*SSS: Selective Service System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System

In the aspects of gender equality, and many other aspects, should Women really be exempt from the SSS?

I personally do believe women should be exempt from the SSS, but I fail to see a justifiable reason.
And really, 'men' also being exempt from the SSS is not an option.

Women contribute less on the battlefield, can lead to sexual troubles in the case of a war (either lack of focus if both sexes are organized together, or harder to organize as a whole if segregated), and are more of a reproductive bottleneck than men are.

duh

Why is it not an option? I think the draft is pretty much like slavery. Even if you get around the slavery thing, it is just really bad economics. Trained soldiers will not really like to work with a noob civilian soldier. Civilians are too fat and unfit to do well in combat. Taking the civilian soldier away from the workforce hurts the economy. (Ex. Community College/high school teacher gets drafted, education falls even more.) I want to take all the money that goes to the military and put it into theoretical physics.

BOOO I HIT F5 AND IT DELETED MY SNARKY REMARK TO BEDAZZLED.

So I'll sum up what I was saying. First off, the likeliness of the government getting away with another draft is about 1 in 1000000000. Second, women aren't allowed to do many MOSs that would be needed most should a draft be reinstated - such as infantry. And while you'd all love to prove me wrong on what I'm about to say, I've met many morons who would prove me right. There are a shocking amount of men in the military who'd rather save the 'damsel in distress' then attend to the mission as planned.. That sounds horribly sexist of me, I know (and I marvel at other militaries that are able to put gender aside), but in simulations this has also proven true. Not to mention it doesn't matter what the men and women on the field are doing, it all depends on what those on top think is equal. So you'd have to convince them first that women enlisting as infantry is plausible first, and just as true with so many organizations there's too many dinosaurs up there. In short, its nice to have all these men and women forced into enlistment ready to be thrown at the opposition's tanks, but if you need 90k infantry and you have 60k men and 45k women then you'll be short there and have extra paper pushers somewhere else.

Otherwise I have no problem with women registering for the SSS. I'd imagine at that point the system would change to some sort of quota per family, though if I remember correctly the current system allows someone to be exempt from the draft - if someone has three brothers that are all enlisted that forth man does not have to enlist. I think that's true, I don't remember. But I'd imagine that a similar structure would be put in place. Someone would have to stay behind to tend to children/elderly, work the civi jobs that are just as important during a war, and so on. A military alone does not win a war.

Its easy for me to say that I do not have a problem with the SSS, I guess. The army has told me that they don't want me thanks to my thyroid. Oh well.

I feel so warm and fuzzy. Prettay sure it was done deliberately though! Ugh look how hard it is to hit a function. Unless you were dancing on your keyboard after whatever, I cannot imagine anyone hitting F5 by accident.

With your first point, I was presupposing a draft, so really, your point not taken. And, as you say, disorganization by mentally deficit men may be a bit of problem.

Because when drafts are enacted, it's usually at a time in of great need of manpower. It presupposes that risking the disadvantage in productivity is necessary to fill the gaps on manpower. Besides, community colleges were never a good place for education.

I don't know either. I've been randomly smashing my face into the keyboard though. It seems like a problem.

Right on with that draft=slavery thing. That's why we lost World War II. Nobody wanted to be there so they just phoned it in. And +1 on the physics idea. No one will invade or attack us if they know we are about to find Higgs Boson.

In all seriousness, here's a good reason why women shouldn't be allowed in infantry: a captured male gets filmed on camera denouncing the war at gunpoint. A captured female gets raped.

First off, war has actually furthered scientific development. Even after the cold war, scientists received funding 'just in case' for their nuclear research. In some ways, you could even blame some members of the scientific community for making the cold war run as long as it did. I feel this is happening now, by the way, with the 2012 scare - scientists are building their arsenals of 'just in case' technology.

Also wait I'm confused. Who lost WWII? I guess I never asked where you're from, Dumbducky, or was that sarcasm?

Kame, don't you understand economics? Slavery is contrary to the slave's self-interest, therefore he will be less efficient then those who want to be there. That's why we lost both World Wars, the Civil War, Vietnam, and won Korea and Mexico.

Actually, World Wars are what put America into the super powered nation in the first place. Otherwise, UK would have owned everything, and Japan would be the superpower of Asia, and Germany would actually be Europe.

Quote from dumbducky

That's why we lost both World Wars, the Civil War, Vietnam, and won Korea and Mexico.

I guess that's for another debate. In my opinion, war is never "won" except for politicians. Ask any Korean veteran (which my grandpa is, received purple heart, bronze, and silver stars) if he/she thinks the war was worth it. I'd like to get back on topic, though.

The Selective Service is, in general, contradictory to American Democracy. That said, I don't believe in it, for men or women. It's interesting, though, that many people from less democratic nations will look at a conscription or mandatory military service as acceptable, or even a civic duty.

However, women shouldn't be exempt from something that men are subject to. Feminists argued for equal rights, so I will argue for equal responsibilities.

I don't understand what the two statements have to do with each other, to be honest. I understand slavery is not in the best interest of a country's long term prosperity. But I don't understand what your classification for 'lost' is.

Female POWs are bound to be treated poorly. In the Spanish Civil War there were female soldiers fighting on the front lines for the Republic, called milicianas.



However they suffered pretty awful fates when captured by the opposing side, who called them "Red Whores" and assumed that any woman "fighting" at the front line was just a prostitute. They were withdrawn from front-line combat duties as soon as possible, both for this reason and because their own commanders thought they were distracting to the men. They ended up doing the usual "womanly" army roles - nurses, seamstresses etc.

