worth it. Leave the people of those countries to settle it themselves.

There are even times govts create "enemy" groups just to invad-- I mean, give the country humanitarian assistance.

 

[Xzi]

When does feminism go too far? This. This. All of it.

Did you not even bother to read the title? It wasn't feminists pushing for this, it was a men's rights group.

As soon as the next war gets declared, all of a sudden, you'll have feminists protesting it on the street as well. Because suddenly they are personally affected.

What the fuck are you talking about? Feminism has never been known as a typically pro-war philosophy. Plus there's almost no chance of the draft coming back, even if we declare another three wars in the next three years.

 

[The Real Jdbye]

Sounds good to me. Women are always talking about equality, well equality goes both ways. And it's not like they are any less capable of shooting a gun than a man.

 

[FAST6191]

Volunteer professional armies is probably going to be the best way until we get decent robots or all become some kind of nano particle/AI swarm. As such conscription is a tricky sell for me.

If you are going to have a draft though then with modern mechanised industry, and with a mixed military already, I don't see why it should not to both sexes.

I will note the split between combat roles and non combat roles.

As far as women in combat. There would be two potential downsides
1) General strength, endurance and such. Men statistically having considerably greater stature, more muscle mass, different bone structure possibly leading to different types of injuries (having to squirt babies out tending to favour different hip/leg styles)...
Ignoring the bone structure thing I am sure there are some women out there that can make the grade (and I will want identical ones here for combat roles). Statistically that is a far lower number though, and modern military concerns are largely all about the statistics.

For combat roles then, despite what others have been saying in this thread, muscle is important -- the weights of things people are carrying these days (the higher end body armour is not light https://www.military.com/daily-news...mor-may-be-too-heavy-combat-report-finds.html , and gear wise they always want people to take more -- a fully loaded L85A3 is some 5KG and most countries don't differ too much here for combat rifles, ruck loads vary somewhat but some 30KG (60LBS or so) is average with it shooting up to 90 or 100LBS for other various roles, ideally which any unit member should be able to fulfil if theirs downed -- knock out you squad's automatic weapon carrier... and there is a reason they call it a force multiplier). It has diminishing returns after a point but stats still come back

Similarly 46.7 kg is the completed weight for a HE shell for the new M777 artillery ( http://www.military-today.com/artillery/m777.htm ), while it comes as pieces that adds up quickly enough and it is not like they are so many that you end up with a bunch of nice 5kg weights to build up a stack. Do you want to tell the people expecting supporting artillery fire that you got a little bit tired and had to reduce the rate?

Still in all work type things I am all about make the grade and you can play.

2) The "protect your women" thing bred into people for millennia at this point. Unit cohesion is very important and things which could upset that are tricky (discipline, morale, repetitive training beyond basic). Will such things lead to unnecessary risks taken or less aggression than might be needed? Would it be easier to take your already statistically small fraction of women out rather than have to beat such ingrained behaviours out of your people (especially if that takes time you could do on other training, or on deployment, or..., and if it has to be renewed as well... well then).

Other psychology could be a factor but it is not like they care about PTSD after the fact, and otherwise seem to have cracked the getting people to kill thing (though I still have my issues with the bayonet training thing that did the rounds a few months back -- some said it was harsh, I am not so sure), so I will ignore that for now.
There is also the possibility for pregnancy thing but I will assume everybody is professional and avoids such problems.

Non combat roles is also not without its concerns -- while a supply unit would ideally not have to have contact with the enemy... an army marches on its stomach and everybody knows that so cut supply lines where you can, possibly even as a priority at times. How many women are going to be able to drag 120KG out of a burning vehicle? Does this further reduce roles available? Mortar fire hits your supply depot and are you similarly going to be as able to drag people to medics, save stuff, drag things around so they don't get consumed?

One then asks are there some kind of extra role that women could fulfil that men might struggle to, or struggle to find as many to do, or just find them better spent elsewhere (front line combat and peacekeeping/quasi police actions are hard roles to switch between, despite having some similar skills between them -- clearing a hostile town and you see a curtain twitch but brush it off... standing in a "friendly" city and see a curtain twitch...). None appear immediately obvious here, at least not without downsides.

 

[kuwanger]

I still pose the question, should the draft even exist anymore? If it's truly necessary, why didn't we use it after 9/11? Why didn't we use it during the Iraq war? Simple answer, because people actually wanted to sign up for these wars and did sign up.

I'd throw in that both Iraq and Afghanistan are/were desert/mountain fighting. Basically, it's some of the best area for deploying drones, having heavy vehicle based movement, etc. When was the worst fighting against a draft? Vietnam. Why? Because jungle + rivers + monsoons == horrible conditions for air support and movement of troops, leading to horrible losses which necessitated a draft to keep troop numbers up. So, yea, unless we perfect jungle warfare or simply refuse to ever go into an area where that's a reality, I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of another draft in the future.

@FAST6191 - As far as your arguments

1) A lot of men can't simply lift 100 lbs or lug around 60+ lbs constantly. The real point is, some women can. In a pure numbers game, that means you want those women as troops--not lowering standards to let more men in.

2) AFAIK, there's a very strong "protect your [adopted family]" mentality in warfare. So, I don't see it being that big of a deal. The pregnancy thing can mostly be dealt with with contraceptives--specifically something like a hormonal IUD. The real risk, I'd argue, might be jealousy as part of group cohesion regardless of whether sex is occurring.

Anyways, the point is you draft as many able bodied people as you can, which inherently means rejecting many for failing to meet standards. You assign people based on their capabilities. If that in the long-term translates into making lighter equipment to better facilitate more people as capable, that's a good thing for the military. Meanwhile, a lot of women will be in the same boat as other conscientious objectors. That's equality.

 

[Darth Meteos]

this is good
if we're going to have something as bad as a draft, let everyone be a part of it
maybe then people will be motivated to make it go away

 

[The Catboy]

I'd throw in that both Iraq and Afghanistan are/were desert/mountain fighting. Basically, it's some of the best area for deploying drones, having heavy vehicle based movement, etc. When was the worst fighting against a draft? Vietnam. Why? Because jungle + rivers + monsoons == horrible conditions for air support and movement of troops, leading to horrible losses which necessitated a draft to keep troop numbers up. So, yea, unless we perfect jungle warfare or simply refuse to ever go into an area where that's a reality, I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of another draft in the future.

I brought up 9/11 in response to the notion that a draft is to be used in case our country is attacked. We were attacked, yet we didn't use the draft, despite 9/11 being a perfectly "valid" reason to want to make our army as big as possible as we fuck everything up. I brought up Iraq due to the fact that a draft could have been used during that time to get more people in Iraq and also continue sending our troops elsewhere. There are reasons that a draft could have been used in both of these wars but yet weren't used.
Although, bringing drones actually brings up another reason why we don't need the draft. Our military forces are becoming more advanced and requiring fewer troops on the battlefield. We are using drones, we are using remote-controlled weapons, we really don't need a system like the draft anymore with these advances. The draft was made when we were just a small country of ragtag misfits, when we needed troops a moment's notice and it didn't matter how well trained they were. That's simply not the case anymore and keeping this system around just for the sake of keeping it around makes less sense as time goes on. Adding women to the draft does add some sense of "equality," but it doesn't change the fact that we should just abolish draft instead because it's just not needed anymore.

 

[kevin corms]

Humans have actually evolved to be used to men dying, I think this will go roughly at least at first.

 

[kuwanger]

brought up 9/11 in response to the notion that a draft is to be used in case our country is attacked. We were attacked, yet we didn't use the draft, despite 9/11 being a perfectly "valid" reason to want to make our army as big as possible as we fuck everything up. I brought up Iraq due to the fact that a draft could have been used during that time to get more people in Iraq and also continue sending our troops elsewhere. There are reasons that a draft could have been used in both of these wars but yet weren't used.

"During the Vietnam War the Administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson decided upon a draft to enhance active duty troop strength rather than calling on large numbers of the National Guard and Reserves.[177] As a result, membership in a reserve component, including the Army National Guard, became a way to avoid combat service in an unpopular war.[178][179] Amid accusations of favoritism in enlistment and "easy" service when compared to duty in Vietnam, the reputation of the Army National Guard declined even as enlistments increased.[180]" -- History of the US Army National Guard (Vietnam)

"The role of the National Guard expanded following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. As part of the Global War on Terrorism, National Guard units and individual National Guard members performed sustained active duty during Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, both as part of scheduled mobilizations and as individual volunteers.[210][211][212] As of 2013, the Army National Guard represents 40% of the US Army's total combat capability.[213]" -- History of the US Army National Guard (21st century)

I'd say that would have a lot to do with it.

Although, bringing drones actually brings up another reason why we don't need the draft. Our military forces are becoming more advanced and requiring fewer troops on the battlefield. We are using drones, we are using remote-controlled weapons, we really don't need a system like the draft anymore with these advances.

Can drones actually hold up well in jungles and monsoons? Nothing I've heard about the drones used makes me think for a second they'd be at all good in such an environment. I mean, I entirely agree with your evaluation about the move towards trying to require fewer troops. We've also pushed heavily on body armor, which would be absolutely terrible in said jungles/monsoons. So, I really hold my judgment on that being a frontier the military can really succeed in.