As Kame has argued, a draft implies a shortage of front-line combat troops, and armies across the world (except Israel maybe) still consider men as a first choice for combat roles. It doesn't really make much sense for women to be registered on this SSS thing.

The UK hasn't had truly mass conscription since 1920 (didn't really have it before WW1 due to having a professional standing army). We had the National Service during WW2 and that continued into the 1950s before being terminated in 1960 as a form of limited conscription where 18 months military service and four years in the military reserve were required once a man left school. Since then we've gone back to relying on a small professional army.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 19 2011, 7:05 pm by CaptainWill.

Quote from CaptainWill

As Kame has argued, a draft implies a shortage of front-line combat troops, and armies across the world (except Israel maybe) still consider men as a first choice for combat roles.

Israel just wants military power, period. Rather stupid how we continuously coddle the infant and ignore its wrongdoings.

Quote from CaptainWill

It doesn't really make much sense for women to be registered on this SSS thing.

Why not? Women fight for equal rights, why not give them equal rights? You're insinuating the "right" to be taken from your work and family for a period due to a random lottery should only belong to men...seems rather biased, in my opinion.

The system is biased, therefore the selection process is biased. So let's say its a quota per family instead of a quota of males. Two men/women between the correct ages with no known medical problems that would otherwise DQ must report. Let's say due to whatever reason more women show up for duty. This might be because the guys are in college, not physically fit for service, pacifists, or hey let's face it - due to the process women are not as likely to be put in dangerous situation, so let's send our daughters instead of our sons (did I mention I was going to enlist as an MP?). So 45k women show up, 50k men show up, and 90k infantry are needed and 40k Intel Ops are needed. Alright, all men enlisted go to infantry, women to special ops. You have a 40k shortage of infantry and a 5k surplus in in special ops. You can send some of them home, sure, but that doesn't fix your shortage.

Likewise, let's say the military budget for project XYZ is set in stone. If you don't use up all the money, your funding goes down on the next project. So you keep your surplus to maintain your funding. This happens all the time in business and government - its a huge problem for seasonally adjusted projects. Financers like to assign 40k to a year long project, but if in Q1 you only use 8k, they'll cut the funding for the next quarter even though you're planning on using that surplus 12k in Q4. So what tends to happen is that project managers fight tooth and nail to instead get 48k, so that they can properly waste money in the first quarter without losing funding by the forth quarter. Otherwise, its most likely the person providing the money will just cut your quarterly budget to 32k. That way, the person assigning the budget gets a pat on the back because hey they saved 8k on a project that has now failed... due to insufficient funds (but this last part is not really reported. All that would be reported is that hey this project failed. You saved us money. YAY!). On the other hand, the project manager gets a pat on the back with a 48k project because they completed it (logically, if it was also successful now. It used to be as long as you were on budget and on schedule no one really cared how successful the project was.)

It is one of the big failing of business - there's too many old people in upper management either used to the way things were run 'back then' or who want things simplified out. Its a very destructive cycle. Likewise, you can relate this problem to other resources. If you conscript 95k people, but you only use 75k of them, someone is going to be screaming for blood. It’s a logistic and strategic nightmare.

Don't bring women into the wars - that's going backwards. They are on the right track. Now, take men out of wars - and we'll be making progress at last!

Now, drafting. Despicable! A person should choose whether they want to go to war or not. Eg. I would have gone to WW2, WW1 - but I wouldn't have gone to the Korean or Veitnamese "wars" *cough cough*, I mean - police action. Anyone who tries to forcibly conscript me will have a war alright. -.-

That said, I do recognize the problem with too many people not going to wars that ARE fairly worthy causes (eg. WW2) due to cowardice. However, I have not yet thought of a solution. Though I still strongly believe that conscription is NOT that solution.

Everyone's reacting to the Korean conflict in the past tense...we're still in it. We've just momentarily decided not to fire on each other (not that it looks like that will last long).

Quote from name:private_parts

That said, I do recognize the problem with too many people not going to wars that ARE fairly worthy causes (eg. WW2) due to cowardice. However, I have not yet thought of a solution. Though I still strongly believe that conscription is NOT that solution.

Send the people with life sentences. Clears up our jails, and they aren't productive anyways.

They wouldn't be shooting at the enemy...

Quote from ClansAreForGays

Quote from poison_us

Quote from name:private_parts

That said, I do recognize the problem with too many people not going to wars that ARE fairly worthy causes (eg. WW2) due to cowardice. However, I have not yet thought of a solution. Though I still strongly believe that conscription is NOT that solution.

Send the people with life sentences. Clears up our jails, and they aren't productive anyways.

They wouldn't be shooting at the enemy...

They can either shoot at each other and die, or shoot at the enemy and have a chance at not dying in this particular battle. I'd assume most of them would pick the latter, especially if they all have live ammo 24/7. There was a gang war going on once where both sides were given guns, then they decided to work it out rather than kill themselves in"eye-for-an-eye" fashion. I'd assume that the criminals would work similarly, minus the erratic exceptions.

It's an idea, though. Take a medium-sized group of randomly chosen men sentenced to death and/or life in prison without parole and throw them in a company. We could give them training and throw them on the frontlines of our next big military action. Even if they all turn on each other, they'd still do us a favor by dying outside of our borders.