 

[The Catboy]

"During the Vietnam War the Administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson decided upon a draft to enhance active duty troop strength rather than calling on large numbers of the National Guard and Reserves.[177] As a result, membership in a reserve component, including the Army National Guard, became a way to avoid combat service in an unpopular war.[178][179] Amid accusations of favoritism in enlistment and "easy" service when compared to duty in Vietnam, the reputation of the Army National Guard declined even as enlistments increased.[180]" -- History of the US Army National Guard (Vietnam)

"The role of the National Guard expanded following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. As part of the Global War on Terrorism, National Guard units and individual National Guard members performed sustained active duty during Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, both as part of scheduled mobilizations and as individual volunteers.[210][211][212] As of 2013, the Army National Guard represents 40% of the US Army's total combat capability.[213]" -- History of the US Army National Guard (21st century)

I'd say that would have a lot to do with it.



Can drones actually hold up well in jungles and monsoons? Nothing I've heard about the drones used makes me think for a second they'd be at all good in such an environment. I mean, I entirely agree with your evaluation about the move towards trying to require fewer troops. We've also pushed heavily on body armor, which would be absolutely terrible in said jungles/monsoons. So, I really hold my judgment on that being a frontier the military can really succeed in.

Fair, very fair.
Of course, drones wouldn't hold up in those environments, at the same time I don't really see that as an argument in favor of the draft. Things have changed since Vietnam, this including our military budget, weapons, and literally everything. I didn't bring up Vietnam due to the fact that it actually made sense to need that kind manpower back then, before the advancements that we have today. Drones may not be able to get through the jungle, but it they sure can just fly over the bases and fuck them up that way. We have far better technology today that has completely changed how we conduct warfare nowadays that it's actually unfair to compare it to even 40 years ago.

 

[kuwanger]

Of course, drones wouldn't hold up in those environments, at the same time I don't really see that as an argument in favor of the draft. Things have changed since Vietnam, this including our military budget, weapons, and literally everything.

My point is less "argument in favor of the draft" and more one of argument that we don't know if we'll need a draft. Like you say, a lot of things have changed. Perhaps in totally they'll be enough to never need a draft again. I honestly don't know.

Drones may not be able to get through the jungle, but it they sure can just fly over the bases and fuck them up that way.

Uh, yea. Again, AFAIK, they tried that during Vietnam. However, many enemy soldiers made their temporary bases below the foliage. It's the main reason so much Agent Orange was used. Beyond the long-term collateral damage, it just wasn't remotely effective enough. I do believe that drones could be built to work in such conditions, but it does seem a pretty massive challenge,

 

[DeadlyFoez]

Feminism and this women's equal rights movement, for the most part, is complete bullshit. Women claim that they want equal rights, which they should have and deserve, but the only want the equal rights for the good stuff and not the bad stuff. I have never heard a woman fight for her right to be a trashwoman, and that is a 99.999% man job. Instead, these feminists are not going after equality, they are going after an advantage over men. Sadly, women have it MUCH better than men.
Women get lesser sentences when being convicted of crimes, they get custody of the children ~85% of the time in a divorce, they get maternity leave, and are rarely expected to have to deal with the truly disgusting shit that is generally considered as a man's job.

Forcing women to have to sign up for the draft is equality. Hiring women to clean out septic systems, be trashwomen, and doing all those other nasty jobs is equality. If women want equality so much then they must take the good with the bad, not pick and choose. Any woman that is fighting for equality but then says that women shouldn't have to register for the draft or do those shit jobs is just being a hypocrite.

As the saying goes, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Whats truly funny is that, as I said, no woman is bitching that being a trash collector is a 99.999% mans job, but if a bunch of men start making $300,000 a year doing it, then all of a sudden women will speak up and want a piece of that pie. They only want equality when it gives them more, but they don't want equality when they have to take the crap as well.

 

[The Catboy]

My point is less "argument in favor of the draft" and more one of argument that we don't know if we'll need a draft. Like you say, a lot of things have changed. Perhaps in totally they'll be enough to never need a draft again. I honestly don't know.



Uh, yea. Again, AFAIK, they tried that during Vietnam. However, many enemy soldiers made their temporary bases below the foliage. It's the main reason so much Agent Orange was used. Beyond the long-term collateral damage, it just wasn't remotely effective enough. I do believe that drones could be built to work in such conditions, but it does seem a pretty massive challenge,

I mean, you aren't wrong that we don't know if we will ever need the draft again. At the same time, it seems like we more than likely won't be using it any time soon. The ways we conduct war has changed and it seems we are becoming more focused on having as little troops on the battlefield as possible. Drones and other remote-controlled weapons have been used and improving over the years just for that purpose alone, fewer troops. As well attempting to move away from mistakes like Agent Orange.

 

[FAST6191]

@FAST6191 - As far as your arguments

1) A lot of men can't simply lift 100 lbs or lug around 60+ lbs constantly. The real point is, some women can. In a pure numbers game, that means you want those women as troops--not lowering standards to let more men in.

2) AFAIK, there's a very strong "protect your [adopted family]" mentality in warfare. So, I don't see it being that big of a deal. The pregnancy thing can mostly be dealt with with contraceptives--specifically something like a hormonal IUD. The real risk, I'd argue, might be jealousy as part of group cohesion regardless of whether sex is occurring.

Anyways, the point is you draft as many able bodied people as you can, which inherently means rejecting many for failing to meet standards. You assign people based on their capabilities. If that in the long-term translates into making lighter equipment to better facilitate more people as capable, that's a good thing for the military. Meanwhile, a lot of women will be in the same boat as other conscientious objectors. That's equality.

If 1) is fulfilled and 2) is not going to get in the way then sure. Certainly if it gets so bad a draft was declared (I don't especially see it happening but I am sure there were those in the previous times that also failed to see it).

Similarly if we are going stats I know it was referenced earlier but https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...units-faster-than-mixed-units?t=1551111112168 and https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...study-on-gender-integration-published-in-full for the follow up. While there are some debates over the framing of the thing the stats still say much for me.


As far as Vietnam goes then relevant at this point


Also to add on to things the national guard (these days the home of the only "reserve" combat elements for the army at least) was fairly heavily deployed during Gulf II so that it is not such a get out as it once might have been. https://www.military.com/national-guard-birthday/national-guard-service-in-the-war-on-terror.html and some are still out there https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...yments-to-afghanistan-iraq-kuwait-and-europe/

 

[SG854]

I mean, you aren't wrong that we don't know if we will ever need the draft again. At the same time, it seems like we more than likely won't be using it any time soon. The ways we conduct war has changed and it seems we are becoming more focused on having as little troops on the battlefield as possible. Drones and other remote-controlled weapons have been used and improving over the years just for that purpose alone, fewer troops. As well attempting to move away from mistakes like Agent Orange.

Pretty much what the argument for a Draft is. We don’t know if we’ll ever need it again. But it’s there for “just in case” reasons that we need an extra pool of people.

War has changed. But what is a more safer option? Having no draft and a big war breaks out, and no people you can draw from? Or having a draft and you do have people you can bring?

I always believed even if something doesn’t happen and is likely never to happen, you never know and the future can sometimes be unpredictable and not give you what you expect, it’s always the more responsible thing to play it safe then sorry.

 

[Fates-Blade-900]

Periods are a junk argument when you consider the fact that women are already in the military

That's not the only thing though, hand size, feet size, and muscles matter too, of course I can't say this couldn't happen just that this shouldn't.

 

[SG854]

Is the US still drafting people? Or how does it work now days? (Sorry my knowledge of the US conscriptions are limited and I didn't get any smarter of the Wikipedia article.)

We still have the draft but we haven’t used it in a while.

You can be denied services though if you don’t register for it. This is the biggest argument for discrimination against males since women don’t have to go through this to be elegible.

It’s essentially you have to give up your body when in need. My body not my choice, essential the male version of the argument.

A copy and paste of an earlier comment made by @zfreeman in this thread.

What Happens If You Don’t Register for Selective Service

If you are required to register and you don’t, you will not be eligible for federal student aid, federal job training, or a federal job. You may be prosecuted and face a fine of up to $250,000 and/or jail time of up to five years. If you’re an immigrant to the U.S., you will not be eligible for citizenship.

If you never registered and are being denied federal student aid, job training, a federal job, or citizenship, you may be able to qualify if you didn't intentionally avoid registering. If you can show through a “preponderance of evidence” that your failure to register with Selective Service was not knowing or willful, your benefit may not be denied.

https://www.usa.gov/selective-service

 

[supermist]

Isn't this whole thing just symbolic? A draft would be political suicide for whichever party enacted one. That's how Nixon won after all.

For the record I'm OK with women being drafted too.

 

[kevin corms]

Isn't this whole thing just symbolic? A draft would be political suicide for whichever party enacted one. That's how Nixon won after all.

For the record I'm OK with women being drafted too.

Lots of crazy things have been happening on the democrat side lately, its almost invisible to most people since we have the Trump show.